Wilberne H. Persaud, Department of Economics UWI, Mona, September 01, 1980
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: CONCEPTUAL AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES[1]
Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 30 #2 June 1981
WILBERNE H. PERSAUD
INTRODUCTION
For most Third World countries the global environment of the past decade has been discouraging, for some unhelpful and for others simply disastrous. Inflation, shrinking foreign investment, rising interest rates for both public and private sources of borrowing, have all led to deteriorating balance of payments positions. Sluggish growth in export values compounds the problems.
Adverse economic trends often abort developmental activity, while the pressing short-run problems are given more attention. There are neither quick nor easy solutions to these problems. In the short run, balance of payments positions may be "improved" by various means of accommodation. For the medium and long term, only sustained development of domestic productive forces can ensure that a country will satisfy its ongoing needs for consumption and capital accumulation.
A body of international opinion holds the view that appropriate re-arrangement of the international trade, investment and payments system could contribute towards a solution. This view derives from the controversial debate on current problems of the world economy and the N.I.E.O. No attempt is made to assess it here.
My purpose is merely to consider one element in international investment — the "Transfer of Technology." Considerable difficulty surrounds this issue, ranging from definition through appropriateness to the most effective vehicle of transfer. We shall explore some of these issues in the following paragraphs.
TECHNICAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
The current focus on technology is neither new nor misplaced.[2] As far back as in the work of Marx we find a central place given to technology:[3]
" . . . Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains life . . . " [5] p. 352 note 2.
He devotes a considerable amount of attention to the movement from handicraft to machinery thence to modern industry. He argued:
"Our first inquiry . . . is how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into machines, or what is the difference between a machine and the implements of handicraft?" [5] p. 351.
The answer to this question was in the process of technical change, which for him was an epoch-distinguishing movement. Furthermore, it was construed as endogenous to the process of capitalist development.
In commenting on J. S. Mill's statement that: "It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being" he points out that this was by no means the aim of the capitalist application of machinery. The aim was to cheapen the cost of commodity production and enhance capital accumulation. But Marx's work on technological change did not have a lasting impact on the concerns of economics and, indeed, technology continued to be treated as something of influence lurking, however, in the background, to be brought in as an afterthought to modify results generated by other variables.
In the early 20th Century, evidence in economic literature of the importance of technical progress is to be found in the work of Schumpeter [6]. In his analysis of capitalism, the "waves" of both short-run cycles and long-run development are, in great measure, attributable to technical progress. But this was treated as an exogenous process.
Powerful evidence or confirmation of the impact of technical change on the economy was provided by two independent studies published in 1956 and 1957. Abramovitz [1] and Solow [7], using different periods of growth in the USA as well as different methodologies, both found that after accounting for growth induced by increasing inputs of capital and labour, a large residual was left unexplained. They both concluded that productivity gains were much more significant in the growth in per capita incomes than the use of a greater quantity of inputs.
Abramovitz, commenting on the quadrupling of US NNP from the 1870s to the 1950s noted:
"The source of the great increase in net product per head was not mainly an increase in labour input per head, nor even an increase in capital per head, as these resource elements are conventionally conceived and measured. Its source must be sought principally in the complex of little understood forces which caused productivity, that is output per unit of utilized resources, to rise." [1] p 6.
His prediction that explanation of these "little understood forces" would become the central problem for theory and the history of economic growth, was quickly verified. A flurry of theoretical work attempted to explain the source of this residual. Much of this work was appended to the theory of economic growth (See for instance Hahn and Matthews [4] 1969 for a comparative analytical discussion). Finally, what Marx had done in the middle of the 19th Century was being repeated in the middle of the 20th — Technology was seen to be at the centre of growth.
One theme in technology which was addressed was the implications of differential rates of innovation and adoption of technologies among different economies. The view emerged that a penalty was incurred by the early innovators — a conclusion deriving from the more rapid industrial development and expansion of Germany and Japan after World War II. In reconstruction, it was argued, these countries could tap the most advanced technologies, knowhow and "hands-on" experience generated elsewhere. Late-comers were at a decided advantage! This was however, at best a tenuous argument. And for Third World countries it certainly would not hold as it completely ignores the already existing technological capability of those countries.
Notwithstanding these arguments, I would venture to suggest that the current focus on technology by Third World governments has more to do with the presence of the Transnational Corporation (TNC) than any of that literature. For the TNC makes technological impact an everyday reality. It brings sometimes the benefits as well as some of the worst ills of progress. At the same time, it emphasizes the possibilities of technology transfer in development.
It Was Raymond Vernon [8, 1966] who applied to the process of international trade an analysis of technical change which highlighted some implications for Third World countries. In addition, the current emphasis on technical developments in automation, the use of computers for process control and design, for communications and war etc., does suggest that the less developed countries will be left way behind unless a modern technological capability is consciously pursued and achieved.
Technology transfer is thus correctly being accorded an important place in discussions of development. The discussion takes place at the level of "appropriateness", cost, whether transfers do indeed take place, whether transfers are of the most modern techniques, whether countries can "absorb" transfers and, in light of the former, the policy prescriptions that are required. These issues are important and it is with the current debate in mind that the question of conceptual issues takes on greater significance. For if conceptions of technology and technical change lead to errors in definition which themselves lead to errors of focus, the process of transfer for development will, at best, have little impact and, at worst, negative impact.
THE CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
Technology: Industrial Arts or Scientific Knowledge?
"TECHNOLOGY" so far in our discussion has not been defined. Yet we have a notion of what we mean when we speak of technology. But it is necessary to have a clear and known meaning to avoid both confusion and pitfalls. The dictionary for instance tells us it is the science of the industrial arts. Some have defined it simply as the application of scientific knowledge to practical tasks. Both these definitions create more problems than they solve.
Industrial arts are not by any means the only area in which technology plays a role. Much of technology in historical development did not presuppose scientific knowledge. (There is the anecdote of the international expert who advised traditional farmers to remove boulders from their plots to gain higher yield. This they did, only to reap lower yields. On investigation, the expert found the boulders acted to stabilize temperature thereby increasing yields — scientific, yes: but without conscious knowledge).
There is also the view that for a considerable period it was scientific knowledge that owed a debt to technology! Magnetism was known empirically and used to make the compass long before physicists began its study. On the other hand, it took 35 years before the scientific principles underlying the radio were harnessed commercially; for the telephone 56, and photography 112 years.
Many techniques of production are tradition-bound, handed down for generations. What of the techniques used by earlier civilisations? In this conception they do not qualify as technologies. This approach is certainly not correct, for technology has been a universal phenomenon in human development. It is universal because everywhere since the origins of man the need to derive sustenance from the environment led to technological development: from crude stone tools to metals, from hunting and gathering to domestication of animals and planting of food crops, from artisan manufacture to modem industry, from modern industry to industrial automation and the Space Age!
Having said this is not to argue for a return to the noble savage. It needs to be pointed out however, that useful technologies can exist without scientific knowledge. It is one thing to be able to say "a" follows "b"; quite another to be able to explain the scientific principles underlying the relationship. Empirical or statistical relationships might be known — “empiricism” — without their scientific understanding. Limits exist, but the turn of mind that suggests no innovation is possible in the Third World because of poor research labs and facilities is both dangerous and debilitating. Innovation is possible, even if not at the leading edge.
Technology is also looked at by considering its components as follows:
"Technology (is) knowledge, skills, methods, and procedure associated with production and utilization of goods and services in a given society. Technology is materialized in designs, specifications, operating instructions, machinery, equipment, buildings, systems, and other tangible or near tangible forms. These latter should be regarded as the embodiment of technology rather than technology itself . . . a further useful distinction is between production, consumption and organizational technology." [Girvan, 3, 1979]
This conception focuses attention on several of the relevant areas of interest in technology; but it contains some shortcomings. Technology is not identical to knowledge — thousands of Third World nationals possess knowledge about scientific and technical areas of technologies which their countries neither use nor possess. They often use this knowledge as the means of achieving legal migrant status in the countries where the technologies that do require their knowledge exist.
Production Technology vs. Consumption Technology?
Furthermore, the distinction between production and consumption technology introduces an element of ambiguity rather than clarity. It seeks to dissociate consumption and production: thus, suggesting there is a separate technology attached to each.
Further analysis of this idea however, demonstrates its problems. If we consider production technology as:
" . . . methods, processes etc. for production of goods and services," [whereas consumption technology is:] "methods, processes and techniques by which a particular need or demand may be satisfied . . . for example, the need for inland transport . . . satisfied by using the horse and buggy, the automobile, trains, bicycles or a subway system" [Farrell, 3, p. 238]
then we are faced with the problem that the service being consumed is identical, whereas it is the means of providing the service that changes. In the example, the service being consumed is transportation. People, material or commodities need to be moved from place to place. The method of using, consuming, the service does not change: it is the production or provision of the service that changes. These changes are the result of technological innovation, not vice versa.
To take another example: if the need for nutrition is satisfied by black bread baked in the home rather than by refined flour bread baked in the factory, or by meat from the animal killed in the hunt rather than by factory canned meat originating from animals reared in stalls — does the method of consumption change? Surely mastication and digestion etc. remain the same.
Simply put, if we are to distinguish a consumption technology, it must refer to the way in which a product is used or consumed, not the way in which it is produced. Herein lies the potentially misleading element: technological change is indeed distinguished by new methods and often enough new products, but it is new methods and products, often used in providing for essentially the same human needs — food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment etc. These methods of providing for essentially the same human needs change as technological "knowhow" changes.
KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY
Knowledge about a potential technology may exist without being embodied in the productive process of a given society at a given period in time. Whether the knowledge is embodied in a technique that is actually used will depend upon a complex of circumstances. One simple and current example today is the use of solar power. Knowledge exists but until circumstances dictate (in this case the high cost of energy) it is not embodied in a technology.
Adherence to this incorrect distinction accounts for Girvan's disappointment with the record, of the Scientific Research Council in Jamaica and other such institutions in the Caribbean region. [Girvan, 3] p.23ff. It is the confusion of "knowledge" with "technology". These research bodies generated “knowledge" which could then have been embodied or transformed into technologies. It is not the Institutions that should disappoint, rather it is the framework within which technology is acquired and production takes place that presents the problem. Not surprisingly Girvan recognises this [3, pp 34-35] and does suggest the policy remedy — that of controlling the acquisition of foreign technology for the production of commodities for which a local technology can be demonstrated to exist [3, p 35].
TECHNOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION AND THE ESSENCE OF TECHNOLOGY
Thus far we have come to the view that technology is associated with production or the productive process, that it has been and is a phenomenon universal to mankind and that knowledge may exist prior to being embodied in a technology. A logical extension of these propositions therefore is that technologies will differ with respect to time, spatial and societal differentiation.
The influence of the passage of time is not difficult to construe, although the "traditional" society will present problems. Here it would seem that "traditional" and not "time" needs to be explained. I leave that area to the Sociologists and Anthropologists.
Spatial differentiation will influence technology because of the nature of the terrain, climate, availability of resources etc. — the influence of the natural environment. The environment may present unique problems. For instance, prior to the Alaska pipeline, no technology existed to deal with the particular problem of oil extraction and transportation in and across such terrain and climatic conditions. Yet the knowledge existed.
Societal differentiation will influence technology by reason of different organization, norms, demographic and development variables, among others. For instance, as the role of women changed in western society many of the functions previously performed by women in the home are taken over by commercial enterprise: fast food chains, the food processing industry, the development of labour saving devices for the home.
In light of our discussion so far, how best can we move from the notion of technology to a firmer grasp conceptually? Firstly, technology is a universal phenomenon unique to man. It encompasses at any point in time and for any given society the mode of sustaining life which ultimately must be achieved by transforming the fruits of nature through the production process. Technology is the capability of a social grouping to perform set tasks associated with provision for human needs. Note the similarity of this definition to that of Marx above. No apology is made for this, for it seems to capture the essential elements of the phenomenon. It locates “technology” firmly in the production process.
We need to go further however, to note some elaborations and qualifications. Once technology moves beyond the simple or "primitive" forms, the need for "new" knowledge in its generation tends to grow rapidly. Technology at any point in time is the set of techniques used in the production process. Here is one of the pitfalls: in any two societies at the same point in time this "set" does not have to be identical. Even in one society production of the same commodity may be carried on by dissimilar technologies! If production is undertaken by many firms, the resources available to each will differ. They will use the techniques appropriate to their resources. In general, there will be a technological leader. Over time the others may catch up or may indeed "go to the wall," since the productivity and, usually, the profitability of the leader will outstrip the others. In short, the balance of power favours the leader.
Vintage models of capital stock and technical change reflect the idea of technological leadership. It is a simple proposition that machines of an earlier vintage will embody less advanced techniques and knowledge than those of later vintage. Machines and techniques of later or current vintage will, as well, reflect the current resource constraints or, viewed from the opposite end, current resource endown1ent. If for example the current resource problem is labour or energy shortage, as reflected in high prices, we can expect machines to be energy efficient and labour saving. There will also tend to be a built-in bias towards labour saving devices for at least two reasons. It is human to err; hence the less human intervention the better will specifications be adhered to; and the capacity of machines is many times that of humans for the tasks they can perform.
Despite the difference of opinion between Marx and Mill, man is forever attempting to lessen his own burden — he uses animal power, the raw power of wind, water and fire, as well as the power he can produce through scientific developments. Whether the developments lessen the burden of working-class man, is another matter. That is determined by the nature of society.
Robots, automation and nuclear power beg the question whether technology is used to the benefit of society. This is a controversial question but, unfortunately, beyond the scope of the present discussion. One merely needs to consider, however, the enormous resources spent on producing the instruments of destruction by the industrialized countries and its alarming counterpart — the significant quantities of resources devoted by Third World countries to their purchase — to be left with serious doubts on this question.
Technology in any given society is dependent on the people who need and develop it as well as the particular tasks people perceive as needing to be done. For instance, the type of food people eats and the way it is prepared, the type of clothing, housing etc. will depend on the natural environment, demographic and cultural variables etc. The list can be expanded but the point is clear.
Depending on the nature of the social formation, the developers of technology do not necessarily have to be the users of the same technology. Firms may have their own research and development (R & D) units or they may depend on the scientific output of Universities, parastatal institutions, individuals engaged in research or any source of new developments useful in the production process.
While some technologies may be universally applicable, others may be specific to certain conditions, others still may be specific to their original place of development.
MODELLING TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPMENT
Isolating the contribution of technology to economic growth is not a simple proposition. The theoretical and empirical difficulties of defining and measuring the concepts Output, Labour and Capital Stock are well known. Even with a "perfect" definition' of technology, locating the empirical counterpart does present problems. Several measures have been used including the number of patents, investment in R & D, investment in science research, among others. Yet these difficulties do not render attempts at quantification useless.
Prior to quantification, however, we should have some idea of the relationship between technology, other input variables and growth/development. Knowledge of these relationships will also highlight areas of difficulty that need to be analyzed. Consider the following equation:
- Y = t (L, N, Kd, Kf, Tp, Ts, M)
where:
Y = Output
L = Labour
N = Usable natural resources
Kd = Domestic physical capital
Kf = Foreign physical capital
Tp = Technology in production
Ts = Technology in systems
M = Imports
This function is specifically constructed to deal with the small open underdeveloped economy. Any Caribbean economy might be so construed.
Y represents the level of output if we are explaining production at any point in time. It may alternatively be viewed as the output capacity of the economy. Y varies with the quantity and quality of inputs in the production process as defined.
L, the employed labour force might further be separated into technologically skilled, as Scientific, Technical and Professional (STP) and Non-Skilled (NS) in order to capture "knowhow" We have:
- Y= t (Lstp, Lns, N, Kd, Kt, Tp, Ts, M
where all variables are as defined for 1, with:
Lstp = Employed technologically skilled labour
Lns = Employed non-skilled labour.
Equation 2, tells us that output (Y) varies with the two components of labour, useable natural resources, the physical capital stock of both domestic and foreign origin, the technology in production (forms of technology dedicated to actual production), the technology in systems (forms of technology dedicated to facilitating or organizing production such as accounting, management systems etc.), and imports.
We use imports here as supplemental to useable natural resources, hence they would constitute inputs for the production process; the imported physical capital stock is already identified as Kf
Finally, we may distinguish foreign or "transferred" technology to get:
- Y = t(Lstp Lns, N, Kd, Kf, Tfp, Tfs, Tdp, Tds, M)
where:
subscripts d and f denote domestic and foreign.
Output or output capacity is determined by the flow of inputs in each category. If we consider incremental changes, output consists of additions to productive capacity and goods and services for current use either as consumption or exports — based on our postulate of an open economy.
Many productive activities are undertaken and each uses more than one of the inputs in some combination. Increases in the use of, or innovation among some or all the Ts, for instance, may cause increases — improvements — in L. It may also cause increases in N, for new technologies often make previously uneconomic resources feasible in production.
For T to increase there are two possible sources and four possible areas of gain. Equation 3 is useful because it focuses attention on sources and interaction. If technology is the result of domestic innovation it is probable that N will increase. If it is foreign it may or may not, depending on the nature of Tf. Here policy measures become important.
The question of absorption or appropriateness of technology comes into sharp focus viewed in light of equation 3. No one input is, by itself, of any use in the production of output. It makes no sense therefore to consider the impact of increments of technology independent of its relationship to the other co-operating variables.
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Our discussion of the conceptual issues and problems in locating the role of technology in growth and development provide a useful background for an attempt to come to terms with the implications for technology policy in Third World Countries.
Technology Development
Once it is accepted that technology is a significant contributor to growth as well as economic development, then the less developed countries ought to pursue policies that foster technological development. The problems would then center on choice both of areas of production in which technological innovation is to be encouraged as well as the type of technological innovation that offers the greatest gain in productive capacity. Possibilities for diffusion, use of domestic natural resources and promotion of national objectives, could be criteria used in guiding policy. There is a significant normative component[4] in these decisions.
Granted the technology gap is large, no attempt would be made to close this gap. Such would be foolhardy and impossible. Rather an attempt should be made to achieve a technological competence in a set of well-defined areas that would promote achievement of the chosen objectives.
The options faced by Third World States are twofold: local development and technology imports. Both of these are costly and resources are limited. The first step therefore is to do an inventory of existing capability. An inventory of R & D institutions, Scientific, Technical and Professional (STP) manpower, processes and systems currently in use would be drawn up. This inventory would be matched against an overall plan which identifies areas of deficiency. The sectors requiring development would then be identified.
The next step involves the decision whether to use a local development strategy or seek "transfers".
One qualification should be mentioned here, Investment in R & D is expensive; so is investment in training STPs. It must be made clear that STPs engaged in producing current output should not be confused with STPs engaged in R & D. However, this is not to say that STPs engaged in current production cannot advance technology development. Often, a process is mastered after production begins. We can go further in that non STPs with "hands-on" experience of machines and processes, do come up with new methods to improve technologies — this is the process of learning by doing.
All of this assumes that the State plays an important role in technological development. There should be no need to justify this except to point out that in the circumstances of the LDC, it tends to be optimal for the private investor to purchase technology for domestic production, rather than develop it. Whether it is also optimal for the country as a whole is another matter. To determine this, the inventory discussed before would be a useful prerequisite.
Technology Transfers and Transplants
In considering "Technology transfer", to begin with there is ambiguity in meaning. To transfer something from one place to another, or from one person or group to another, implies change or movement It is possible to ship a mechanical harvester from the United States of America to the Caribbean. It is possible to purchase a factory in France and have French technicians come to install it then have local manpower operate it. We are here using the fruits of technology developed in other countries. This is embodied technology and a transfer has been effected.
Our equation 3 is helpful here: to use the harvester, a certain field layout must be in place; ideally the crop to be harvested must conform to certain set standards, for instance the grain to be harvested must be at a certain minimum height etc. To use the machine effectively these elements of the technology will have to be in place. Hence even though the system may not be able to produce the harvester, it can adopt the farming technology in which the harvester functions.
Equation 3, points to the necessary relationships for a successful transfer. If the transferred technology (in the example, technology embodied in
machines) is to be assimilated within the system, it must be compatible with the set of variables identified and further the chosen objectives.
But in normal usage this is not what we mean by "transfer". It would be better to conceptualise this as a "transplant". When an attempt is made to transplant a young tree from the nursery to its permanent place in the field, the ground has to be prepared and the tree planted. A successful transplant is achieved if and only if the tree survives and thrives in the surroundings or environment. In the field of medicine an organ transplant is successful only when the recipient’s system accepts the new organ. Here again, preparation is necessary – the immune system has first to be temporarily defeated and all the other pre cautions taken to maintain life.
These examples are quite instructive. They bring out several important points about a transplant. First a transplant is not simply movement from one place to another. It involves movement but there are other requirements to be met. To ensure that these requirements are met involves knowledge of the environment and support system of both original host and potential new home. This concept encompasses all the concerns of appropriateness and absorption capacity.
It is not the intention that Third World states seek to duplicate the conditions in the advanced countries where a technology has been developed. Rather the concept “transplant" requires that the "environment of origin" be scrutinized in order that the most suitable technologies are adopted or indeed adapted.
If it is accepted that this conception is valid, what mode of transfer will guarantee successful transplant? The TNC? Under normal circumstances it would appear not. For its technology will generally reflect the imperatives of its place of development. The function of a technology policy as envisaged in this discussion is to analyse and evaluate these elements in light of existing conditions and the objectives of the host country.
CONCLUSION
An analysis of the role of technical change or technological progress in growth and development demonstrates its central position even if quantification is difficult. There are unforeseen difficulties in coming to terms conceptually, with the meaning of technology and technology transfer.
Historically, it is a relatively new idea to organize the application of science to advance technology. As advances take place, the gap between the technologically leading “centre” countries and the Third World countries is actually widening in several spheres. This does not imply that it is not feasible to undertake some types of technological development in Third World countries. Rather it suggests that some types of technological will more readily occur if done in the Third World.
A coherent policy that determines existing capability and sets objectives based on a realistic plan frame is an essential element in dealing with technological development and diffusion. There are serious areas of difficulty not addressed in this discussion — for instance the question of the mix of ownership and control within the productive sector and the role of peasant agriculture, among others.
The fact that these problem areas have not been addressed does not in any way indicate the view that they are unimportant. Our purpose has been merely to explore conceptions of, and the role of technology in economic growth and development with specific reference to the Third World.
A model that incorporates technology and its cooperating variables in the determination of output capacity is a useful tool in setting, implementing and evaluating a technology policy. The objective •is not to close the gap in technology that exists between the developed and less developed countries; rather it is to develop a domestic capability based on an evaluation of the current position as compared to one in the future, determined by rational planning.
ENDNOTES
[1] This paper has benefitted from comments of two of my colleagues, George Beckford and Derek Boyd.
[2] "Voltaire to the contrary, history is a bag of tricks which the dead have played upon historians. The most remarkable of these illusions is the belief that the surviving written records provide us with a reasonably accurate facsimile of past human activity. 'Prehistory' is defined as the period for which such records are not available . . . In Medieval Europe until the end of the eleventh century we learn of the feudal aristocracy largely from clerical sources which naturally reflect ecclesiastical attitudes: the knights do not speak for themselves. Only later do merchants, manufacturers and technicians begin to share their thoughts with us. The peasant was the last to find his voice.
. . . until recent centuries, technology was chiefly the concern of groups which wrote little, the role which technological development plays in human affairs has been neglected . . . lately many people have become interested in the relation between technology and the alteration of social forms." [9] Preface p. v-vi.
White makes his point forcibly then goes on in his book to explore the impact of technological change on society. He discusses the plough, horsepower, machine design among others, pointing out the changes which technology itself helps to determine.
[3] "Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e. in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention? And would not such a history be easier to compile, since, . . . human history differs from natural history in this: that we have made the former but not the latter?" [5] p. 352 note 2.
From this quotation we see Marx's conception of the role our understanding of technological development should play in an analysis of human society. White's view above is rather similar.
[4] A significant proportion of R & D is underwritten by the state in most countries. This is accomplished either by actual funding or by contracts for design, development and manufacture of new products, systems etc.
REFERENCES
- ABRAMOVITZ, M.: "Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870'', American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 1956.
- FARRELL, T.: "A Tale of Two Issues" in Girvan (ed.), [3].
- GIRVAN, N.: "Essays on Science and Technology Policy in the Caribbean," Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, March, 1979.
- HAHN, F.H. and MATTHEWS, R.C.G.: The Theory of Economic Growth: A Survey, Macmillan, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1969.
- MARX, K.: Capital Vol. I, Lawrence and Wishart, London 1974.
- SCHUMPETER, J.: "The Instability of Capitalism" Economic Journal, I 928.
- SOLOW, R: Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1957.
- VERNON, R.: "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 80, 1966.
- WHITE, J.R.: Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford University Press, London, 1962 – 1979 Reprint.
