IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/inecon/v75y2008i2p321-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The technology transfer paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Ronald W.
  • Ruffin, Roy J.

Abstract

This paper examines whether a country that enjoys a superior technology in all commodities in a two-country, multi-commodity Ricardian setting could actually gain if its technology in which it possesses its greatest comparative advantage is stolen or transferred to the other country without any compensation. Such a paradoxical possibility is shown always to exist with a finite number of commodities and equal-shared Cobb-Douglas demand conditions for certain ranges of relative country size.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Ronald W. & Ruffin, Roy J., 2008. "The technology transfer paradox," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 321-328, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:75:y:2008:i:2:p:321-328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-1996(08)00024-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul A. Samuelson, 2004. "Where Ricardo and Mill Rebut and Confirm Arguments of Mainstream Economists Supporting Globalization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 135-146, Summer.
    2. Raymond Vernon, 1966. "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(2), pages 190-207.
    3. Kemp, Murray C & Shimomura, Koji, 1988. "The Impossibility of Global Absolute Advantage in the Heckscher-Ohlin Model of Trade," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 575-576, September.
    4. Roy J. Ruffin & Ronald W. Jones, 2007. "International Technology Transfer: Who Gains and Who Loses?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 209-222, May.
    5. Jones, Ronald W., 2008. "Key international trade theorems and large shocks," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 103-112.
    6. Beladi, H. & Jones, R.W. & Marjit, S., 1996. "Technology for Sale," RCER Working Papers 425, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beladi, Hamid & Chakrabarti, Avik & Marjit, Sugata, 2013. "Cross-border mergers in vertically related industries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 97-108.
    2. Martin Davies, 2016. "Technology Transfer and North–South," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 447-483, August.
    3. Jones, Ronald W., 2010. "Art works in international trade theory," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 64-74, January.
    4. Yuntong Wang & Xiaopeng Yin, 2016. "Technology Transfer, Welfare, and Wage Inequality," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 611-623, May.
    5. Roy J. Ruffin, 2014. "Nontraded Goods and Real Exchange Rates in a Multi-Good Ricardian Model," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 105-115, February.
    6. Camacho, Oscar & Garfinkel, Michelle & Syropoulos, Constantinos & Yotov, Yoto, 2022. "Output Insecurity and Ownership Disputes as Barriers to Technology Diffusion," School of Economics Working Paper Series 2022-10, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University.
    7. Mohamed Saadi, 2011. "Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, Licensing and the Developing Countries’ Terms of Trade," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 5(4), pages 381-420, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2008. "Globalization of production and the technology transfer paradox," Working Papers 0810, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    2. Jones, Ronald W., 2010. "Art works in international trade theory," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 64-74, January.
    3. Mohamed Saadi, 2011. "Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, Licensing and the Developing Countries’ Terms of Trade," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 5(4), pages 381-420, November.
    4. Sugata Marjit & Hamid Beladi, 2009. "Is Trade In Technology Superior To Trade In Goods?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 195-200, April.
    5. Robert Z. Lawrence & Lawrence Edward, 2010. "Do Developed and Developing Countries Compete Head to Head in High Tech?," Working Paper Series WP10-8, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Gino Gancia & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2015. "Offshoring and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 84-122, July.
    7. Yang, Chia-Hsuan & Nugent, Rebecca & Fuchs, Erica R.H., 2016. "Gains from others’ losses: Technology trajectories and the global division of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 724-745.
    8. Jürgen Bitzer & Holger Görg & Philipp J.H. Schröder, 2012. "Can Trade Really Hurt? An Empirical Follow-Up On Samuelson'S Controversial Paper," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(3), pages 724-738, July.
    9. Martin Davies, 2016. "Technology Transfer and North–South," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 447-483, August.
    10. Richard B. Freeman, 2013. "One Ring to Rule Them All? Globalization of Knowledge and Knowledge Creation," NBER Working Papers 19301, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Jagdish Bhagwati & Arvind Panagariya, 2004. "The Muddles over Outsourcing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 93-114, Fall.
    12. Richard B. Freeman, 2010. "What Does Global Expansion of Higher Education Mean for the United States?," NBER Chapters, in: American Universities in a Global Market, pages 373-404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Jones, Ronald W., 2008. "Key international trade theorems and large shocks," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 103-112.
    14. Iamsiraroj, Sasi, 2016. "The foreign direct investment–economic growth nexus," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 116-133.
    15. Jan Fagerberg & Martin Srholec, 2017. "Global Dynamics, Capabilities and the Crisis," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 83-106, Springer.
    16. J. Bradford Jensen & Lori G. Kletzer, 2010. "Measuring Tradable Services and the Task Content of Offshorable Services Jobs," NBER Chapters, in: Labor in the New Economy, pages 309-335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Nagesh Kumar, 1998. "Multinational enterprises, regional economic integration, and export-platform production in the host countries: An empirical analysis for the US and Japanese corporations," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(3), pages 450-483, September.
    18. Martin Henning & Hans Westlund & Kerstin Enflo, 2023. "Urban–rural population changes and spatial inequalities in Sweden," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 878-892, May.
    19. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Szalavetz, Andrea, 2002. "Az informatikai szektor és a felzárkózó gazdaságok [The informatics sector and the advancing economies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 794-804.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:75:y:2008:i:2:p:321-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505552 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.