Indo-US Economic Relations - Essay Example

Gateway to India Technology transfer has come a long way from the informal exchange of information and tools between cultures. Today it is governed by rules and laws that permit certain types of technology to be shared while others like nuclear technology are strictly controlled. The control of technology leads to barriers being placed in the path of technological knowledge sharing even when it is perfectly legal. While the legal barriers are quite strong in and of themselves, there are other significant barriers like cultural differences. Despite the size of the barriers to technology transfer, they can be overcome if the process is guided and correctly managed. Introduction The economic growth a country is often directly connected to the amount of knowledge and the skills which the population of the country can lay claim to. A few thousand years ago, projects like the Pyramids could be completed simply with a food surplus, slave labour and a rather significant investment of time to create wonders of the world. By utilising simple brute strength and relatively rudimentary technological know how, a civilisation could make sure that it would be remembered for eons to come (Pacey, 1990). A few hundred years ago, the industrial revolution came with the idea that the mills and industrial plants in a country were its real strategic assets and the central cause of its economic growth. In those times, a country could only take up monumental projects if it had an extensive industrial base (Pacey, 1990). The best example of taking the industrial revolution to its very pinnacle is the American space adventure that landed a man on the moon. In the present day and age, a country needs skills like engineering, technical know how and most importantly, a continuous inflow the latest technological implements which let it be taken as a developed nation instead of a developing one. While many nations are racing each other to become a part of the current set of developed nations, I think that India is one country which is closer to getting the status of a developed nation than others who were at the starting line with India. The recent agreement between President George Bush and the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh concerning collaboration and technology transfer in civilian nuclear energy programs is one such step which has put India in the lead over countries like China, Brazil, Pakistan and Egypt. President Bush believes that this agreement would bring India at least part way into the folds of the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well as being a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (FAS, 2006). The Case of India India has been one of the significant trade partners for America as well as the UK for many years since gaining its independence from Britain in 1947 since it was a British colony. In matters of trade, military support and aid to the country there have been historical ups and downs since the relationship the major powers have had with India was often connected to the relationship they have with India’s rival i.e. Pakistan (Zunes, 2005). The recent progressive governments of India have changed the situation significantly and while India is now rivalling China in terms of economic growth and development, Pakistan has been forced to play second fiddle. Although Pakistan remains a major non-NATO ally for America, the economic realities show that India is a more important friend for the western world than any other country in Southeast Asia (Zunes, 2005). The development of India into one of Asia’s powerhouses can be attributed to many things but a major contributing factor has been the transfer of technology and technological know-how to companies in India. The country did not have to make breakthrough discoveries in silicon chip manufacturing or computer processor design since those were made by electronics and computer companies working in America or elsewhere (Ripley, 2005). By adopting technology rather than creating it, India and countries like India bring down the overall cost as well as the time needed to come to par with developed countries. At the same time, there are suggestions from certain corners that developing countries like India should not be brought up to par with developed nations especially in fields like nuclear capability. The Federation of American Scientists (2006) takes a very dim view of the recent technology transfer and suggests that collaboration in other areas should also be reviewed to ensure that sensitive information is not leaked out. This is one of the hazards of technology transfer that it comes with its own set of problems, risks and certain barriers which make such transfers quite difficult. Barriers The first and most important barrier to the transfer of technology is the problem of communication as defined by Williams and Gibson (1992) who say that: “Technology is defined not only as process and product, but also as information that is put to use; and technology transfer is defined as the iterative movement of applied knowledge through channels of communication, in the manner of the process school of communication (Williams and Gibson, 1992, Pg. 1).” This shows that the very nature of technology transfer calls for the process theory of communication where information is passed from one end to the other through various channels. When information passes through several points, the languages change, the meaning might be altered and the application of the technology itself could be different from one location as compared to another (Williams and Gibson, 1992). I feel that while this barrier can apply to some extent in the case of transfer of engineering and scientific fields, it becomes doubly important when things like management principles or organisational development rules are being translated from one country to another. A part of communication is the cultural interaction which one culture has with another. The transfer of technology assumes that there are certain fundamentals which have been agreed upon on cultural terms for all concerned parties but with all its nuances and depth, culture becomes a barrier for companies to transfer knowledge to each other when cultural awareness is not present. Cultural awareness can take many forms, from knowing the proper greeting to conducting negotiations are a part of the culture awareness without which the total process of technology transfer can be stalled (Kedia and Bhagat, 1988). The second barrier to technology transfer is the very nature of the technology which is to be taken from one country to be used in another. In the case of India, the recent agreement concerning nuclear technology was commented by the Federation of American Scientists with: “The Federation recognizes that the Indian nuclear deal is not simply a problem of one agreement with one country; rather the United States has a critical role in setting the direction for the future of nuclear power and nuclear proliferation across the world. The United States cannot continue to treat nuclear weapons as militarily useful and politically salient while expecting to stop global nuclear proliferation. (FAS, 2006, Pg. 1) Another analyst writes that, “This proposed agreement represents a dangerous misunderstanding of how America can best use foreign assistance in support of economic development and international security (Zunes, 2006, Pg. 21).” The military links to the transfer of technology always raise eyebrows with the international media since a lot of technology which is used for scientific, academic and civilian purposes can be modified and adjusted to fit the needs of a country which has military ambitions. Public reaction can also be a barrier in transferring sensitive technology. The nuclear deal with India has also irked the doves since it has come hot on the heels of the three Billion dollar deal President Bush made with Pakistan regarding nuclear capable fighter jets (Zunes, 2006). It seems clear that such technology transfer and the military applications of the technology itself can bring instability to a region which is already a flash point for two countries that are seen as nuclear powers with missiles pointing at each other. International treaties like the NPT can also act as barriers. In this case, Britain is not immune from charges of transferring technology that can cause instability in a region. Considering the evidence presented by Jones (2006) it is clear that the UK played a major role in providing Israel the technology and the scientific expertise which went a long way towards them developing nuclear weapons. According to Jones (2006) Britain was deeply involved in illegal technology transfer and: “”Britain sold Israel a whole range of other exotic chemicals, including Uranium-235, Beryllium and Lithium-6, which are used in atom bombs and even hydrogen bombs. In Macmillan’s time we supplied the heavy water that allowed Israel to start up its own plutonium production facility at Dimona (Jones, 2006, Pg. 18).” Overcoming the Barriers From a socioeconomic point of view, it appears that the easiest way to transfer technology from one nation to another is to work on the governmental level and simply ignore any political barriers which prevent the transfer of certain types of technologies. America and Britain have done exactly that in the past and there have been no significant repercussions for these two countries (Jones, 2006). On the other hand, in business terms, it is rather difficult to see what technology can be transferred with ease and which technology will require a significant investment of time and money before the transfer is successful. Even governments with their significant resources can fail in such a process if they are not careful (Economist, 2006). As a matter of fact, certain barriers should not be broken when there is a risk of regional instability since the transfer of one piece of technology can lead to the improvement of other sectors. For example, if a country knows how to produce certain types of weapons there is little that stops it from creating and selling the same weapons to other nations (Ripley, 2005). There have been cases in the past like Pakistan’s nuclear scientist, Dr. A.Q. Khan who operated a hidden network that sold weapons grade nuclear technology to countries like Iran, Libya and North Korea (Masood, 2005). To overcome the economic and business barriers, Keating et. al. (2005) made several excellent recommendations of which the highest priority was given to building relationships between the donor and the recipient. By establishing a working connection, both the donor and the company/country receiving the technology are clear about what needs to be transferred, how it will be transferred and what help would be required while the transfer is being made. Relationships would also help decrease the cultural barriers which can cause a technology transfer to fail and relationships increase the cultural links that ensure the smooth transfer of technology (Keating et. al., 2005). An easy way to overcome the barriers is to look at the business case for the transfer (Hunt, 2005). If a technology transfer makes economic and business sense, then it should be culturally acceptable and viable. Dr. Erika Geimonen who is the Assistant Director of the Technology Transfer Office at the State University of New York is quoted as: “You try to create with the inventor or scientist something that can actually sell. If you know the rules, you know how to avoid the problems. You can bend some rules to make it flexible. Our mission is not to manufacture or sell technology. Our mission is to disseminate technologies (Keating, et. al., 2005, pg. 23).” The transfer of technology requires excellent communication between all the parties involved in the transfer. Whatever tools are required or whichever human resources are needed for good communication between two companies from very different backgrounds, they should be gathered and retained (Keating et. al., 2005). A French company transferring certain technology to India probably comes across more barriers to communication than a British company due to the language issue. Despite the language barriers, a lot of French technology has been passed to India over the years (Ripley, 2005). Multicultural Individuals who can speak both languages would be very useful as consultants or even full time members of the company while the transfer is taking place. The barriers to technology transfer highlight an important aspect of our global civilization and that is our existence as a diverse and multicultural world (Kedia and Bhagat, 1988). While the forces of globalisation and the development of a single unified world may eventually cause everyone to speak the same language, eat the same food and live the same way, there remain differences amongst us as humans and these differences make technology transfer remain a difficult thing to accomplish. More important than our cultural differences are the socio-political differences which divide countries and have created enemies and allies of various states that in turn give us the political barriers to technology transfer. Conclusions I feel that technology transfer is at worst a difficult thing to accomplish and at best it is something that brings people closer to each other across the globe. Simple things like computer equipment or household appliances may be designed and developed in one region of the world, produced in another and sold in a third location. The current levels of technology transfers between countries often make it look like technology is merely another commodity that can be taken from one nation and given to another. However, it is also unique in the sense that it can be easily replicated, stolen or given illegally and that doubles the dangers associated with the transfer of technology. In the right hands, the transfer of technology can bring increased economic development for the country. It can help barren lands produce food for starving people, cure those who have given up any hope of health and educate those who have little future to hope for. In the wrong hands, technology is a weapon which can be used to dominate others and even vaporise millions of people at the push of a button. Throughout human history we have experienced things that have had both positive and negative uses and I think that for the most part, we have successfully used the positive aspects more than the negative ones. It is my hope and wish that we continue to use the positive aspects of technology transfer in the times to come. Works Cited Economist. 2006, ‘Technology transfer’, Economist, vol. 378, no. 8462, pp. 54-55 Federation of American Scientists (FAS). 2006, ‘Rethinking the India Nuclear Technology Transfer Deal’ FAS.org, [Online] Available at: http://fas.org/intt2006/ Hunt, M. 2005, ‘Tech transfer for fun and profit’, Advanced Materials & Processes, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 6-7. Jones, M. 2006, ‘Britain’s dirty secret’, New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4783, pp. 18-21. Keating, S. et. al. 2005, ‘Dos and Donts of Technology Transfer’, Genomics & Proteomics, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 22-25. Kedia, B. and Bhagat, R. 1988, ‘Cultural Constraints on Transfer of Technology across Nations, Academy of Management Review, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 559-571. Masood, E. 2005, ‘Nuclear Know-how for sale’, New Scientist, vol. 187, no. 2508, pp. 7-8. Pacey, A. 1990, Technology in World Civilization, MIT Press. Ripley, T. 2005, ‘Made in India’, Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 163, no. 19, pp. 8-9. Williams, F. and Gibson, D. 1992, ‘Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective’, Canadian Journal of Communication, [Online] Available at: http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=113&layout=html Zunes, S. 2005, ‘Bush support for Indias nuclear program takes the wrong path’, National Catholic Reporter, vol. 41, no. 39, pp. 21-22 Read More