>>http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/emec/produccion/memoria13/0585.html
>
>Indeed there is a difference. But everyone gets most of his/her
>technology from elsewhere.

Yes but 2 cases: they decide for themselves or they are "offered" the
technology by others

>I read somewhere (recently) that the economist Edwin Mansfield
>estimated that it cost half as much to accept a transferred
>industrial technology as to invent one. (I didn't look up the
>original source, and I don't know how broadly the rule of thumb
>would apply, but lets accept it for discussion sake.)

OK

>It is true that many people underestimate how hard it is to adapt
>and adopt a technology,

Especially when it comes to social, cultural and educational
"externalities", not to mention environmental impact.

>and we would agree that it is harder (and often impossible) to do so
>when the conditions (and factor prices) are very different in the
>recipient and source environments of the technology.

OK

>Still, Mansfield would suggest that you can save a lot of money
>trying to select and adapt technology from Europe for Africa, as
>compared with trying to invent everything anew.

Yes, likely; but one should also assume that all the required
information about the said technology is available. What is not always
the case

Also a number of authors, including, quoting from memory, Prof.
Fonseca, at the OECD Development center conference on knowledge
industries and development, many years ago (80's ?), stress that
assimilation of technology requires that the entire process be
conducted on site. The benefits of transfer and adaptation can thus
last only when accompanied by an effort towards creating conditions
for local production of knew knowledge and tools.

Michel
Nearby Fri Nov 18 18:24:02 2005