Introduction
This paper examines the enablers driving the transfer of intermediate technologies from transferors to recipients in the rural sector of developing economies. Intermediate technology, also known as ‘appropriate technology’, refers to technology that is ‘labour-intensive and will lend itself to use in small-scale establishments’ (Schumacher, 1973). Specifically, in relation to the rural context, Wood (1984, p.320) describes both concepts as ‘a level of technology better than the simple methods used in the rural hinterland, more productive than the traditional tools, but far simpler and less capital-intensive than the modern technology imported from the West’. Technology transfer refers to the process of moving established technologies, including tools (technoware), facts (infoware), skills (humanware) and routines (orgaware) (Smith and Sharif, 2007) from providers to recipients. This process depends on enablers, such as the market for technology, government authorities, human resources and training, and the technological abilities of providers and recipients (Arora and Gambardella, 2010; Kaushik et al., 2014).
Successful technology transfer contributes positively to the achievements of the goals of the technology recipients (Cooke and Mayes, 1996, Tisdell, 2000) and contributes to improving their competitive advantage and survival in uncertain and diverse markets. Illustrative is the work of Klevorick et al. (1995), which demonstrates the improvements taking place in different dimensions of recipient organizations. A thorough understanding of enablers or mechanisms facilitating the technology transfer process is important for organizing and facilitating the transfer, and for the adaptation and improvement of the transferred technologies to the specific context of the recipient (Madu, 1989; Beddington and Farrington, 2007).
Many aspects of technology transfers are discussed in the literature (Chatterji, 1990; Lee, 1997; Hess and Siegwart, 2013), but the mainstream of this literature relates mostly to technology transfer between countries or organizations in established economies (e.g. Parry, 1984; Festel, 2013). Specifically, emphasizing high technology environments, technology transfer research in the mainstream literature focuses on the inputs and deliverables of the transfer process, whereas the relatively limited literature in lower technology contexts centres on the dynamics of the process and the interactions between participants (e.g. Saggi, 2002; Theodorakopoulos et al., 2014). Given the importance of intermediate technologies for the development of regional rural economies (Cimoli et al., 2005; Saad and Zawdie, 2011), and the paucity of research at this end of the spectrum, it is argued that the enablers facilitating technology transfer in this particular context merit further study (Rodrik, 1999; Spithoven et al., 2011). While many of the identified enablers in the literature are useful in principle, they may require a degree of modification or extension to assure their relevance to the transfers of technology to rural contexts in developing economies.
Technology transfers in rural contexts are documented mainly for the agricultural sector (e.g. Jedlicka, 1977; Campbell, 1990; Ison and Russell, 2000; Lilleør and Lund-Sørensen, 2013). However, in this study the rural context is also understood to include activities such as eco-tourism, rural-based manufacturing, production of traditional goods and handicrafts, rural construction, rural service provision, fishing and forestry production and even small-scale mining, which are often important sectors in socio-economic terms.
The focus of this study is rural enterprises, defined as entities that are collectively operated by small-scale producers, such as township village enterprises in China (Li and Karakowsky, 2001; Dacosta and Carroll, 2001), community-based enterprises (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Handy et al., 2011) and community-based cooperatives (Li et al., 2013). What sets these enterprises apart from traditional technology transfer recipients is the fact that they are not single entities, but rather collectives or networks of collaborating rural entrepreneurs. In this connection, we are interested not only in the interactions that take place among the rural enterprises and technology transferors, or intermediaries, but also in those that take place among the individual technology recipients.
This paper represents an effort to address this oversight by reviewing the technology transfer literature and assessing enablers that are explicitly highlighted as facilitators of the technology transfer process. Where their relevance for transfers to rural contexts in developing economies falls short, additional enablers are proposed. These are mechanisms that are discussed, but not explicitly recognized, as technology transfer enablers in the technology transfer literature. The result is a framework with seven enablers that facilitate technology transfers to recipients in developing rural economies. Four of these were identified explicitly in the literature and the other three emerged from the analysis of the literature.
The work presented here has two implications for research. Firstly, this paper merges two bodies of literature, that on international horizontal technology transfer1 and that on the domestic technology transfer that considers both horizontal and vertical transfers. Secondly, on the methodology front, it presents a review of the extant literature drawn from different databases, analysed using a qualitative assessment approach (Silverman, 2012). Finally, the paper presents seven enablers relevant to developing rural economies and which can guide further research. It also makes suggestions for future research into enabler-oriented technology transfers.
This study has two important implications for practitioners. First, for transferors and recipients, it shows that technology transfer requires a learning process between the supply and demand side. It then provides a framework of the key enablers that should be considered in the transfer processes. Second, for policy-makers it demonstrates that a suitable institutional environment is required in which this learning process can take place.
In order to accomplish its purpose, this paper first presents the theoretical approach that was taken and describes the technology transfer concept adopted for the present study. It then presents the methodology and criteria considered for the analysis of enablers acknowledged in the literature. Thirdly, it discusses four previously-identified enablers deemed relevant in the specific setting of this paper and identifies three new enablers, together with associated theoretical propositions. Finally, it discusses the findings of this research and presents a series of limitations and conclusions.
Technology transfers as a field of study in rural areas of developing economies
Technology transfer is defined as ‘the movement of technological and technology-related organizational know-how among partners (individuals, institutions and enterprises) in order to enhance at least one partner’s knowledge and expertise and strengthen each partner’s competitive position’ (Abramson et al., 1997). In this definition, technology refers to the knowledge and methods deemed necessary for the implementation and improvement of existing ways of producing and distributing goods and services (Wong, 1995; Cannarella and Piccioni, 2011). Smith and Sharif (2007) argue that, conceptually, technology is a configuration of one or more among four components, namely physical facilities and tools (technoware), codified knowledge and facts (infoware), human talent and skills (humanware), and operational schemes and routines (orgaware).
The transfer of technologies to rural environments was first explored early in the second half of the last century. For example, Hayami and Ruttan (1971) describe transfer experiences between multinational corporations (MNCs) from the United States to Japan (still regarded as a developing country at the time). These experiences were mainly related to agricultural practices. Pray and Echeverría (1990) look at vertical technology transfer in the agricultural sector in Latin America for production of cotton, rice and sugarcane. Basu (2010) analyses vertical technology transfers in several Indian industry clusters (including pharmaceutical, agricultural, handicraft and medical), describing the role of institutions from policy to application. Moulik and Purushotham (1986) examine vertical technology transfers in the agricultural sector of India, detecting a failing link between policies and effort towards the creation of an effective decentralized sector technology.
There are multiple viewpoints on the transfer of technology. Ramanathan (1994), for instance, considers it a two-directional concept in which a differentiation can be made between vertical and horizontal technology transfers. Vertical technology transfer is explained as the flow of activities from scientific research to invention and commercialization (the transferor and recipient participate in a collaborative way in the process, considering that the technology is not perfectly developed at the beginning). In horizontal technology transfers, the transfer occurs from one unit to another, provided the recipient is ready to adopt the technology and the technology is at the appropriate level to be transferred.
Others differentiate between technology transfers from MNCs to their subsidiaries (e.g. Young and Lan, 1997; Zhao, 2013) and technology transfers from university to industry (e.g. Swamidass and Vulasa, 2009; Ustundag et al., 2011). A lot has been written about technology transfers from larger (mainly Western) MNCs to their subsidiaries, often located in low-cost countries. The majority, however, concerns the transfer of proven production technology to facilitate lower-cost manufacturing (Thumanoon and Paul, 2006; Waroonkun and Stewart, 2008). More recently, the research field has broadened to embrace technology transfers from universities to industry that comprise a wider range of technologies, including new and still unproven solutions (Alessandrini et al., 2013). The focus of technology transfer from universities to industry has predominantly been on innovation (i.e. the introduction of new product/services/processes) rather than on the low-cost manufacture of goods. In both instances, however, the recipients of the transferred technologies are assumed to have an understanding of these technologies that matches that of the patrons (Kaimowitz et al., 1990; Basu, 2010).
Yet other research differentiates technology transfer by the location of transferor and recipient (e.g. Siler et al., 2003). Technology transfers studied in these papers include both international and domestic transfers, although they are related and share similar characteristics (e.g. Mowery and Oxley, 1995). Whereas international technology transfer traditionally comprised predominantly horizontal technology transfers, vertical technology transfers could also include international and domestic aspects.
In sum, the above three viewpoints respectively emphasize the direction of technology transfer (horizontal or vertical), the type of actors involved in technology transfer (e.g. individuals, organizations) and the location of these actors. However, the literature largely fails to distinguish between the enablers that facilitate the transfer of high technology and the transfer of technologies that takes place at the much more elementary level, comprising mainly low technologies and intermediate technologies aimed at enhancing the productivity of the rural sector in regional developing economies, which is the specific context of this paper. This is problematic because building an incomplete understanding of the enablers influencing this type of technology transfer may lead to inaccurate conclusions and misplaced recommendations.
Low technology differentiates itself from high technology by a less advanced level of sophistication or scientific knowledge involved in its operation (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2008; Czarnitzki and Thorwarth, 2012). Indicative of this concept, the OECD (2011) provides a classification of industries based upon R&D intensity. According to this classification, food production, one of the most common activities in rural environments, is considered low technology. The majority of papers written about technology transfer discuss high technology transfers. Much less attention is dedicated to the discussion of the transfer of low technologies and intermediate technologies. Intermediate technologies as solutions that keep balance between the cost, performance and potential of recipients’ participation were identified as one way to fill the gap created by the disparate knowledge of the participants in developing countries (Schumacher, 1972; Wicklein and Kachmar, 2001, Bennett, 2002). Intermediate technologies are described as ‘relatively small, simple, capital-saving, labour-intensive, and environmentally less-damaging technologies, suitable for local, small-scale application’ (Wood, 1984). Despite the lower level of sophistication and complexity of these solutions, the transfer process is often problematic for the context in which the transfer tends to take place, a context that is frequently characterized by similarly low levels of sophistication and development (Theodorakopoulos et al., 2012, 2014).
Some alternatives for the study of foreign technology transfer in the mining sector of developing countries are offered by Pogue and Rampa (2006) and by Lorentzen and Pogue (2009) through the concept of lateral migration. One particularly relevant study describes a linear innovation process that involves researchers, suppliers, manufacturers and users of hydraulic systems in the South African mining industry. One of the main concerns in this study is the creation of engineering skills in the recipient country and a network of local and international organizations to support the diffusion of the technology. The term ‘lateral migration’ was used to describe processes to apply technologies in a different context from the one in which the technology was developed. While the literature identifies important enablers that facilitate successful technology transfer, many of these enablers lose relevance when taken out of the specific context of high technology environments. Specifically, in high technology environments research focuses on the inputs and deliverables of the transfer process, whereas in low technology or intermediate technology contexts it centres on the dynamics of the process and the interactions among participants. It is therefore argued that the enablers facilitating technology transfer at this lower level merit further investigation.
Methods
The identification of the key enablers that facilitate the technology transfer process in rural contexts of regional developing economies required a review of the field in order to categorize the aspects discussed in the literature. The conclusions presented in this article are the result of a three-step analysis process (Venturini and Verbano, 2014). This consists of:
- (1)
selection of databases and definition of keywords;
- (2)
selection of articles for analysis; and
- (3)
analysing the final selection of papers and presentation of identified enablers.
Database selection and keyword definition
Assembling the relevant body of literature for analysis involved three steps: (i) definition of the literature scope; (ii) specification of keywords; and (iii) generation of search strings by a Delphi group consisting of five experts in technology transfer – two experts in developing economies and three in international technology transfer. A Delphi group is a panel of individuals that is consulted in order to access expert opinion on a complex problem (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). The Delphi group during the process developed a list of strings including the words: ‘technology transfer developing economies’, ‘international technology transfer’, ‘enablers of technology transfer’, ‘elements of technology transfer’, ‘aspects of technology transfer’, ‘transfer of technology’ and ‘technology transfer’. The initial search returned 5147 papers. Of these, 4816 were excluded because they had not been peer reviewed (to assure academic rigour), because they did not treat technology transfer as the focus of the paper or because they were duplicates. This left a literature base comprising 331 papers.
Selection of the research articles
In the second stage, the Delphi group defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the inclusion criteria papers with titles referring to technology transfer between countries, or firms, or university/research centre and industry, or technology transfer that occurs in any developing country were maintained. Book reviews, non-peer reviewed/non-academic articles or articles without the author’′s name or affiliation were removed, leaving a total of 254 papers.
Analysis of papers and presentation identified enablers
The final review of enablers was based on a constant comparative method (Silverman, 2012). This comprised three stages. Stage 1 consisted of an in-depth review of the papers that discuss transfers, regardless of whether this was in the context of rural developing economies. Nineteen papers explicitly mentioned and compared enablers for technology transfers. The enablers proposed in these papers were subsequently compared and contrasted. In Table 1, these enablers are consolidated and reviewed in further detail. The concepts are then complemented with (i) an identification of enablers common to the 19 articles, and (ii) an assessment of the relevance of the enablers in the context of developing economies.
| Enablers present in the literature – indicative articles | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lloyd and Milstien (1999) | Walker and Ellis (2000) | Chen and Sun (2000) | Kedia and Bhagat (1988) | Lee et al. (2012) |
| * Intellectual property rights | * Clear business need | * Profit return from the technology | * Efficiency or lower factor input costs, which benefits both producing and consumer countries | * Marketability: market environment and competition |
| * Technical capability of end-users | * Market value cited from other exporters | |||
| * Market value of alternative technology | ||||
| * Cultural factors | ||||
| *Absorptive capacity of the recipient | ||||
| * International market value of the technology | ||||
| Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004) | Tsang (1994) | Madu (1989) | Buono (1997) | Kissell (2000)s |
| * Intellectual property rights | * Cultural and geographical distance from receiving country | * Recipient sufficiently capable of maintaining an introduced production system | * Organization’s capacity to absorb new technology | * Profit: how much the user can profit by using the technology |
| * Technical absorptive capacity | * There are barriers of culture and language differences in training | |||
| Purushotham et al. (2013) | Verbano and Venturini (2012) | Chiang et al. (2007) | Schneider et al. (2008) | Mahboudi and Ananthan (2010) |
| * Enhancing market competitiveness | ||||
| * Intellectual property rights | * Recipients must have a sufficient financial and technical background to adopt foreign technology | |||
| * Distance: involves both physical and cultural proximity | * Technical capability | * Absorption capability | ||
| * Absorption capability | * Proximity to cultural characteristics | * Cultural factors | ||
| * Market factor | ||||
| * Techno-economic feasibility/variability | ||||
| Mohamed et al. (2012) | Cui et al. (2006) | Rabino (1989) | Sung and Gibson (2005) | |
| * Absorption | * Market environment | * Geographical location | * Knowledge of potential markets for the transfer | |
| * Cultural environment | ||||
| * Economic convenience and availability of financial resources | ||||
| Common key factors pertaining to a developing economy context | ||||
| Cultural and geographic factors | Absorptive capacity | Financial implications of technology transfer | Prior experience or a thorough understanding of the technology | Intellectual property rights |
| The geographical distance very often is a limitation to establishing a long-term relationship between the transferor and the recipient of the technology. Usually, the cost of maintaining the relationship is high. As a consequence, there is no easy access to the source of research data. The national cultural distance is not applicable in domestic technology transfer, but organizational cultural distance is an interesting factor to explore | Usually the type of local knowledge does not show cosmopolitan orientation in developing economies. The sophisticated technical core is not common in all economic sectors. For example, in information and computer technologies it is possible to find a sophisticated technical core. However, in other sectors the situation is different in that there may be basic knowledge, but no sophisticated technical core | To determine projected profit it is necessary to have enough and valid information about the market and the business. Neither is common in small business. In most cases, enterprises take decisions from instinct or with limited information. They face a high risk of failure | The market for the technology depends on the capabilities required to use it in the short, medium or long term. Inexperience renders inefficient the efforts to keep balance between the market effect and the technology production effect | ‘Copying may be a more appropriate and successful form of technology transfer than licensing intellectual property rights from developed countries’ (Macdonald and Turpin, 2007). The use of patents requires payment for a licence and rural firms usually lack knowledge of the value, potential and procedures of patents to use them. The financial resources available to invest in IPR are low |
In the second stage, 235 papers were identified that discuss a range of aspects related to technology transfer yet without explicitly referring to them as specific enablers facilitating the process. These papers were analysed and consolidated into themes, such as type of technology (high/intermediate/low), sector, participants (e.g. regions, institutions, firms), transfer process and type of country (developed/developing). The third stage involved a search for patterns and themes in the data that were considered relevant to the study. Three comparative themes emerged: the connection of transferor and recipient through an organization or office; institutions working in a collaborative way in an innovation system environment; and mechanisms for the progressive learning of the constituents involved in the transfer process (projects, training programmes, etc.). The common aspects mentioned in the literature on technology transfer were extracted and consolidated and their validity for the specific context of technology transfer in rural economies of developing countries was assessed. The analysis considered enablers as conditions that influence the technology transfer process between transferor and recipient.
Enablers for successful technology transfer in developing economies
The most commonly mentioned enablers in the literature were extracted and subsequently scrutinized. These are shown in Figure 1. More specifically, aspects such as the mode of transfer (Tsang, 1994), components for relocation of R&D facilities (Rabino, 1989), direct effects of market and cultural environmental enablers (Cui et al., 2006), recipient firm advantages (Chen and Sun, 2000), reasons for successful process (Walker and Ellis, 2000), and firm capacity (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2010) were highlighted. Later, the underlying concepts were determined, documented and their relevance in rural developing economies evaluated.
Previously identified relevant enablers for rural developing economies
Four relevant enablers for technology transfer in rural developing economies were identified:
- •
absorptive capacity;
- •
understanding of the technology source and market maturity;
- •
cultural and geographic distance between transferor and recipient; and
- •
recipient’s comprehension of the financial implications of technology transfer.
Absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity is the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). It is determined largely by learning activities which often relate to resources outside the firm (Deeds, 2001; Wahab et al., 2012). The technical skills in the recipient to learn how to use the technology and extend its application to be innovative is considered one of the most important aspects of the technology transfer process (Tsang, 1994; Mohamed et al., 2012; Purushotham et al., 2013).
Understanding of the technology source and market maturity. To obtain a required technology, technology recipients tend to have two options: obtaining it domestically or obtaining it from overseas. In choosing between the two, they have to keep in mind (i) the extent to which it is possible to acquire the required technology, and (ii) the level of their own technology at a given moment in time. Prior experience with the technologies available in the regional and national market will prepare the recipient for collaborating with foreign technology exporters (Vickery, 1986; Chen and Sun, 2000). Adopting the right mixture of technology will allow access to other more profitable markets (Lee et al., 2012; Theodorakopoulos et al., 2014).
Geographical and cultural distance. Geographical and cultural distance refers to the organizational distance between the participants. Relationships between the actors in technology transfer at this level are often informal and personal and long distances (physical or cultural) inhibit the formation of trust and understanding necessary for the transfer (Kedia and Bhagat, 1988; Cannarella and Piccioni, 2011).
Understanding the financial implications of technology transfer. In the context of this research, comprehension of the financial implications of technology transfer refers to the degree to which the technology recipients understand (i) the relations between the costs and benefits of the transferred technology at present and in the future, and (ii) the related financial flows between the transferor and the recipient as well as between the recipient and other stakeholder partners. A lack of insight into the financial implications of the transferred technologies hinders the adaptation of these technologies (Walker and Ellis, 2000; Schneider et al., 2008).
These enablers are just part of the suggested enablers for technology transfer in developing economies discussed in this paper. They are likely to be sufficient to facilitate fully a successful technology transfer process in that close and direct connection with the environment (e.g. local universities, government, other institutions) is needed in rural contexts (Premkumar and Roberts, 1999; Van Zwanenberg and Arza, 2013). Rather, additional enablers need to be considered to achieve long-term and sustainable technology transfer.
Additional, setting-specific enablers
An assessment of the literature considered in this study reveals that the bulk of this work features enablers that relate to generic aspects of technology transfer, which are as relevant in developing economies as they are for the contexts described in the original papers. However, for technology transfer to take place in the specific context of rural developing economies, it is argued that additional enablers that are not explicitly acknowledged in this field are important. Drawing from the literature base considered in this study, as depicted in Table 1, further enablers were identified.
In developing economies, the collaboration between universities (or university-related centres) and industry is essential, particularly for low technology-driven rural enterprises that face severe challenges in obtaining these technologies. Therefore, universities (including university-related centres) play an important role in establishing the link between regional governments and rural industries, and facilitate the transfer of intermediate technology to recipients (Theodorakopoulos et al., 2012, 2014). Moreover, given that intermediate technology in rural enterprises is often characterized by limited availability of resources (e.g. human, financial and technological), such enterprises are embedded in networks comprising a multitude of other organizations (Hung, 2006; Rickne, 2006; Trần Quang, 2014). In these networks, technology transfer from university to industry is usually analysed in enterprises with particular functional focus on legal constitution or deployment of specific functions, including marketing, management, research and development, and operations (Ezezika et al., 2009; Figueroa, et al., 2013). Studies concerned with the transfer of intermediate technologies to rural enterprises share some of these focal areas, but also centre on capability for effective interaction with other organizations (Van Zwanenberg and Arza, 2013).
In summary, this strand of literature highlights the following three enablers as important: (i) intermediaries connecting transferor and recipient; (ii) institutional networks adapting the technology to local needs; and (iii) prior experience in technology transfer projects on the part of the participants (transferors and recipients). These enablers are discussed below and raise theoretical propositions.
Intermediaries connecting transferor and recipient. The concept of intermediary is derived from the approach discussed by Shiau et al. (2001) and Li-Ying (2012). Its relevance for technology transfer in our particular context stems from the fact that in many developing economies it is necessary to have external parties (business incubators or R&D centres capable of bridging the gaps among producers, government institutions and universities) who develop collaboration strategies and implement new projects.
Technology transfers from a university to two rural organizations in Colombia were analysed (Theodorakopoulos et al., 2012). The implementation of environmentally-friendly technologies for the production of coffee and farming trout (pisciculture) illustrated one intermediary (the Production and Innovation Regional Centre – PIRC) acting as a catalyst in nurturing three inter-organizational learning groups over a period of two years. The members of this coalition were producers, researchers and members of the PIRC. This intermediary is an independent research and advisory centre associated with the University of Cauca in Colombia. It is therefore proposed that:
Proposition 1: The existence of an intermediary connecting transferor and recipient is an enabler in the successful technology transfer to intermediate technology recipients in developing economies.
Institutional network adapting the technology to local needs. It is important to have an institutional network that can support collaborative arrangements among the parties involved in technology transfer (Ison and Russell, 2000) and that structures the knowledge interchange in terms of possible overlays. This infrastructure is expected to be generated endogenously (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), and to consist of representatives of the state, industry and academia. The progressive development of projects creates an environment for learning and it allows the participants to solve problems and establish practices for innovation in different dimensions (e.g. organizational, technological and marketing). A strong support network assures the effectiveness of technology transfer actions.
One study in a rural enterprise in Colombia (Theodorakopoulos et al., 2014) describes how the PIRC helped with configuration during the domestication of technology in the local production system of pisciculture businesses by selecting the technologies most likely to be adopted. The institutional arrangements played an important role in the domestication and diffusion of the technology. It is therefore proposed that:
Proposition 2: The presence of an institutional network adapting the technology to local needs is an enabler in the successful technology transfer to intermediate technologies recipients in developing economies.
Prior experience in technology transfer projects. Prior experience in projects aimed at technology transfer is important, particularly in developing economies where a complex relationship often exists between agents of technology supply and demand. It is also important that the involved parties understand that technology transfer should be sought not as a short-term fix for enhancing production and growth possibilities, but rather as part of a long-term strategy to establish a culture of innovation and technological learning (Saad and Zawdie, 2005). The projects have to become opportunities to integrate theory and practice.
Based on the implementation of programmes in which different institutional arrangements prevailed in the two rural industries analysed, the role of stakeholders in technology transfer interventions is vital (Theodorakopoulos et al., 2012, 2014). The programmes included an agenda with goals to be achieved collaboratively. The agenda was deployed in various projects related to different technologies. In the development of the projects, all the participants learned how to apply, adapt and adopt the new technologies. It is therefore proposed that:
Proposition 3: The accumulated experience of the participants in technology transfer projects is an enabler in the transfer to technology to intermediate technology recipients in developing economies.
Figure 1 shows the interaction between members of the recipient, between transferors and recipients, and between intermediaries and transferors or recipients.
Figure 2 presents a graphic overview of the enablers relevant to each of the participants in a technology transfer process and shows how they relate to each other with and without an intermediary. The first four enablers in this figure refer primarily to traits of the technology recipients (understanding of technology source and market maturity; institutional network adapting the technology to local needs; absorptive capacity; and understanding the financial implications of the technology transfer). The remaining three enablers (cultural and geographic distance, prior experience in technology transfer projects on the part of the participants, and intermediaries connecting transferors and recipients) refer to the relationship between transferor and recipient.
Conclusions and discussion
This paper has presented a targeted review of the literature with the specific aim of identifying the enablers that facilitate successful technology transfer to the rural sector in developing economies. Four enablers were identified, mainly from the literature on international technology transfer. Three additional, though less explicitly articulated, enablers were identified, mainly in the literature on technology transfer between university and industry. These enablers were subsequently assessed for their relevance in intermediate technology transfer to rural recipients in developing economies.
Generally, this stream of literature considers technology transfer in terms of inputs and outputs. It tends to focus explicitly on the technology itself, considering patents, licences, creation of technology transfer offices, investments in R&D, number of new products or services created by the technology recipient, number of collaboration contracts between the actors in the transfer (industries, universities or government, in any possible combination), or the number of licences or patents created by the recipient with the transferred technology. In the specific research context of this study (technology transfer to intermediate technology recipients in rural developing economies), this focus seems inadequate. There are two reasons for this. First, the recipients (such as smallholders and craftsmen) are often incapable of understanding, managing and investing in the high technologies covered by patents and licences. Second, the vast majority of the recipients are incapable of generating the outputs traditionally used to measure the success of technology transfer in the literature.
The enablers presented in this paper have been reviewed for their relevance in facilitating technology transfer to intermediate technology recipients in rural developing economies. They are different from many of the traditional enablers in that they: (i) emphasize aspects of the transfer process that are much closer to the daily reality of the recipients and the way these recipients interact with the technology; (ii) highlight the experiential learning aspect of the transfer process and the degree to which acquired skills from previous and on-going transfers are likely to support actual and future transfers of technology; and (iii) focus on aspects of the technology transfer process at different organizational levels (ranging from individual to institutional). In so doing, they address an important gap in the literature.
Traditionally, the success of technology transfer has been expressed mostly in quantitative terms (e.g. number of patents or licences being transferred, or the number of new products or services developed using these patents and licences). In the context of this study, however, such quantitative data are rarely available, often hard to capture, or are unreliable. The enablers discussed and proposed in this study allow for assessment using qualitative measures in addition to quantitative measures. Thus, they contribute to a better understanding of the transfer process and its determinants. Technology transfer generates learning and capabilities that introduce and stimulate innovation on the part of the recipient (Cooke and Mayes, 1996; Breznitz, 2011; Van Zwanenberg and Arza, 2013). Given the paucity of literature focusing specifically on technology transfer in rural contexts (e.g. Kovic, 2010; Figueroa et al., 2013), the strategy adopted by many developing economies generally follows that of developed countries, though often with little appreciation of how inappropriate this is. What becomes clear from the analysis of the enablers that facilitate technology transfer is that they either lack relevance in the context of intermediate technology recipients in developing economies or they do not cover the full range of issues relevant to the organizations typical of developing economies. The sheer number of organizations classified as small rural enterprises in developing economies, and their paramount significance in socio-economic terms, suggest that the enablers that facilitate technology transfer to such organizations merit further research. This paper contributes to the sparse body of literature currently available and the authors hope that it will trigger further research in this field of study.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research
The conclusions drawn from this study are subject to a number of limitations. First, the classification of the different levels of technology may not always provide an accurate picture of the real level of the transferred technology or the nature of transferor and recipient. For example, while the technology for agriculture/food production is generally classified as intermediate or low technology, the expertise and practice found in genetically-enhanced plant material (seeds, seedlings and cuttings), equipment and processes can hardly be considered low technology. Consequently, it may at times be challenging to distinguish among the appropriate enablers for successful transfer of high, intermediate and low technology solutions. Secondly, technology transfer experiences in rural regional contexts are documented mainly for the agricultural sector. However, the rural context might also include such activities as tourism and handicrafts, which can be important sectors in socio-economic terms. Future research should look closely into the enablers that facilitate technology transfer in such cases. Future research should also be driven by an explicit agenda that tests the propositions advanced in this paper, but also stimulates the scrutiny of new elements and considerations pertinent to the transfer of intermediate technologies to and in developing rural economies.