International technology trade is by no means free?

In the era of globalization it is quite natural to see the aspiration of various states to open doors for foreign goods and unite national markets into a single world market where, in an environment of fair competition, all participants will benefit from open trade. All would be nice if not for one weighty "but" - the level of development of various states today is significantly different.

International trade in technology illustrates these distinctions clearly. It is hard to imagine what technologies, for example, the US can buy from Burkina Faso. Of course, the movement goes from the world center to its outskirts. And the trend can not change in any way under the existing world economic system.

Imagine that international trade in technology based on free competition is a sporting event, say, running. And healthy men are opposed by five-year-old children. Of course, as children will not try, they will never win in this fight. Countries of the third world are also children in the modern world economy, which obviously have no chance of success.

But can these children grow up in order to then enter into fair competition with the developed countries, or are they forced to remain children all the time? The second option seems more realistic. Judge for yourself, international trade in technology is built around the sale of finished high-tech products or patents for a particular invention. A country that buys such a blessing receives only the right to use it, but in no way develops an infrastructure that allows it to establish "production of technology" itself.

When it comes to the purchase of patents, then for the introduction of new technology in the country-buyer, there must already be a certain infrastructure. If it is, then, as a rule, belongs to foreign companies. Thus, all the newest secrets still remain in the hands of developed countries, and developing countries are forced to be content with the role of outsiders.

Let's not forget about such an interesting thing as the time lag. This term denotes the time after which the new technology enters the market, after the right-owner company has collected all the cream. All international trade in licenses is built around this. Each of you, for sure, noticed such a feature that the goods are first sold in developed countries, and then everything is gradually progressing to more and more poor. So it was with mobile phones, mp-3 players, laptops.

It turns out that the international trade in technology in its current format makes it practically impossible to implement any permutations in the role of various states in the world market. In that case, how much can it be called honest and open?

By the way, the developed countries are most interested in lifting the restrictions, since they receive much more from free trade than developing countries. On this principle, both international trade in goods and international trade in services are built. By agitating developing countries to remove barriers, developed countries appeal to economic theory and promise the latter substantial benefits. However, it should not be forgotten that the major modern economies have made progress in isolation and protectionism, and not in free trade.

In this case, the following questions are quite appropriate. Is not today's technology trade for the beating of children? And is it not better for the developing countries to strive with all their might to develop their own science? Everyone will make his own conclusions for himself.