Abstract
This study provides an answer to a central question that remained unanswered in the economic literature: What level of international technology should developing countries transfer to sustain their economic growth? The study uses the Granger causality panel data approach to examine the bidirectional relationships between total factor productivity growth rates (TFPGR) and three levels of technology transfer, namely low, medium, and high-technology. The study uses a panel of 18 emerging markets and 22 developing countries and covers the period from 1990 to 2019. Our results show that the three levels of technology transfer cause TFPGR in a significant number of emerging markets but in an insignificant number of developing countries. The reverse relationships take place in an insignificant number of emerging markets and developing countries. Based on the findings of the emerging panel, this study suggests that the three levels of technology transfer are equally needed to increase the stock of knowledge and sustain the economic growth in developing countries. Developing countries urgently need low levels of technology to develop their basic technological capabilities required to adapt to high levels of technology. On the other hand, developing countries need high levels of technology to differentiate their products so that they can integrate into world markets and sustain economic growth in the long run. Our results also suggest that pursuing vigorous productivity policy is not expected to stimulate the technology transfer in emerging and developing economies. The study recommends that governments in developing countries actively intervene in international technology transfer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The sample of other developed includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The emerging markets a classified by the International Monetary Fund are the following: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. The developing sample includes all world countries not included in the above three samples (G7 countries, other developed countries, or emerging markets).
References
Abou Hamia, M.A.: Why Economic Growth is not Sustained in Developing Countries. Evidence from Emerging Markets. Unpublished manuscript (2021)
Abou Hamia, M.A.: Are developing countries accumulating sufficient TFP to sustain their economic growth and job creation? Empirical evidence from the MENA region. Rev. Dev. Econ. 24(3), 1102–1127 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12693
Aghion, P., Howitt, P.: A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60, 323–351 (1990)
Aitken, B., Harrison, A.: Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign Investment? Evid. Venezuela. Am. Econ. Rev. 89(3), 605–618 (1999)
Akaike, H.: Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52(3), 317–332 (1987)
Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., Sayek, S.: FDI and economic growth: the role of local financial markets. J. Int. Econ. 64, 89–112 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00081-3
Aluko, O.A., Adeyeye, P.O.: Imports and economic growth in Africa: testing for granger causality in the frequency domain. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2020.1751870
Awokuse, T.O.: Trade openness and economic growth: is growth export-led or import-led? Appl. Econ. 40(2), 161–173 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600749490
Azman-Saini, W., Law, S., Ahmad, A.: FDI and economic growth: new evidence on the role of financial markets. Econ. Lett. 107(2), 211–213 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.01.027
Balasubramanyam, V., Salisu, M., Sapsford, D.: Foreign direct investment and growth in EP and IS Countries. Econ. J. 106, 92–105 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/2234933
Bengoa, M., Sanchez-Robles, B.: Foreign direct investment, economic freedom and growth: new evidence from Latin America. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 19(3), 529–545 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(03)00011-9
Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., Lee, J.: How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? J. Int. Econ. 45, 115–135 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(97)00033-0
Breitung, J.: The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. In: Baltagi, B. (eds.) Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels. Advances in Econometrics, pp. 161–178. JAI Press, Amsterdam (2000)
Choi, I.: Unit root tests for panel data. J. Int. Money Financ. 20, 249–272 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
De la Fuente, A., Domenech, R.: Human capital in growth regressions: how much difference does data quality make? J. European Econ. Assoc. 4(1), 1–36 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2006.4.1.1
De Mello, L.: Foreign direct investment-led growth: evidence from time series and panel data. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 51(1), 133–151 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/51.1.133
Feenstra, R., Inklaar, R., Timmer, M.: The next generation of the penn world table. Am. Econ. Rev. 105(10), 3150–3182 (2015)
Goldberg, P., Khandelwal, A., Pavcnik, N., Topalova, P.: Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth: evidence from India. Quart. J. Econ. 125(4), 1727–1767 (2010)
Granger, C.: Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37, 424–438 (1969)
Grossman, G., Helpman, E.: Innovation and growth in the global economy. MIT Press, United States (1991)
Haddad, M., Harrison, A.: Are there spillovers from direct foreign investment? J Dev. Econ. 42, 51–74 (1993)
Harberger, A.: Perspectives on Capital and Technology in Less Developed Countries. In M. Artis & A. Nobay (Eds.), Contemporary Economic Analysis, pp. 15–40 (1978). London: Croom Helm
Henry, M., Kneller, R., Milner, C.: Trade, technology transfer and national efficiency in developing countries. Eur. Econ. Rev. 53(2), 237–254 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.05.001
Herzer, D., Klasen, S., Nowak-Lehmann, D.F.: In search of FDI-led growth in developing countries: the way forward. Econ. Model. 25(5), 793–810 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2007.11.005
Hurlin, C.: Testing Granger causality in heterogeneous panel data models with fixed Coefficients. University of Orléans, mimeo (2004)
Hurlin, C., Vernet, B.: Granger causality tests in panel data models with fixed coefficients. Université Paris IX Dauphine, Working Paper Eurisco, 2001–09 (2001)
Im, K., Pesaran, M., Shin, Y.: Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econ. 115, 53–74 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
Kristjanpoller, W.R., Olson, J.E.: Economic growth in latin American Countries: is it based on export-led or import-led growth? Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 50, 6–20 (2014)
Lai, M., Peng, S., Bao, Q.: Technology spillovers, absorptive capacity and economic growth. China Econ. Rev. 17(3), 300–320 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2006.04.005
Levin, A., Lin, C., Chu, C.: Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. J. Econ. 108, 1–24 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
Lucas, R.: On the mechanics of economic development. J. Monet. Econ. 22, 3–42 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
Maddala, G., Wu, S.: A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bull. Econ. Stat. 61, 631–652 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
Mayer, J.: Technology Diffusion, Human Capital and Economic Growth in Developing Countries. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Discussion, Papers 154 (2001)
Nabin, M., Nguyen, X., Sgro, P.: On the relationship between technology transfer and economic growth in Asian Economies. World Econ. 36(7), 935–946 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12049
Ortigueira, S., Santos, M.: On the speed of convergence in endogenous growth models. Am. Econ. Rev. 87(3), 383–399 (1997)
Raghutla, C., Chittedi, K.R.: Is there an export- or import-led growth in emerging countries? A case of BRICS countries. J Public Affairs. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2074
Rebelo, S.: Long-run policy analysis and long-run growth. J. Polit. Econ. 99, 500–521 (1991)
Rivera-Batiz, L.A., Romer, P.M.: Economic integration and endogenous growth. Q. J. Econ. 106, 531–555 (1991). https://doi.org/10.2307/2937946
Romer, P.: Endogenous technological change. J. Polit. Econ. 98, 71–102 (1990)
Seck, A.: International technology diffusion and economic growth: explaining the spillover benefits to developing countries. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 23(4), 437–451 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.01.00
Silajdzic, S., Mehic, E.: Absorptive capabilities, FDI, and economic growth in transition economies. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 52(4), 904–922 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2015.1056000
Ugur, A.: Import and Economic Growth in Turkey: Evidence from Multivariate VAR Analysis. East-West Journal of Economics and Business, 11(1 and 2), 54–75 (2008)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Competing through Innovation and Learning. UNIDO Industrial Development Report. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (2002)
Yalta, A.Y.: Revisiting the FDI-led growth hypothesis: the case of China. Econ. Model. 31, 335–343 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.11.030
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abou Hamia, M.A. What level of international technology should developing countries transfer to sustain their economic growth?. Qual Quant 56, 4217–4239 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01259-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01259-8
Keywords
- Low-technology transfer
- Medium-technology transfer
- High-technology transfer
- Total factor productivity growth
- Sustained economic growth