S. TAMER CAVUSGIL

It is generally agreed that technology makes both positive and negative con-
tributions to the present state of the world. It is not uncommon to hear criti-
cisms of some of the unwanted and unforeseen effects of a new technology
or mismanagement of an existing one. The majority of these criticisms are
related to direct and visible effects, such as a technology's aesthetic, social,
and economic implications. Those who take a philosophical perspective on
technology argue that the villain is not technology per se, but is manage-
ment. Since multinational corporations in developed countries are the
principal forces behind the creation, management, and transfer of tech-
nology, most of the criticism is directed toward their corporate strategies.
Their importance in this regard has increased as the less developed nations,
unsuccessful in their attempts to create technology, have tried to catch up
with their counterparts by means of technology transfer. These countries,
with their huge profit potentials, have become attractive markets for multi-
national corporations.

It has long been recognized that these corporations, through direct
foreign investment, have provided vital industrial inputs: capital, manage-
ment skills, technical know-how, and other ingredients required for pro-
duction. Management of technology transfer has become one of the distin-
guishing factors between successful and unsuccessful companies involved in
technology transfer. In other words, the management of technology
transfer has become a key element affecting organizational survival.

Only a few years ago, most multinational corporations were concerned
with enlarging their activities abroad and showed keen interest in the
development of Third World nations through the transfer of technology. At
the same time, the host governments of these young and developing nations
were competing with each other by offering various incentives to attract
foreign investment. But in recent years, donors of technology have been

-217-