Memo+20+Abstract+(Dan+F)+2

Globalization has defined foreign affairs over the last few decades and will continue to shape interactions in the future. The premise that this is the best course and the most effective means of resource and technology transfer can be said to be on shaky ground. It is not that resources, various technologies, and information are not being shared, but rather that the full impact of the current system fails to account for an entirely fair exchange of these inputs when groups of varying monetary wealth interact. Despite constant reform to attempt to account for the social components that the current economic hegemony has failed to address, very little overall progress has been made in governing interactions in a way that allows for a socially and morally acceptable exchange for the acquisition of components that embody a practically sustained future.

Understanding growth and its limits in the current global system is crucial to developing a better approach, as is outlining proper interaction based on more context specific definitions that allow for a compromise between dependency and complete protectionism. As the current approach to globalization is unlikely to be cast aside for a new system of economic exchange is it necessary to attempt to effectively adjust the system for the protection of global citizens of every standing. While it is often sought to show that the current global system is either highly beneficial or rather ineffective, it is acknowledged here that it is rarely ever so clear as to encourage decisive change.

This paper will seek to 1) create new knowledge as to why resources transfer often fails and how it can be made more effective, 2) create new knowledge about how the political, economic, social, or environmental cause that a problem is defined by limits the ways in which it can be effectively solved, and 3) create new knowledge about what kinds of technology transfer should be allowed for sustainable and environmentally just development. An in depth analysis of the current body of literature and a set of interviews with professionals of the clean cookstove movement will inform my argument.

It is relatively clear among academics in the field that while the clean cook stove movement has made steps forward, it is nowhere near as effective as it was meant to be in light of its goals and proposed deadlines. This most likely does not reflect the efficiency of the technology or need for it but rather how the technology is disseminated. While this is the primary suspect for the overall problem, part of that problem is likely to be the choice of materials, availability of those materials, and the variety of solutions advocated among other things. This study expects to find that some of the various avenues of dissemination are part of a larger problem in approach that prevents effective transfer and causes more harm than good. Innovation is coming from the wrong direction. External advocacy defines the primary problems of the less developed regions when the problems should be defined by internal advocacy. External advocacy has a tendency to benefit external institutions more then the supposed target group. In light of this, it is very likely that the solution is to stop certain kinds of interaction altogether, while compensating for the large takings that have already occurred. While interaction cannot and should not be fully stopped it can be shaped in more beneficial ways.