During the 1990s, the federal government developed a new post-Cold War commercial orientation in some of its technology policies. These initiatives signify a change in direction from the strictly military-led, mission-driven approach of the past. Their shared goal is to assist industry in achieving technical advances that provide private returns to the innovating (or technology-using)firms that also yield broad social and economic benefits to the nation as a whole. This new direction in policy is not without its perils. Government agencies have to define and manage new roles and relationships with industry in carrying out these policies. Because of the uncertainties involved in any effort (private or public) to advance new technologies, there will inevitably be some failures. In this transition to a new post-Cold War policy era, these provide important learning opportunities for policy makers and program administrators in designing future programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alic, J. A. , Branscomb, L. M., Brooks, H., Carter, A. B., & Epstein, G. L. (1992). Beyond spinoff. Military and commercial technologies in a changing world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
2.
Arora, A. , & Kelley, M. R. (in press). Beyond missing markets: Building institutions for inter-firm learning and industrial technology diffusion. In P. A. David & E. Steinmueller (Eds.), A productive tension: University-industry research collaborations. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government . (1992). Science, technology and the states in America's third century. New York: Carnegie Commission.
4.
Cohen, L. R. , & Noll, R. G. (1991). The technology pork barrel. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Cohen, W. M. , & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596.
6.
Ergas, H. (1987). Does technology policy matter? In B. Guile & H. Brooks (Eds.), Technology and global industry. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
Flamm, K. (1988). Creating the computer. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8.
Florida, R. (1995). Technology policy for a global economy. Issues in Science and Technology, 11(3), 49-56.
9.
Griliches, Z. , & Hjorth-Anderson, C. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29-50.
10.
Ham, R. M. , & Mowery, D. C. (1995). The enduring dilemmas of U.S. technology policy. California Management Review, 37(4), 89-107.
11.
Hooks, G. (1990). The rise of the Pentagon and U.S. state building: The defense program as industrial policy. American Journal of Sociology, 2, 358-404.
12.
Irwin, D. A. , & Klenow, P. J. (1994). High Tech R&D subsidies: Estimating the effects of SEMATECH (Working Paper No. 4974). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
13.
Jaffe, A. , Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
14.
Kelley, M. R. , & Arora, A. (1996). The role of institution building in U.S. industrial modernization programs. Research Policy, 25(2), 265-280.
15.
Kelley, M. R. , & Brooks, H. (1989). From breakthrough to follow-through. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, 5(3), 42-47.
16.
Kelley, M. R. , & Helper, S. (in press). Firm size and capabilities, regional agglomeration and the adoption of new technology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology.
17.
Kelley, M. R. , & Helper, S. (1997). Information technology, organizational capabilities and context: How do regional economies and institutions matter to the spread of innovation (Working Paper No. 97-19). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management.
18.
Kelley, M. R. , & Watkins, T. A. (1995a). In from the cold: Prospects for conversion of the defense industrial base. Science, 268, 525-532.
19.
Kelley, M. R. , & Watkins, T. A. (1995b). The myth of the specialized military contractor. Technology Review, (April), 98(3), 52-58.
20.
Kramer, S. , Carter, C. F., Feller, I., Howard, W. G., Kelley, M. R., Kenworthy, J., Martin, H. L., Shapira, P., Tainsh, P. J., & Nanzetta, P. (1992). Manufacturing technology centers: Broad programmatic issues, report of manufacturing technology centers third year review panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
Lerner, J. (1989). The small high-technology company, the government and the marketplace: Evidence from the SBIR program (STPP Working Paper No. 89-11). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F Kennedy School of Government.
22.
Lerner, J. (1996). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program (Working Paper No. 5753). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
Lichtenberg, F. B. (1989). The impact of the strategic defense initiative on U.S. civilian R&D investment and industrial competitiveness. Social Studies of Science, 19, 265-282.
24.
Mamuneas, T. P. , & Nadiri, M. I. (1995). Public R&D policies and cost behavior of the U.S. manufacturing industries (Working Paper No. 5059). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
25.
Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12.
26.
Manufacturing Studies Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council . (1993). Learning to change: Opportunities to improve the performance of smaller manufacturers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27.
Markusen, A. , Hall, P., Campbell, S., & Deitrick, S. (1990). The rise of the gunbelt. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Markusen, A. , & Yudken, J. (1992). Dismantling the cold war economy. New York: Basic Books.
29.
Mowery, D. C. (in press). Survey of technology policy. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technical change. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
30.
Mowery, D. C. , & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The U.S. national innovation system. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
National Economic Council , National Security Council, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. (1995). Second to none: Preserving America's military advantage through dual-use technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
Nelson, R. R. (1990). Capitalism as an engine of progress. Research Policy, 19, 193-214.
33.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). Introduction: Large high-income countries. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Oden, M. , Bischak, G., & Evans-Klock, C. (1995). The Technology Reinvestment Project: The limits of dual-use technology policy (Briefing Paper No. 16). Washington DC: National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament.
35.
Osborne, D. (1988). Laboratories of democracy: A new breed of governor creates models for national growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
36.
Randazzese, L. P. (1996). Semiconductor subsidies. Scientific American, 46-49.
37.
Samuels, R. J. (1994). Rich nation strong army: National security and the technological transformation of Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38.
Sapolsky, H. (1995). The truly endless frontier. Technology Review, 98(8), 37-43.
39.
SEMATECH's evolving role: An interview with William J. Spencer . (1994). Issues in Science and Technology, 10(2), 63-68.
40.
Shapira, P. (1990). Modern times: Learning from state initiatives in industrial extension and technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 4, 186-202.
41.
Spencer, W. J. , & Grindley, P. (1993). SEMATECH after five years: High-technology consortia and U.S. competitiveness. California Management Review, 35(4), 9-32.
42.
Stowsky, J. (1996). America's technical fix: The Pentagon's dual use strategy, TRI, and the political economy of U.S. technology policy in the Clinton era. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.
43.
Technology Reinvestment Projects [TRP] Update. (1995, April 26). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense Technology Reinvestment Project.
44.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment . (1990). Making things better: Competing in manufacturing (OTA-ITE Report No. 443). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration . (1995). Delivering results: A progress report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
46.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division . (1992). Federal research: Small business innovation research shows success but can be strengthened. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
