indicator of technology loss and gain. It is misleading to give the Hitachi-National Advanced Systems case the same weight as the Kubota-MIPS or Matsushita-Solbourne Computer alliances in terms of the technology transferred. It is also inaccurate to assume that all such alliances lead to a damaging outflow of critical technology.
Ideally, the data would be sorted into two simple, dichotomous categories: (1) cases in which technology is not transferred; and (2) cases in which transfer occurs. For purposes of this study, we are interested only in the second category of Japanese investment. If we could specify which types of technology qualify as "strategic" and what forms of alliances are most apt to transfer such technology, we could begin to formulate some hypotheses about the impacts of strategic alliances on the U.S. economy and technology base. In the absence of a data base that would allow us to categorize alliances along these dimensions, it is difficult for policymakers and practitioners alike to assess the extent of the problem, much less to develop effective responses.