tion, shared research activity that crosses national boundaries is a growing phenomenon.
In developing countries, the concept of the state as mother of us all is in decline, with state enterprises being privatized or streamlined. Yet the importance of using technology as a tool for economic development is seen by all, and governments are spending accordingly. So there are some crosscurrents at work in terms of the role of the state in research.
In the United States, we have seen the Carnegie Commission (1991) report suggesting that complex defense procurement procedures have built a wall between government-supported military and civilian research programs to the increasing detriment of the Pentagon. This report recommends that these two arenas be merged institutionally. In effect, the report signals a shift in defense procurement policy and practice, and this will carry intellectual property system implications as the private and public sector cultures attempt to mesh traditionally disparate views on the role and operation of intellectual property regimes (the former relying on laws to ensure return on investment, the latter relying on laws for national security and protection of the taxpayer's investment in public programs).
In nearly all countries, budgetary constraints are limiting government research expenditures. As a result, the private sector will be asked to pick up more of the national research bill, both for internal research and for public research in universities and public research institutes. This will mean that intellectual property systems will become a crucial supporting factor helping to induce private investment in research. In those cases where government pays more or does more, private industry will often be a companion.
I want to add that explicit government-to-government scientific cooperation is playing a role in research at the global level. For some time, the United States has entered into bilateral science and technology agreements with developing country governments, which are meant to foster good relations and encourage university professors to exchange information. The research funds offered by the United States are relatively modest, particularly when compared to those from Japan. Still, such cooperation has boosted university programs in some developing countries.
The 1984 reform of the U.S. trade laws added a requirement that bilateral science and technology agreements must have an ancillary intellectual property agreement. The requirement, which does not define the content of the agreement, was meant to leverage partner countries into adopting stronger intellectual property systems.
I propose an additional catalyst. Experts from both sides should be asked to devote structured time to a discussion of intellectual property. In most developing country universities today, there is intense curiosity about the growing emphasis on intellectual property in American universities.