|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 511
The Need for National Consensus
to Improve Competitiveness
ALBERT BOWERS
Many Americans do not recognize the full significance and seri-
ousness of the decline in this country's international economic com-
petitiveness. Therefore, we do not as yet have sufficient national
resolve to take the steps necessary to regain and sustain our inter-
rzational technological and industrial leadership.
In January 1985 I was cochairman, with Admiral Bob Inman, of a session
on the transition from basic research to commercial application at a meeting
of the Business-Higher Education Forum. (The Forum is a group of university
presidents and business leaders who get together to discuss critical common
issues.) The discussion in this chapter represents the collective wisdom of
Be participants of that meeting and, in particular, the contnbunon by Denis
Prager of the MacArthur Foundation. The ideas expressed at that meeting
are relevant to the goals of this volume, in which many of the concerns
voiced at the Forum meeting are raised.
America's competitive decline in international markets can readily be seen
by the increasing share of world markets being captured by our competitors.
We see it in our traditional industries, such as automobiles and steel. We
also see it in a wide range of high technology, entrepreneurial industries,
such as semiconductors, computers, machine tools, consumer electronics,
and many others As Robert A. Swanson (in this volume) points out, phar-
maceuticals and biotechnology are areas that have been targeted by our
competitors, particularly Japan.
Ln attempting to identify some of the major factors responsible for this
country's relative competitive decline, it is instructive to compare our nations
511
OCR for page 512
512
ALBERT BOWERS
environment with that of one of our principal competitors, Japan. The Jap-
anese approach to international economic competition is marked by national
commitment and dedication, cooperation, strong government leadership and
involvement, and targeted strategies. How did Japan, with virtually no in-
digenous natural resources, rise from the ashes of a devastating defeat at the
end of World War II to become, in less than 40 years, the country to be
reckoned with in international technology markets? They did it by
· Resolving to become the strongest nation economically.
· Placing that goal above all others and making the sacrifices and com-
prom~ses necessary to make that goal a reality.
· Establishing, legal, regulatory, financial, and social environments that
strongly support the efficient development and commercialization of tech-
nolo~,y.
· Organizing government, industry, labor, banking, and higher education
into an effective and efficient team to achieve that goal.
· Targeting specific markets, establishing, market-share goals, and ad-
hering to stringent timetables for achieving those goals.
· Sticking tenaciously to a long-term strategy, even though it meant for-
going immediate profits.
· Concentrating resources on the development of superior manufacturing
technologies rather than on research.
· Establishing a f~rst-rate intelligence system to identify foreign scientific
discoveries and technological innovations for appropriation and commer-
cialization by Japanese industry.
· Acquiring the needed technologies through joint ventures and other
arrangements. For example, between 1950 and 1978, Japanese companies
entered into 32,000 such arrangements at a total cost of $9 billion a very
small fiction of their actual worm. Japanese companies, helped by their
government, bought technology at bargain prices.
· Infusing selected industries with plentiful, low-cost capital, which al-
lowed them to offer to the world's markets products priced at levels well
below Hose of their competitors.
· Inhibiting access to Japanese domestic markets by foreign competition.
The American approach to international economic competition stands in
marked contrast to that of the Japanese and reflects, to a large degree, the
difference in the two cultures. In Japan, a very tiny, highly homogeneous
country, a national consensus is relatively easily established and imple-
mented. In the United States, a large, highly diverse country of independent-
minded people, a national consensus on a complex issue is extremely difficult
to achieve and even more difficult to implement. In the Japanese culture,
He line dividing He public and private sectors is very fine. This allows strong
government leadership and involvement in innovation. On He other hand,
our free enterprise system requires a strict division between the public and
OCR for page 513
THE NEED FOR NATIONS CONSENSUS TO IMPROVE COMPULSIVENESS 513
private sectors. There is little or no government involvement in industrial
technology development or industrial competitiveness. These broad cultural
characteristics of the United States explain why our large, resource-nch
country, with its excellent scientific research, often finds itself increasingly
less effective than its competitors in converting the results of its research
into commercially competitive products.
Many Americans do not recognize the full significance and seriousness of
the decline in this country's international economic competitiveness. There
remains a strong tendency among many people in the United States to believe
that the situation is still much like it was after World War II a time when
our potential competitors were worn down and our scientific and technolog-
ica1 leadership was unchallenged. Therefore, we do not as yet have sufficient
national resolve to take the steps necessary to regain and sustain our inter-
national technological and industrial leadership. Daniel Yankelovich, pres-
ident of the Public Agenda Foundation, refers to this lack of resolve as this
country's "commitment gap."
One reason for the decline in our international competitiveness is Hat He
United States does not maintain an environment conducive to He efficient
commercialization of technology. In fact, the process is often impeded. There
are many legal, regulatory, and financial barriers to the efficient translation
of new concepts and technologies into coTrunercially competitive products.
It will be extremely difficult to organize and mobilize the resources required
to regain and sustain our international competitiveness. The development of
specific national strategies, such as targeting specific market sectors, is viewed
as antithetical to the free enterprise system.
We also suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome. Because of our
intense chauvinism, many of those responsible for the development and
commercialization of technology are oblivious to the scientific discoveries
and technological innovations from other countries. As a nation, we fail
to provide training in the languages, cultures, and practices of other coun-
tries; and we clearly do not have a good commercial foreign intelligence
system capable of identifying foreign innovations for possible use by our
. .
zinc ustnes.
Another reason for our declining competitiveness is that American industry
tends to manage by the bottom line making decisions on the basis of how
they will affect next quarter's profits. Such decisions are often made at He
expense of long-term benefits.
Those cited above are only some of He reasons why there is a growing
gap between the industrial competitiveness of this country and one of its
principal economic rivals. However, looking at generalities such as these
tends to mast: underlying differences and gradations among various industries
and technologies. Each industry has strengths and weaknesses that determine
He degree to which it succeeds or fails in international markets. Some
industries translate research results into commercial application very eff~-
OCR for page 514
514
ALBERT BOWERS
ciently, collaborate closely with university scientists, manage with a long-
term view, and develop effective means of penetrating foreign markets.
Others do not. Some universities facilitate the translation process by devel-
oping innovative research and training programs and actively pursue part-
nerships win industries and governments. Others do not. Some government
policies and practices facilitate efforts by industry to compete internationally.
Others put up real roadblocks.
Although international competitiveness is a complex issue, it appears that
two elements are critical to improving our ability to compete. First, we must
have an adequate pool of talented scientists and engineers. There is wide-
spread agreement that both the quality and quantity of this country's future
talent pool are in jeopardy. We need a concerted effort by academia, industry,
and state and federal governments to change the situation. Much can and
must be done if we are to solve this problem. Second, we have to recognize
that the corporate, academic, legal, regulatory, and financial environments
within which technological innovation takes place in this county often impede
rather than stimulate the translation of new concepts and technologies into
commercially competitive products.
A number of suggestions have been made about how to improve our
international competitiveness:
· We have to change our corporate culture into one that takes a long-term
view of profitability.
· Industnes must recognize the need for higher investment levels in cor-
porate research.
· Capital improvements in both research and production facilities must
become a priority.
· Corporations must place greater emphasis on innovation in manufac-
tllring technology.
· We must drive harder bargains in licensing technology to foreign com-
petitors.
· We should establish intelligence networks Cat are capable of identifying
foreign technologies which are appropriate for licensing and commerciali-
zanon by U.S. companies.
· Corporations and universities must create innovative relationships to
facilitate technology transfer.
~ Industry must work with the legislative and executive branches of both
the federal and state governments, as partners rawer than adversaries, to try
to develop policies that will increase our ability to compete.
The role of the federal government in efforts to improve our international
competitiveness will be critical. Major aspects of that role should include
the following:
OCR for page 515
THE NEED FOR NATIONS CONSENSUS TO IMPROVE COMPLETENESS 515
· The federal government must continue to assume the primary respon-
sibility for the support of basic science, and it must increase Hat level of
support.
· The government should work on establishing access to foreign markets
for U.S. companies rather than artificially protecting our markets against
foreign competitors.
· The government should provide and sustain tax incentives and other
ways to stimulate the establishment of small companies~ompanies that
play an important role in the commercialization of emerging technologies.
· The government should adopt antirust laws and policies that reflect the
realities of an internationally competitive marketplace.
· Perhaps most important, as government wrestles with assessments of
the costs and benefits of environmental health and safety regulations, it must
assess the impact of the various degrees of regulation on the international
competitiveness of the affected industries.
~ In general, the federal government should be a partner, not an adversary.
The discussions that took place at the meeting of the Business-Higher
Education Forum were characterized by a certain sense of frustration and
impatience. One participant said, "We know what to do. Why don't we get
on with it?"
The answer to that question seems to lie in our inability to reach a national
consensus on the importance of restoring our competitiveness and then to
make a commitment to do so. This volume represents a step toward devel-
oping a national consensus and a public policy that might make it possible
for this country to regain its leadership In high technology and the interna-
tional marketplace.
OCR for page 516
Representative terms from entire chapter:
international economic
