|
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 517
Innovation, Job Creation
arid Competitiveness
RUBEN F. METTLER
,
The difference between economic winners and losers in world
markets lies essentially in mahzr~g a clear national commitment to
growth and competitiveness—a commitment the United States has
yet to make. The winners are those whose nationalpolicies emphasize
savings, investment, technology, competitiveness, and work, to sup-
port growth. The losers are those who emphasize current consump-
tiorz over investment or turn to government intervention arid control
as substitutes for market forces. Slowly but surely in recent decades
the economic policies of the United States have been moving to the
side that is losing.
My puIpose in this chapter is to bridge the discussions (in this volume)
of innovation and entrepreneurship and the discussions that focus on industrial
competitiveness and the related issue of creating new jobs and expanding
employment. In so doing, I look at several issues: how innovative activities
differ among major industries, what role large companies have in job creation,
and what major changes in public policy could improve the growth and
competitiveness of the U.S. economy. And, I do so from the perspective of
a large company.
I must confess that I am somewhat ambivalent about being a spokesman
for large companies, since I deliberately left a good job in a large company
in the early 1950s to cast my lot with a small venture company, called Ramo-
Wooldridge, not anticipating that a few years later the company would be
acquired and would then grow to be a large company. A modest investment
in 1953, in the newly formed Ramo-Wooldridge (RW) company, by Cleve-
land-based Thompson Products, now the "T" of TRW, led to the acquisition
of RW by Thompson in 1958 and the establishment of "a company called
TRW." In 1984 about $3.5 billion of TRW's $6.0 billion of sales came
directly from the growth of that initial small venture investment. Not too
shabby, ever by Silicon Valley standards!
517
OCR for page 518
518
RUBEN F. ME7TLER
INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY IN DiFFE;RENT INDUSTRIES
Let me begin by commenting on how innovative activity differs among
industries, and in large companies as compared with small. We start with
much confusion about the nature of different industries because of a tendency
to talk and to write about simplifications that do not exist. For example,
putting whole industries into neat compartments like "smokestack," ''high-
tech," "manufacturing," or "service" does not help our understanding The
statistics and projections of growth and decline of these supposedly separate
categories can be highly misleading
A few examples may highlight the point. Automotive plants use advanced
sensors, microprocessors, computer controls, and robotics to produce vehi-
cles that are designed by advanced computer simulation and that literally
teem with electronic controls and sophisticated metallurgy. After the auto-
mobiles are sold, one of the world's most sophisticated distribution networks
supplies and services the aftermarket using on-line computers and worldwide
communication networks. The automotive industry may safely be described
as "high-tech."
In another dimension, "manufactunng" and ''service" are inseparably
interwoven and are not two separate sets of industries, as often portrayed.
We are not becoming a "service economy." We are instead a "salami
economy" with alternating slices of "manufacturing" and "services,'' from
product conception to final use. We must be competitive in both manufac-
turing and services if we are to grow and prosper. Manufacturing is a core
capability the root, trunk, and branches that bear the leaves and fruit of
service industries and new technologies.
Global competition compels all industries to improve their perfo~ance.
The margin that makes for success is very thin. Even a small competitive
edge can make a big difference, but large and aggressive steps may be
necessary to achieve even a small competitive edge. Improvements that only
equal those of competitors yield no net gain.
The challenge is to integrate into all of our industries, in innovative ways,
the most advanced technologies in communications, metallurgy and new
materials, microelectronics and process control, computer-aided design and
manufactunng, expert systems, and more, in a market-dnven and cost-
effective way. And of course, that includes using advanced technology in
managing an ente~pnse large or small.
The challenge for managers of large and small companies is to learn how
to develop (or buy) technology that is best for their specific purposes, how
to control the cost of using it, and how to finance it, all while earning enough
profit to continue to invest and compete and grow in world markets on a
sustained basis. Ln short, the challenge is to be an entrepreneur.
Large, established companies became so because they were entrepreneu-
OCR for page 519
INNOVATION, JOB CREATION, kD COMPETITIVENESS
519
rial. And if they lose their innovative, risk-taking spirit, they will eventually
decline, and surely will not make a full contribution to their nation's pros-
penty and growth. Indeed, I believe a close and necessary relationship exists
between large and small companies if both are to develop and maintain an
entrepreneurial Must.
In sum, what is common to all industries and companies of all sizes, new
and old, is the need for entrepreneurship and innovation. As the chief ex-
ecutive officer of a large, diversified company in electronics, space, auto-
motive, industrial, and energy markets, ~ see little difference in the fundamentals
of innovative activity across industries. Small companies must be entrepre-
neurial and innovative to establish an initial market niche; Men they must
begin to think about diversification and sustainable growth, and that will
require more innovation, but in different dimensions and increasingly on a
larger scale. When they get to be large and diversified, they will still need
the same fundamental entrepreneurial drive to maintain the capacity and
willingness to change their business mix and adapt to new competitive con-
. .
.ltlons.
JOB CREATION
Let us move now to the second issue. Since the number and quality of
jobs can serve as one proxy for a healthy economy, how are jobs created
and employment expanded, and what role do large companies play in that
process?
In 1980 David L. Birch of MA published a study Mat concluded that about
70 percent of new jobs in the United States are created by businesses employing
fewer then 100 people. Several related studies have also been made by the
Brookings ~sutution and over organi7~aons.
Birch's study was highly influential. Many policies and programs were af-
fected by it. In my view, his study was interpreted much too narrowly. Not
enough attention was given to Be linkage Mat exists between large companues
and small or to Be effect of this linkage on Me job creation process.
Let me take my company as an example. We currently employ about
95,000 people, only about 5,000 more Man a decade ago, despite large
increases In assets, sales, and profits. Does this mean that we have made
little contribution to the creation of new jobs? By no means. Dunng Me same
period our outside purchases more Man quadrupled, increasing from under
$500 million to well over $2 billion a year. We have played an active part
in helping a number of smaller companies get started, and thus in providing
David L. Birch, The Role of High Technology Firms in Job Creation, Working Paper of Me
MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, 1984).
OCR for page 520
520
RUBEN F. MEI~R
some new jobs. We have helped them grow and develop and find their first
niche in the market sometimes by an equity investment or by providing
direct funding for research and development, sometimes by being one of
their first major customers. Often our purchases have helped to ensure their
grown beyond the start-up phases, creating more new jobs.
Our best estimate is that the growth in our outside purchasing has created
from 25,000 to 30,000 jobs during the past decade, beyond our own direct
employment. A similar contribution by hundreds of other large companies
adds up to millions of jobs.
Even the role of corporate pension funds in job formation should not be
overlooked. In our company, for example, pension funds have also increased
more Tan fourfold during the last decade, from under $300 million to over
$1.3 billion. These funds serve as vehicles for capital formation and, thus,
as sources of job formation.
So there is a symbiotic relationship between large business and small. It
is necessary to look at an entire system, not at isolated components, to
understand the dynamics of job creation.
With respect to public policies aimed at creating new jobs and increasing
employment, we should be cautious about intervention that distorts market
relationships and that introduces rigidities affecting large or small companies.
To the greatest extent possible, job creation should be left to market forces,
because in the end that will mean healthier economies, more entrepreneurs
large and small and more and better jobs.
Also, in thinking about economic growth and job creation, it is important
to keep in mind the mass and aggregate scale of large companies taken as
a group. For example, although comprehensive statistics organized by com-
pany size are difficult to find, reasonable estimates suggest that our 500
largest companies (out of a total of millions of companies) account for almost
30 percent of our gross national product, perform about 90 percent of privately
financed research and development, perform over 90 percent of the govern-
ment-sponsored research and development that is not done in government
laboratories, employ about 80 percent of We scientists and engineers who
work in industry, and spend about $20 billion annually in private skill-training
programs. Two additional points: Me 1,000 largest U.S. manufacturers boosted
their capital appropriations in 1984 by about one-third, about double the
national average, and about 18 percent of U.S. exports are made by a mere
50 companies.
Thus, large companies taken as a group have a dominant role in the creation
of our national wealth aIld in our technolo ,ical competitiveness. They provide
a stability and strength that are essential to companies of all sizes, especially
in the context of intense competition in world markets, often against very
large foreign companies, both pnvate companies and those that are state
supported.
OCR for page 521
INNOVATION, JOB CREATION, AND COMPETITIVENESS
MAJOR CHANGES IN PUBLIC POLICY
521
What major changes in public policy are needed to improve the growth
and competitiveness of our economy? First, we should recognize the fact
that many leading spokesmen and policymakers and many of the general
public believe our economy is doing rather well and do not see competi-
tiveness as a burning issue. They are thus not highly motivated to take steps
that might rock the boat. They say: "Aren't we winning again, now, at long
last? Isn't our economy recovering? Aren't industry profits up, inflation
down, and our productivity improving? Isn't unemployment down, and em-
ployment up? Hasn't the American economy done a tremendous job of ex-
pandin~ job opportunities enabling us to absorb a vast, unexpected influx
of women into the work force?" Yes, all these things are true. And they
show significant economic progress.
Yet, when we look beyond the rising corporate profits and economic
indicators, there is a sense of concern about the long-term future of our
economy and society. There is concern that unless strong new steps are
taken, we may be facing a slow decline in our real living standards. In broad
terms, we see huge trade deficits, grossly unbalanced federal budgets, and
rapidly rising domestic and international debt, and perhaps not surprisingly,
an anxious financial community and a nervous stock market.
Our alarming twin deficits—fiscal and trade suggest that we can no
longer pay the combined costs of our social welfare commitments, military
defense, foreign aid, and environmental protection, let alone maintain the
vast private and public infrastructure on which our economy depends
Either we have overcommitted our resources or our economy is failing to
perform as it should. Which is it? In my view, it is both. That means we
must both restrain the demands on our economy and improve its perfor-
mance.
A major cause of the concern about the long-range performance of our
economy comes down to a not very electrifying phrase: competitive decline.
If the phrase is abstract, its consequences are not. The erosion of our com-
petitive position in world markets has been well documented, and is discussed
by other contributors to this volume, including John A. Young, who discusses
the report of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, on
which he served as chairman.
We are presented wad a clear choice. We can do what is necessary to
restore our competitive primacy and build our economy to meet our society's
multiple objectives, or we can settle for a less ambitious future, and cut our
cloth to fit it. American jobs, economic security, and living standards, Amer-
ican social goals and dreams, America's place in the world all are at stake
in He decision we make. If we want to maintain an open, benevolent, and
humanly productive society; improve the quality of education; restore our
OCR for page 522
522
RUBEN F. MFITLER
private and public capital resources; pay our debts; defend our national in-
terests; and continue to be a leader in world affairs, then we must also want
a competitive economy.
In order to achieve these goals, we must grow. And in order to grow, we
must compete. And today, as never before, we must act in a worldwide
context. The world's problems are partly our problems. We cannot turn our
backs on them. We cannot hide from them. We cannot wish them away.
We must deal with them because our domestic economic health and vigor
have become dependent on world markets. Our economy is only a part a
big and important part, but only a part of something bigger—an integrated
world economy. We have to undersold it. And we have to deal with it. The
question is, How?
We can begin by asking, Why is our society falling behind in worldwide
competition? We are the world's strongest industrial nation, so what is our
problem?
The answer is, in part, that our historical focus on our domestic market
led to inefficiencies and to a kind of competitive myopia. We failed to
recognize that others, particularly the countries of the Far East, were gaining
on us, by building their own comparative advantages.
In part, the problem is a matter of unfocused U.S. economic policies Mat
fail to grasp and meet the needs of competitiveness in a global market. We
simply have not put high priority on the need and the means to be competitive.
We have not made competitiveness a central criterion by which to judge our
private actions and our public policies.
We can learn much by looking around the world at other economies. The
difference between economic winners and losers in world markets lies es-
sentially in making a clear national commitment to growth and competitive-
ness—a commitment the United States has yet to make. The winners are
those whose national policies emphasize savings, investment, technology,
competitiveness, and work, to support growth. The losers are Pose who
emphasize current consumption over investment or turn to government in-
tervention and control as substitutes for market forces. Slowly but surely in
recent decades the economic policies of the United States have been moving
to the side that is losing.
Staying competitive is a total package. It is not fixing just one deficiency.
It is not just employment costs, or trade negotiations, or technology, or
productivity, or currency exchange rates, or the cost of capital, or marketing,
or any one of many very important factors. It is a commitment by all com-
panies and all groups and institutions tied to them to develop strategies and
pronouns as needed to stay ahead of specific competitors for specific products
in specific markets. And it is government policies that put high priority on
building and maintaining our competitive strength.
OCR for page 523
INNOVATION, JOB CREATION. AND COMPETITIVENESS
IS THERE A WINNING GAME PLAN?
523
Turning now to government policies, the changes that are needed to bring
about a competitive society can be conveniently put into three groups:
1. Macroeconomic policies fiscal and monetary Mat encourage grown,
competitiveness, savings, investment, and international made, without Dying
to mastermind the process through government intervention in particular
. .
nc ustnes;
2. Genenc policies applicable to all industries, covering such national
competitiveness issues as stimulating research and development, upgrading
general and scientific and technological education, upgrading work skills in
the population, reducing hard-core unemployment, encouraging labor mo-
bility, and prudently managing the public infrastructure;2 and
3. Communication policies between managers and employees that grad-
ually shift emphasis from the traditional adversary relationships to cooper-
ation and commitment to the task of improving productivity, quality, and
competitiveness, with all parties committing to longer-range outlooks and a
new concept of mutual interest.
Of these three groups of policies, I will say a few words about only the
first, competitive macroeconomic policies.
Competinve Macroeconomic Policies
In order to have competitive macroeconomic policies, we must first
understand that many of our existing policies seriously erode our com-
petitiveness, and then we must make competitiveness a central standard
against which to judge our policies and programs both old and new. To
begin, we need to spread the burden of maintaining a sound economy
more evenhandedly between fiscal and monetary constraints. At present,
our fiscal policies and monetary policies are at loggerheads, and we see
heavy strains on the economy, including high real interest rates, an ov-
ervalued dollar, enormous budget and trade deficits, and a much higher
cost of capital for U.S. companies than for their most important foreign
competitors. We need to set the objective of a competitive cost of capital,
an essential requirement for competitiveness, and then develop the steps
needed to achieve it.
We need a mighty effort, above and beyond We adminis~ation's current
proposals and those being discussed in He Congress, to gain control of
2The new Decade III program of the National Academy of Engineenng is a good example of an
institutional program to help build a technologically competitive economy.
OCR for page 524
524
RUBEN F. METIl OR
government spending and to wipe out our enormous deficits and the rapid
growth in national debt and debt-service costs. This year, 1985, is a truly
critical time for action. If it turns out that the large cuts needed in spending
can only be achieved In a compromise that includes new revenues, it will
be very important that competitiveness be a high-pnonty criterion in deciding
how to raise revenue.
We need to eliminate disincentives and develop new incentives for indi-
viduals and companies to work and save and invest. Despite all the talk of
supply-side economics, we still have economic policies that are heavily biased
toward current consumption and dividing up what we produce now. We have
an "industrial policy" and its name is "consumer spending.''
We need to reconcile our domestic antitrust enforcement with the reality
of worldwide markets, not with the purpose of reducing competition, but to
encourage it on a fair and effective basis. This recognition should allow,
under appropriate circumstances, the pooling of resources and information
among those in a single industry and amon:, our industry groups, particularly
in competing overseas.
We need an aggressive trade policy that demands and enforces fair and
equal competition in world markets, including access to the markets of other
countries equal to the access they are granted by us, and a related policy
that encourages those industries that by their nature must compete in world
markets. Currently, our fiscal policies often do the opposite; they favor those
industries that are largely inherently domestic and not significantly exposed
to foreign competition.
We should understand that financial and trade matters (both domestic and
international) are inextricably tied together. Policies and negotiations on both
must be tightly coordinated.
CONCLUSION
To take all the steps referred to above will require a change in our outlook
and in our political economy as sweeping as those that brought about the
New Deal legislation in the 1930s, though in quite a different direction.
I am not talking revolution. But I am talking about basic changes that will
tilt the balance of governmental incentives away from consumption-first,
distnbution-oriented policies the kind the world's losers are following
to pro-work, pro-savings, pro-investment, pro-grow~, pro-competition pol-
icies: the kind the winners are following.
It is a big order, and a big change for Amencans. Yet this is the policy
Amenca really needs not a solution related to jUSt one part of the problem,
or one interest ~,rollp, but a good, strong "competitiveness policy." That is
what it will take to restore the kind of America we all want: a strong leader
OCR for page 525
~j
in Me Todd; a sang competitor ~ home and in global markets; a sang
co-~sion~ helper ~ Pose who cam provide for themselves; a
count once man, of dsing hopes ad rising living sodas for ~1 our
people. Mat is IBM being compedUve mews! Leas Member ~~ hippos
. . . .
~ gunmen by winners
OCR for page 526
Representative terms from entire chapter:
world markets
