Foreign Participation in U.S. Research and Development Asset or Liability? (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Pages 1-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
economic performance and national security, draws conclusions, and recommends specific public- and private-sector actions to minimize the potential liabilities and maximize the potential benefits of increasing foreign participation in the nation's R&D enterprise. Proceeding from a belief that foreign participation in publicly funded U.S.
|
From page 2... ...
Only recently, however, have a growing number of America's trading partners acquired the technical and economic capabilities needed for their citizens (companies and individuals) to participate on a significant scale in the U.S.
|
From page 3... ...
Moreover, increases in Reign p~icip=~' level of technological sophi~ic~ion and c~aci~ lo extract benehls Tom Amehcan technology bang concomit=1 increases in me potential for reciprocal trans~rs of knowledge Id technology to me United States. Finally, these obse^~dons suggest that under most circum~=ces, any count, including the United Sages, should welcome RED activity within as borders regardless of He nation~- ~ me RED pa.
|
From page 4... ...
centers of R&D activity, and most affiliate R&D performed in the United States appears designed to meet the immediate technical needs of U.S.-based production facilities. Comparative surveys of U.S.- and foreign-owned multinational companies suggest that the motives for engaging in R&D in foreign markets and the type of R&D activity vary by industry but are not significantly influenced by the nationality of the company.
|
From page 5... ...
Yet, in other cases, these two modes of foreign direct investment have created opportunity and wealth for Americans. On balance, the committee considers the growth of foreign direct investment in the United States and the proliferation of transnational corporate alliances to be positive trends—devel
|
From page 6... ...
However, they are less effective at addressing the medium- to long-term risks of delayed or denied access to militarily critical technologies posed by foreign direct investment, or mergers and acquisitions in general. The federal government lacks clearly defined, agreed-upon criteria to determine whether the technological capabilities of a company are militarily critical.
|
From page 7... ...
trade and investment through negotiation in bilateral and multilateral forums. The United States should hold itself and its trading partners accountable to existing international agreements and should redouble its efforts to negotiate more comprehensive, internationally enforceable rules on monopoly formation, foreign direct investment, technical standards, environmental regulations, and intellectual property rights.
|
From page 8... ...
universities and federal laboratories document a significant increase in the level of foreign participation since the mid-1970s (Figure ES-41. At the same time, meaningful data on the scope, growth, and nature of foreign institutions' involvement in publicly funded U.S.
|
From page 9... ...
R&D, the involvement of foreign firms and individuals in R&D sponsored by the federal government carries both risks and opportunities for the United States. The Quid Pro Quo The committee believes that the extensive presence of foreign graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and other long-term foreign visiting researchers at U.S.
|
From page 10... ...
International comparisons of R&D expenditures confirm that compared to the United States, most of America's advanced industrialized trading partners invest an equal if not larger share of their gross domestic product in basic research. Japan, however, despite recent efforts to expand its basic research capabilities, spends a smaller share of its gross domestic product in this area than the United States (and nearly half as much per capita)
|
From page 11... ...
Instead, the federal government should pursue more aggressively reciprocal access to publicly and privately funded R&D activities abroad through U.S. trade and antitrust laws, existing bilateral and multilateral trade and technology agreements, and the negotiation of more comprehensive bilateral and multilateral agreements.
|
From page 12... ...
7. All institutions that perform federally funded R&D should have adequate procedures in place to manage electively intellectual property resulting from publicly funded R&D.
|
From page 13... ...
The U.S. government defines foreign direct investment as the ownership by a foreign person or business of 10 percent or more of the voting equity of a company located in the United States.
|
From page 14... ...
production data for high-intensity technology products, as reported to the OECD, with U.S. total shipment data for high-technology products as reported to the Department of Commerce, according to DOC-3 definition show that the OECD data represented 96 percent and 100 percent of the DOC-3 data in 1980 and 1986, respectively (National Science Board, 1989)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.