Underinvestment in Public Good Technologies

Although underinvestment phenomena are the rationale for government subsidization of research and development (R&D), the concept is poorly defined and its impact is seldom quantified. Conceptually, underinvestment in industrial R&D can take the form of either a wrong amount or a suboptimal composition of R&D investment. In both cases, R&D policy has not adequately modeled the relevant economic phenomena and thus is unable to characterize, explain, and measure the underinvestment. Four factors can cause systematic underinvestment in R&D-intensive industries: complexity, timing, existence of economies of scale and scope, and spillovers. The impacts of these factors vary in intensity over the typical technology life cycle, so government policy responses must be managed dynamically. In addition to understanding the causes of underinvestment in R&D, the magnitude of the deficiency relative to some “optimum” must be estimated to enable a ranking of technology areas with respect to expected net economic benefits from a government subsidy. Project selection criteria must therefore be based on quantitative and qualitative indicators that represent the nature and the magnitude of identified market failures. The major requirement for management of R&D policy therefore is a methodology that regularly assesses long-term expected benefits and risks from current and proposed R&D portfolios. To this end, a three-stage process is proposed to effectively carry out R&D policy analysis. The three stages are (1) identify and explain the causes of the underinvestment, (2) characterize and assess the investment trends and their impacts, and (3) estimate the magnitude of the underinvestment relative to a perceived optimum in terms of its cost to the economy. Only after all three stages of analysis have been completed can the underinvestment pattern be matched with the appropriate policy response.     

Rationales and mechanisms for revitalizing US manufacturing R&;D strategies

The race to economic superiority is increasingly occurring on a global scale. Competitors from different countries are employing new types of growth strategies in attempts to win that race. The United States cannot, therefore, continue to rely on outdated economic growth strategies, which include an inability to understand the complexity of the typical industrial technology and the synergies among tiers in high-tech supply chains. In this context, a detailed rationale is provided for maintaining a viable domestic technology-based manufacturing capability. In the United States, the still dominant neoclassical economic philosophy is at best ambivalent on the issue of whether a technology-based economy should attempt to remain competitive in manufacturing or let this sector continue to offshore in response to trends in comparative advantage, as revealed through shifts in relative prices. The paper argues that the neoclassical view is inaccurate and that a new innovation model is required to guide economic growth policy. Specifically, the paper provides (1) a rationale for why an advanced economy such as the United States needs a manufacturing sector; (2) examples of the process of deterioration of competitive positions for individual industries and, more important, entire high-tech supply chains; (3) an explanation of the inadequacy of current economic models for rationalizing needed new policy strategies; and (4) a new economic framework for determining both policy mechanisms and targets for those mechanisms, with emphasis on the systems nature of modern technologies and the consequent requirement for public–private innovation ecosystems to develop and deliver these technologies. Several targets are suggested for major policy mechanisms.     

Policy Issues for R&D Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy

The Internet Revolution induced an unbalanced perspective on future economic growth strategies. Because information technology (IT) largely constitutes an infrastructure upon which other economic activity is based, its economic role is to facilitate the productivity of investment in a wide range of products and services that meet final demand. Other economies around the world can and are investing in the same infrastructure, so the efficiency advantages now being realized by the U.S. economy will be fleeting unless U.S. R&D efforts produce a new and broad range of innovative products and services that take advantage of this infrastructure. A deep and diverse technology-based manufacturing sector must be a core objective of a national R&D strategy. United States manufacturing contributes $1.5 trillion to GDP, employs 20 million workers, accounts for more than 70% of industrial R&D, and constitutes the main source of technology for the larger service sector. While knowledge-based services are the largest source of economic growth for the U.S. economy, their long-term performance is highly dependent on synergies with a domestic manufacturing sector. These synergies will be even more important in the future because services are increasingly exposed to foreign competition. Knowledge-based services can be supplied from anywhere in the world—as long as these foreign sources can rapidly access and assimilate the necessary technology components. This caveat is the critical point for economic growth policy. Considerable research supports the argument that hardware and software components are most efficiently supplied to services by a manufacturing sector that is geographically close and institutionally integrated with the service applications. Policy debates have raged for decades over the nature and magnitude of underinvestment in manufacturing R&D. The need to resolve the relevant policy issues has increased, as industry is funding less of the long-term, high-risk research that creates the technology platforms supporting new industries and future economic growth. Unfortunately, only about a third of U.S. manufacturing is high-tech by conventional definitions. Some of the remaining industries develop technologies internally, but most purchase a large proportion of their technology from the high-tech sector. Because a technology acquisition strategy can be more easily imitated by foreign competitors, traditional industries are much more susceptible to exchange rate variations, global economic cycles, and secular shifts in foreign competition. Thus, with global technological capabilities relentlessly increasing, the long-term prospects for the moderate and low R&D-intensive portions of U.S. manufacturing are not good. This paper presents a conceptual framework and available data as inputs for the analysis of Federal R&D investment strategies. Such strategies must recognize the full range of public and private technology assets constituting a national innovation system. A developed and efficient innovation system has characteristics making imitation by foreign competitors difficult and thereby enables sustained competitive advantage.     

Globalization of technology-based growth: the policy imperative

The United States became the dominant technology-based economy after World War II and held that position for decades by accumulating a huge base of superior technical, physical, organizational, and marketing assets. However, the world is witnessing the rapid globalization of technology-based competition, which is the result of major commitments by many nations to investment in technology and its effective utilization. The changing dynamics of such competition requires revisions to the centuries’ old law of comparative advantage and the Schumpeterian process of creative destruction. However, U.S. technology-based growth policies have at best stood still for most of this period. The R&D intensity of the U.S. economy is below its peak in the 1960s and its vaunted “high-tech sector” is too small and increasingly challenged to carry the remaining sectors, as was the case before globalization began in earnest. A major reason for inadequate adaptation is the “installed base effect,” which results from the accumulation of the above types of economic assets and in turn creates both complacency and resistance to the need for adaptation. Weak recoveries from the most recent recessions and the sluggish growth in real incomes are major indicators of structural problems that are not being addressed. Catch-up will require adoption of more comprehensive growth policies, implemented with considerably more resources and based on substantive policy analysis capabilities.

Tax incentives for innovation: time to restructure the R&;E tax credit

The R&E tax credit has never been effective and subsequent attempts to restructure it have not addressed the major deficiencies. Moreover, in the 25 years since the R&E tax credit was enacted, a steadily increasing number of countries have implemented or expanded competing tax incentives, which in many cases are better structured and larger in size. As a result, the relative impact of the US credit is now negative in terms of incentives to conduct R&D within the domestic economy. The inadequacy of the credit stems largely from its small size and its incremental format. The impact of an R&D tax incentive is affected by its scope of coverage, the ability of industry to take advantage of it over the entire R&D cycle, the magnitude of the incentive relative to other nations’ tax policies, and its ease of implementation. In the end, a tax incentive must sufficiently lower the user’s cost of R&D to overcome barriers to allocation of private-sector resources commensurate with the potential rates of return on such investments. As a policy instrument, a tax incentive for R&D should be most effective if its form is a flat rate applied to all R&D.

The Economics of Science and Technology

This paper provides a non-technical, accessible introduction to various topics in the burgeoning literature on the economics of science and technology. This is an interdisciplinary literature, drawing on the work of scholars in the fields of economics, public policy, sociology and management. The aim of this paper is to foster a deeper appreciation of the economic importance of science and technology issues. We also hope to stimulate additional research on these topics.