IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v28y2014i1p27-48.html

Competing in Advanced Manufacturing: The Need for Improved Growth Models and Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Tassey

Abstract

The United States has underinvested for several decades in a set of productivity-enhancing assets necessary for the long-term health of its manufacturing sector. Conventional characterizations of the process of bringing new advanced manufacturing products to market usually leave out two important elements: One is "proof-of-concept research" to establish broad "technology platforms" that can then be used as a basis for developing actual products. The second is a technical infrastructure of "infratechnologies" that include the analytical tools and standards needed for measuring and classifying the components of the new technology; metrics and methods for determining the adequacy of the multiple performance attributes of the technology; and the interfaces among hardware and software components that must work together for a complex product to perform as specified. If the public?private dynamics are not properly aligned to encourage proof-of-concept research and needed infratechnologies, then promising advances in basic science can easily fall into a "valley of death" and fail to evolve into modern advanced manufacturing technologies that are ready for the marketplace. Each major technology has a degree of uniqueness that demands government support sufficiently sophisticated to allow efficient adaptation to the needs of its particular industry, whether semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, computers, communications equipment, medical equipment, or some other technology-based industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Tassey, 2014. "Competing in Advanced Manufacturing: The Need for Improved Growth Models and Policies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(1), pages 27-48, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:28:y:2014:i:1:p:27-48
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.28.1.27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.28.1.27
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/ds/2801/2801-0027_ds.zip
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory Tassey, 2007. "The Technology Imperative," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4229, June.
    2. Fuchs, Erica R.H. & Field, Frank R. & Roth, Richard & Kirchain, Randolph E., 2011. "Plastic cars in China? The significance of production location over markets for technology competitiveness in the United States versus the People's Republic of China," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 79-92, July.
    3. David Audretsch & Albert Link, 2012. "Entrepreneurship and innovation: public policy frameworks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Tassey, Gregory, 2005. "The disaggregated technology production function: A new model of university and corporate research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 287-303, April.
    5. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 2, pages 15-55, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970s," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 82-99, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Mansfield, Edwin, 1980. "Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 863-873, December.
    8. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2011. "The Theory and Practice of Public-Sector R&D Economic Impact Analysis: The Case of the National Institute of Standards and Technology," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-16, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael J. Hall & Stephen K. Layson & Albert N. Link, 2013. "The Division of Policy Research and Analysis at the National Science Foundation: Its Support of Research on the Returns to R&D," UNCG Economics Working Papers 13-6, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    2. Link, Albert N., 1996. "On the classification of industrial R & D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 397-401, May.
    3. Beatriz Pereira Almeida & Eduardo Gonçalves & André Suriane Silva & Raquel Coelho Reis, 2021. "Internalization of knowledge spillovers by regions: a measure based on self-citation patents," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 66(2), pages 309-330, April.
    4. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    5. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "The derived demand for knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 183-194, February.
    6. Kealey, Terence & Ricketts, Martin, 2014. "Modelling science as a contribution good," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1014-1024.
    7. G Cameron, 1996. "Innovation and Economic Growth," CEP Discussion Papers dp0277, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. repec:lic:licosd:20308 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hottenrott, Hanna, 2012. "Collaborative R&D as a strategy to attenuate financing constraints," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-049, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Becker, Annette & Hottenrott, Hanna & Mukherjee, Anwesha, 2022. "Division of labor in R&D? Firm size and specialization in corporate research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 1-23.
    11. Richard M. H. Suen, 2013. "Research Policy and U.S. Economic Growth," Working papers 2013-18, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    12. Zhai, Zhe & Ghosal, Vivek, 2022. "Internationalization of innovation and firm performance in the pharmaceutical industry," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 882-905.
    13. Lolita Paff & Todd A. Watkins, 2009. "What is the After-Tax Price of R&D? An Interstate Comparison," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 73-101, March.
    14. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    15. Tsai, Kuen-Hung & Wang, Jiann-Chyuan, 2005. "Does R&D performance decline with firm size?--A re-examination in terms of elasticity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 966-976, August.
    16. Birdsall, Nancy, 1996. "Public spending on higher education in developing countries: Too much or too little?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 407-419, October.
    17. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    18. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    19. Dolores Añón Higón, 2016. "In-house versus External Basic Research and First-to-market Innovations," Working Papers 1601, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    20. Ljungwall, Christer & Tingvall, Patrik Gustavsson, 2015. "Is China different? A meta-analysis of the growth-enhancing effect from R&D spending in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 272-278.
    21. Hyytinen, Ari & Maliranta, Mika, 2013. "Firm lifecycles and evolution of industry productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1080-1098.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L60 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:28:y:2014:i:1:p:27-48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.