From mission to commercial orientation: Perils and possibilities for federal industrial technology policy

Economic Development Quarterly

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 313-328

  Kelley, Maryellen R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031489398     PISSN: 08912424     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/089124249701100404     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alic, J. A., Branscomb, L. M., Brooks, H., Carter, A. B., & Epstein, G. L. (1992). Beyond spinoff: Military and commercial technologies in a changing world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
2. Arora, A., & Kelley, M. R. (in press). Beyond missing markets: Building institutions for inter-firm learning and industrial technology diffusion. In P. A. David & E. Steinmueller (Eds.), A productive tension: University-industry research collaborations. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. (1992). Science, technology and the states in America's third century. New York: Carnegie Commission.
4. Cohen, L. R., & Noll, R. G. (1991). The technology pork barrel. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596.
6. Ergas, H. (1987). Does technology policy matter? In B. Guile & H. Brooks (Eds.), Technology and global industry. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Flamm, K. (1988). Creating the computer. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8. Florida, R. (1995). Technology policy for a global economy. Issues in Science and Technology, 11(3), 49-56.
9. Griliches, Z., & Hjorth-Anderson, C. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29-50.
10. Ham, R. M., & Mowery, D. C. (1995). The enduring dilemmas of U.S. technology policy. California Management Review, 37(4), 89-107.
11. Hooks, G. (1990). The rise of the Pentagon and U.S. state building: The defense program as industrial policy. American Journal of Sociology, 2, 358-404.
12. Irwin, D. A., & Klenow, P. J. (1994). High Tech R&D subsidies: Estimating the effects of SEMATECH (Working Paper No. 4974). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
13. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
14. Kelley, M. R., & Arora, A. (1996). The role of institution building in U.S. industrial modernization programs. Research Policy, 25(2), 265-280.
15. Kelley, M. R., & Brooks, H. (1989). From breakthrough to follow-through. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, 5(3), 42-47.
16. Kelley, M. R., & Helper, S. (in press). Firm size and capabilities, regional agglomeration and the adoption of new technology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology.
17. Kelley, M. R., & Helper, S. (1997). Information technology, organizational capabilities and context: How do regional economies and institutions matter to the spread of innovation (Working Paper No. 97-19). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management.
18. Kelley, M. R., & Watkins, T. A. (1995a). In from the cold: Prospects for conversion of the defense industrial base. Science, 268, 525-532.
19. Kelley, M. R., & Watkins, T. A. (1995b). The myth of the specialized military contractor. Technology Review, (April), 98(3), 52-58.
20. Kramer, S., Carter, C. F., Feller, I., Howard, W. G., Kelley, M. R., Kenworthy, J., Martin, H. L., Shapira, P., Tainsh, P. J., & Nanzetta, P. (1992). Manufacturing technology centers: Broad programmatic issues, report of manufacturing technology centers third year review panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21. Lerner, J. (1989). The small high-technology company, the government and the marketplace: Evidence from the SBIR program (STPP Working Paper No. 89-11). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
22. Lerner, J. (1996). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program (Working Paper No. 5753). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
23. Lichtenberg, F. B. (1989). The impact of the strategic defense initiative on U.S. civilian R&D investment and industrial competitiveness. Social Studies of Science, 19, 265-282.
24. Mamuneas, T. P., & Nadiri, M. I. (1995). Public R&D policies and cost behavior of the U.S. manufacturing industries (Working Paper No. 5059). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
25. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12.
26. Manufacturing Studies Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. (1993). Learning to change: Opportunities to improve the performance of smaller manufacturers. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
27. Markusen, A., Hall, P., Campbell, S., & Deitrick, S. (1990). The rise of the gunbelt. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Markusen, A., & Yudken, J. (1992). Dismantling the cold war economy. New York: Basic Books.
29. Mowery, D. C. (in press). Survey of technology policy. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technical change. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
30. Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The U.S. national innovation system. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. National Economic Council, National Security Council, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. (1995). Second to none: Preserving America's military advantage through dual-use technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. Nelson, R. R. (1990). Capitalism as an engine of progress. Research Policy, 19, 193-214.
33. Nelson, R. R. (1993). Introduction: Large high-income countries. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Oden, M., Bischak, G., & Evans-Klock, C. (1995). The Technology Reinvestment Project: The limits of dual-use technology policy (Briefing Paper No. 16). Washington DC: National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament.
35. Osborne, D. (1988). Laboratories of democracy: A new breed of governor creates models for national growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
36. Randazzese, L. P. (1996). Semiconductor subsidies. Scientific American, 46-49.
37. Samuels, R. J. (1994). Rich nation strong army: National security and the technological transformation of Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38. Sapolsky, H. (1995). The truly endless frontier. Technology Review, 98(8), 37-43.
39. SEMATECH's evolving role: An interview with William J. Spencer. (1994). Issues in Science and Technology, 10(2), 63-68.
40. Shapira, P. (1990). Modem times: Learning from state initiatives in industrial extension and technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 4, 186-202.
41. Spencer, W. J., & Grindley, P. (1993). SEMATECH after five years: High-technology consortia and U.S. competitiveness. California Management Review, 35(4), 9-32.
42. Stowsky, J. (1996). America's technical fix: The Pentagon's dual use strategy, TRP, and the political economy of U.S. technology policy in the Clinton era. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.
43. Technology Reinvestment Projects [TRP] Update. (1995, April 26). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense Technology Reinvestment Project.
44. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1990). Making things better: Competing in manufacturing (OTA-ITE Report No. 443). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45. U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. (1995).Delivering results: A progress report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
46. U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division. (1992). Federal research: Small business innovation research shows success but can be strengthened. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.