Structural change and innovation in U.S. Telecommunications

Economics of Innovation and New Technology

Volumn 10, Issue 2-3, 2001, Pages 169-198

  Rao, P M ^a  

^a LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

At T; Jel Classification L96; R D; Software; Telecommunications

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345900875     PISSN: 10438599     EISSN: 14768364     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10438590100000008     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Andrews, Edmund L., 1996. Congress Votes to Reshape Communications Industry, Ending a 4-Year Struggle. The New York Times, 1 February 2
2. Antonelli, Cristiano. 1991. The Diffusion of Advanced Telecomrmunications in Developing Countries, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
3. Arrow, K J., 1962. “ Ecomnomic Welfare and Allocation of Resources for invention ”. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity
4. AT&T (1999) Midyear Report (June 30) 2.
5. Brynjolfsson, Erik J.; Malone, and Thomas; & Gurbaxani, Vijay., 1988.
6. Brynjolfsson, Erik J.; Malone. Thomas; Gurbaxani. Vijay;, and Kambil, Ajit. 1994. Does Information Technology Lead to Smaller Firms?. Management Science., 40 (12)
7. Christensen, Laurits R. (1981) Written Testimony. U.S. v. AT&T. C.A. No. 74–1698 (October 27)
8. Clemons, Erik K; Reddi. Sashidhar P.;, and Row, Michael C., 1993. The Impact of lnfonnation Technology on the Organization of Economic Activity: The ‘Move to the Middle’ Hypothesis. Journal of Management Information systems, 10 (2): 9–35.
9. Colombo, Massiomo G., and Garrone, Paola. 1998. Telecommunications Transformation: Technology, Strategy and. Policy, Edited by: E. and Levin, S.L., Amsterdam: IOS Press.
10. Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). 1999. Economic Repoir of the Pnsidenr, Washington.: D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Disclosure Incorporated (Disclosure). 1999. Annual Report Data on Diskette Bethesda, MD
12. Dixit, Avinash, and Pindyck, Robert S., 1995. The Options Approach to Capital Investment. Harvard Business Review, May-June: 105–115.
13. 1995. Bell Communications Research, inc.—-Short-Term Rating. lnveshncnt Reports Dambase, October 20
14. Dunning, John H., 19!37. Alliance Capitalism and Global Business, London: Routledge.
15. Duysters, Geert. 1996. The Dynamics of Teclmologicd Innovation, VT: Edward Elgar.
16. Duysters, Geert, and Hagedoorn, John. 1996. Internationalization of Corporate Technology Through Strategic Partnering: An Empirical Investigation. Research Policy, 25 (): I–12.
17. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (1998) Statistics of Common Carriers, Part 2. 1995. tables 1.5 and 2.8., 97 D.C.
18. Glazer, Rashi. 1991. Marketing in an Information-Intensive Envinjnment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset. Jouml of Marketing, October: 1–19.
19. Gomes-Casseres, Benjamin. 1997. The Alliance Revohtion, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20. Griliches, Zvi. 1987. R&D. Patents and Productiviry. National Bureau of Economic Research, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
21. Hagedoorn, John. 1993. Understanding the Rationale of Strategic Technology Partnering: Inter-organizational Modes of Cooperation and Sectoral Differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 371–385.
22. Hagedoom, John, and Narula, Rajneesh. 1996. Choosing Organizational Modes of Strategic Technology Partnering: International and Sectoral Differences. Journal of lnternational Business studies, 27 (I): 265–284.
23. Hagedoorn, John, and Schakenraad, Jos. 1992. Leading Companies and Networks of Strategic Alliances in Information Technologies. Research Policy., 21 (2): 163–190.
24. Hamel, Gary. 1991. Choosing Organizational Modes of Strategic Technology Partnering: International and Sectoral Differences. Journal of International Business Studies., 27 (I): 265–284.
25. Application Investment Profiles: Corporate Directions in 1998. IDC #15264.
26. Jorgenson, Dale W.; Gollop, Frank, M, and Fraumani, Ba N., 1987. Pmakctivity and U.S. Economic Gmwrh, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
27. Keller, John J., 1995. Divide to Conquer: Defying Merger Tread. AT&T Plans to Split into Three Companies. The Wall Smet Journal (September 21), 1
28. Kendrick, John W. (1981) Written testimony. U.S. v. AT&T. C.A. No. 74–1698 (September 21)
29. Kendrick, John W., and Grossman, Elliot S., 1980. Producrivify in rhe United Stares: Trends and Cycles, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Khazam, Jonathan, and Mowery, David C., 1995. Tails That Wag Dogs: The Influence of Software-bad ‘Network Externalities' on the Creation of Dominant Designs in RISC Technologies. In David C. Mowery, 86–103. ed.) Intemutional Computer Sofrware Industry.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Lander, Mark. 1995. AT&T. Reversing Strategy Vol. 1.
32. Mokyr, Joel. 1995. Comment on The Boundaries of the U.S. Firm in RLD’ by David C. Mowery. In Naomi R. Lamoreaux and Daniel M.G. Raff, eds.) Cordination and Information. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
33. Mowery, David C., 1995. Coodination and Infonnufion, Edited by: Lamoreau, Naomi R., and Raff, Daniel M.G., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
34. Nadiri, Isahq M., and Nandi, Banani. 1996. The Changing Structure of Cost and Demand for the U.S. Telecommunications Industry, Cambridge: MA: National. Working Paper 5820
35. National Science Foundation (NSF). 1996. Research and Development in Industry: 1993 Washington, D.C.
36. National Science Foundation (NSF). 1999. Research and Development in Industry: 1997 Washington, D.C.
37. Nordhaus, William D., 1969.
38. Nordhaus. William D. (1981) Written Testimony in U.S. v. AT&T. C.A. No. 74–1698 (October 28)
39. Noteboom, Bart. 1999. Innovation and Inter-firm Linkages: New Implications for Policy. Research Policy., 28
40. Pearce, Robert D., 1999. Decentralized R&D and strategic competitiveness: globalized approaches to generation and use of technology in multinational enterprises (MNEs). Research Policy, 28: 157–178.
41. Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, Gary. 1990. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, May-June: 79–91.
42. Rao, P.M., 1988. International Telecommunications Society
43. Rao, P.M., 1990. Financial Planning Issues Concerning Funding, Wicing and Organization of Corporate R&D Activity: A Case Study. R&D Manugement., 20 (4): 329–355.
44. Rao, P.M., R&D and Innovation in U.S. Telecommunications: Recent Structural Changes and Their Implications. Proceedinns of the International Telecommunications Society. Seville, Spain. Eleventh Bieinial Conference
45. Rao, P.M., Proceedinns of the International Telecommunications Society. Seville, Spain.
46. Rao, P.M., 2000.
47. Rao, P.M., and Klein, Joseph. 1994. Growing Importance of Marketing Strategies for the Software Industry. Industrial Marketing Managemenr., 23: 29–37.
48. Stehmann, Oliver. 1995.
49. Steinmueller, W. Edward. 1995. The U.S. Software Industry: An Analysis and Interpretive History. In David C. Mowery, 15–52. ed.) International Computer Sofrware Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Teece, David J., and Pisano, Gary. 1998. The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction. In Dosi Giovanni. David J. Teece and Joseph Chytry, 198–212. eds.) Technology: Organization and Competitiveness.
51. Depamnent of Commerce, U.S., 1998a. Fixed Reproducible Tangible Wealth in the United States. 1925–97. Survey of Current Business. Bureau of Economic Analysis Washington, D.C.
52. 1998b. “ National Industry and ealth Data (www.bea.doc.gov) Telecommunications Quantity Index ”. In Bureau of Economic Analysis (21 September update) Washington, D.C.
53. U.S. Depamnent of Commerce (USDC). 1999a. A11 Technologies Report, Patent and Trade Mark Office Washington
54. U.S. Depamnent of Commerce (USDC). 1999b. “ Technology Profile Report, Telephonic Communications ”. In Patent and Trade Mark Office Washington, D.C.
55. (1999c) Fax data on AT&Ts patents granted by class and by year (ORs and ORs + XRs) Patent and Trade Mark Office (August) Washington, D.C.
56. Depamnent of Labor (USDL) (1997) Productivity Measures for Selected Industries, U.S., and Bulletin, Bureau. 2491.
57. Depamnent of Labor (USDL) (1998) Multifactor Productivity in U.S. Manufacturing, U.S., 1996.
58. Depamnent of Labor (USDL) (1999a) Multifoctor Productivity Trends, U.S., 1997.
59. Depamnent of Labor (USDL) (1999b) Productivity by Industry, U.S., 1987.
60. U.S. Depamnent of Labor (USDL) (1999c) Industry Productivity Database (http//stats.bls.gov/iprdata/.htm) Bureau of Labor Statistics (July 20 update) Washington. D.C.
61. Vonortas, Nicholas S., and Safioleas, Stratos. 1997. Strategic Alliances in Infomation Technology and Developing Country Firm. PSD Occasional Paper No. 29. Washington. D.C.: The World Bank 1–62.
62. Williamson, J. Christopher L Clark. Theodore H.K., 1999.
63. Williamson, Oliver E., 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications 20–40. 117–131, and 176–207
64. Williamson, Oliver E., 1996. The Mechanism of Governance
65. Yofie, David B., 1996. Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence. California Management Review, Summer: 31–53.