Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 7, Issue 3–4, pp 147–167 | Cite as

Industrial Policy in the United States

  • Christian H. M. KetelsEmail author


Does US government policy purposefully benefit particular industries or is industrial policy absent in the USA? Based on a review of recent US policies this paper argues that the USA applies many policies with an industry-specific impact. But these policies do not differ significantly from those in other countries and the process in which US industrial policies emerge severely limits their consistency. What differentiates the USA is a microeconomic business environment that enables a high degree of regional specialization, benefits especially knowledge-driven industries, and raises the impact of innovation and entrepreneurship policies.


industrial policy microeconomic business environment regional clusters 

JEL Classification

O38 O51 



The author would like to thank two anonymous referees for their valuable comments.


  1. American Electronics Association, Attracting the Best and Brightest to the United States: Reforming High-Skilled Visa Policy, AeA Competitiveness Series Report. American Electronics Association: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Association of American Universities AAU, National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative: Meeting America’s Economic and Security Challenges in the 21st Century. Association of American Universities: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. Biotechnology Industry Association BIO, Growing the Nation’s Bioscience Sector: State Bioscience Initiatives 2006, Prepared by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice and SSTI. Biotechnology Industry Association: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Braunerhjelm, P., Faini, R., Norman, V., Ruane, F., and Seabright, P., Integration and the Regions of Europe: How the Right Policies can Prevent Polarization. CEPR: London, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. Broad, W.J., U.S. is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences. New York Times, 2004, May 3.Google Scholar
  6. Business Roundtable, Tapping America’s Potential. Business Roundtable: Washington, DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America—National Innovation Initiative Report. Council on Competitiveness: Washington, DC, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Council on Competitiveness, Competitiveness Index 2006: Where America Stands. Council on Competitiveness: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Council on Competitiveness, M. E. Porter, Monitor Company, Cluster of Innovation-Initiative: San Diego. Council on Competitiveness: Washington, DC, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. Curtis, M.R., The Innovation of Energy Technologies and the US National Innovation System—The Case of the Advanced Turbine System. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Destler, I.M., American Trade Politics, 4th edition. Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  13. Domestic Policy Council/Office of Science and Technology Policy, American Competitiveness Initiative. Domestic Policy Council/Office of Science and Technology: The White House, Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. Drabenstott, M., A Review of the Federal Role in Regional Economic Development. Center for the Study of Rural America, Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Fong, G.R., Breaking New Grounds or Breaking the Rules, in International Security, vol. 25, no.2, pp. 152–186, 2000 (Fall).Google Scholar
  16. Gadzey, A., Thompson, H., and Yeboah, O., Industrial Subsidies in Alabama: Economic Impact Across Counties, in Southern Business & Economics Journal, 2007 (in press).Google Scholar
  17. General Accounting Office, Community Development: Federal Revitalization Programs are Being Implemented, but Data on the Use of Tax Benefits are Limited, GAO-04-306. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. General Accounting Office, Federal Research: Observations on the Small Business Innovation Research Program, GAO-05-861T. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 2005a.Google Scholar
  19. General Accounting Office, Advanced Technology Program: Inherent Factors in Selection Process are Likely to Limit Identification of Similar Research, GAO-05-759T. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 2005b.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, E. and Marchick, D., US National Security and Foreign Direct Investment. Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. Gresser, E., Weinstein, P., and Marshall, W., Raising our Game: A National Competition Strategy, The 2006 Progressive Policy Institute report. Progressive Policy Institute: Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. Gurbaxani, I., Industriepolitik in den Vereinigten Staaten. Nomos Verlag: Baden-Baden, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, C., “Developments in the Federal Science and Technology Policies in the United States,” in Shapira, P., Kuhlmann, S. (eds.), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation—Experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar: Chatenham, 2003.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, K., Universities in the U.S. National Innovation System Productivity and Prosperity Project, Tempe, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. Hufbauer, G.C., The Foreign Sales Corporation Drama: Reaching the Last Act? IIE International Economics Policy Briefs. Intitute of International Economics: Washington, DC, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness (ISC), Cluster Mapping Project, database available at accessed 10 December 2006.
  27. Jaffe, A. and Lerner, J., Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Ketels, C., Mobilizing the Economic Potential of Science—A Comparison Between Germany and the United States. Humboldt Institution for Transatlantic Issues: Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  29. Ketels, C. and Sölvell, Ö., Clusters in the 10 New EU Member Countries. European Commission—DG Enterprise and Industry: Brussels, 2006.Google Scholar
  30. Krugman, P., Geography and Trade. MIT Press: Cambridge, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. Lindqvist, G., Sölvell, Ö., and Ketels, C., The Cluster Initiative Greenbook. Ivory Tower AB: Stockholm, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Midelfart-Knarvik, K.H., Overman, H.G., Redding, S.J., and Venables, A.J., The Location of European Industry, Economic Papers Number 142. European Commission—DG Economic and Financial Affairs: Brussels, 2000.Google Scholar
  33. National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 2005 State Expenditure Report, NASBO: Washington, D.C., 2006.Google Scholar
  34. National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, Enhancing Competitiveness: A Review of Recent State Economic Development Initiatives. National Governors Association: Washington, DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  35. National Science Board, Fulfilling the Promise. National Science Board: Washington, DC, 2003.Google Scholar
  36. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. National Science Foundation: Arlington, 2006.Google Scholar
  37. OECD, Policies for Industrial Development and Competitiveness. Working Paper DSTI/IND(97)28/FINAL. OECD: Paris, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2002—Country Response to Policy Questionnaire, United States. OECD: Paris, 2002a.Google Scholar
  39. OECD, Small and Medium Enterprise Outlook. OECD: Paris, 2002b.Google Scholar
  40. OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2004. OECD: Paris, 2004a.Google Scholar
  41. OECD, Recent Tax Policy Trends and Reforms in OECD Countries–No. 9. OECD: Paris, 2004b.Google Scholar
  42. OECD, Science, Technology, and Industry Outlook, OECD: Paris, 2006.Google Scholar
  43. Paytas, J., Gradeck, R., and Andrews, L., Universities and the Development of Industry Clusters, Prepared for the Economic Development Administration (EDA). US Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, 2004.Google Scholar
  44. Porter, M.E., The Economic Performance of Regions, Regional Studies, vol. 37, nos. 6 & 7, pp. 549–578, 2003 (August/October).Google Scholar
  45. Porter, M.E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The Free Press: New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  46. Porter, M.E , Ketels, C., Miller, K., and Bryden, R., Competitiveness in Rural U.S. Regions: Learning and Research Agenda, Prepared for the Economic Development Administration (EDA). US Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, 2004 (April).Google Scholar
  47. Porter, M.E., Delgado, M., and Ketels, C., The Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity: Findings from the Business Competitiveness Index, in World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Report, Palgrave MacMillan, 2006 (September).Google Scholar
  48. Quillen, C., Innovation and Standards for Patentability, in FTC/DOJ Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Washington, DC, 2002 (July).Google Scholar
  49. Schott, J., Free Trade Agreements: US Policies and Priorities. Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC, 2004 (April).Google Scholar
  50. Shapira, P., “Evaluating Manufacturing Extension Services in the United States”, in P. Shapira, S. Kuhlmann (eds.), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation—Experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar: Chatenham, 2003.Google Scholar
  51. Shapira, P., “Systems for Supporting Small Business in the United States: Insights and Challenges from State Programs in Georgia”, in N. Kojima (ed.), Supporting Systems for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the United States. Japan Institute of Labour: Tokyo, 2001.Google Scholar
  52. Strengthening Americas Communities Advisory Committee (SACAC), Report Submitted to Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierez. SACAC: Washington, DC, 2005 (July).Google Scholar
  53. Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, Benchmarks of our Innovation Future, Task Force on the Future of American Innovation: Washington, D.C., 2006.Google Scholar
  54. U.S. Department of Commerce, Manufacturing in America. U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, 2004 (January).Google Scholar
  55. Ward, A., US states become addicted to use of economic sweeteners. Financial Times, 2006 (23 March).Google Scholar
  56. White House, A New Generation of American Innovation. White House: Washington, DC, 2004 (April).Google Scholar
  57. White House Office of Management and Budget, President Bush Proposes Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative. White House Office of Management and Budget: Washington, DC, 2005a (3 February).Google Scholar
  58. White House Office of Management and Budget, FY 2006 Budget Priorities, White House Office of Management and Budget: Washington, DC, 2005b (January).Google Scholar
  59. White House Office of Management and Budget, Overview of the President’s 2006 Budget. White House Office of Management and Budget: Washington, DC, 2005c.Google Scholar
  60. World Trade Organization, Trade Policy Review United States. World Trade Organization: Geneva, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Strategy and CompetitivenessHarvard Business SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Strategy and CompetitivenessStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Harvard Business SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations