Skip to main content
Log in

The Directions for Technological Change: Alternative Economic Majorities and Opportunity Costs

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governments redirect R & D resources. Thegovernment supports R & D in technologies and in partsof the country that the private sector is unlikely tosupport, and the government provides funds forinexperienced businesses and for minority-ownedbusinesses when the private sector will not. Becausethe distribution of income and wealth is so unequal,our conventional methods of evaluating the socialusefulness of the redirection of the resources may notwork well. Redirection of R & D resources to meetSchumpeterian and Jeffersonian objectives may actuallybe efficient despite generating less economic surplusgiven the current distribution of income and wealth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Audretsch, D. B., A. N. Link, and J. T. Scott. ‘A Statistical Analysis of the National Academy of Sciences’ Survey of Small Business Innovation Research Awardees: Analyzing the Influence of the Fast Track Program’, in the conference volume for the National Academy of Sciences Symposium on the Assessment of the SBIR Fast Track Program, May 5, 1999, forthcoming.

  • Baldwin, W. L. (1987) Market Power, Competition, and Antitrust Policy. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, W. L., and J. T. Scott (1987) Market Structure and Technological Change, in the series Fundamentals of Pure and Applied Economics, Vol. 17. Chur, London, Paris, New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G., P. B. Levine, and D. J. Zimmerman (1998) ‘Discrimination in the Small Business Credit Market’, manuscript, Dartmouth College, November 1.

  • Cahill, P. ‘Fast Track: Is It Speeding Commercialization of DoD SBIR?’, in the conference volume for the National Academy of Sciences Symposium on the Assessment of the SBIR Fast Track Program, May 5, 1999, forthcoming.

  • Griliches, Z. (1958) ‘Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations’, Journal of Political Economy, 66, 419–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., A. N. Link, and J. T. Scott (1998) Universities as Partners in Research Joint Ventures, A report to the Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

  • Irwin, D. A. and P. J. Klenow (1996) ‘High-tech R&D Subsidies – Estimating the Effects of Sematech’, Journal of International Economics, 40, 323–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1996) ‘The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program’, NBER Working Paper 5753. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987) ‘The Effect of Government Funding on Private Industrial Research and Development: A Re-Assessment’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 36, 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. and J. T. Scott (1998) Public Accountability: Evaluating Technology-Based Public Institutions. Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. and J. T. Scott. ‘Estimates of the Social Returns to SBIR-Supported Projects’, in the conference volume for the National Academy of Sciences Symposium on the Assessment of the SBIR Fast Track Program, May 5, 1999, forthcoming.

  • Link, A. N. and J. T. Scott (1999) Development of an Industrial Database on Licensing Patterns, Final Report submitted to the National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Research and Development Statistics Program, SGER Project 9615976.

  • Link, A. N. and J. T. Scott. ‘Public/Private Partnerships: Stimulating Competition in a Dynamic Market’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, forthcoming.

  • Link, A. N., D. J. Teece, and W. F. Finan (1996) ‘Estimating the Benefits from Collaboration: The Case of SEMATECH’, Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 737–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1984) ‘R&D and Innovation: Some Empirical Findings’, in Z. Griliches, ed., R&D, Patents, and Productivity, Chapter 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., J. Rapoport, A. Romeo, S. Wagner, and G. Beardsley (1977) ‘Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. and J. T. Scott. ‘The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation’, Research Policy, forthcoming.

  • National Academy of Sciences, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: The Fast Track Pilot, a conference volume for the National Academy of Sciences Symposium on the Assessment of the SBIR Fast Track Program, May 5, 1999, forthcoming.

  • Nelson, R. R. (1982) ‘Government Stimulus of Technological Progress: Lessons from American History’, in R. R. Nelson, ed., Government and Technical Progress. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 451–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Management and Budget (1992) ‘Circular No. A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs’, Washington, D. C.

  • Scott, J. T. (1984) ‘Firm Versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity’, in Z. Griliches, ed., R&D, Patents, and Productivity, Chapter 10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1988) ‘Diversification versus Co-Operation in R&D Investment’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 9, 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1993) Purposive Diversification and Economic Performance. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1995) ‘The Damoclean Tax and Innovation’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5, 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1996) ‘Environmental Research Joint Ventures among Manufacturers’, Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 655–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1997) ‘Schumpeterian Competition and Environmental R&D’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 18, 455–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1998) ‘Financing and Leveraging Public/Private Partnerships: The Hurdle-Lowering Auction’, STI (Science, Technology, Industry) Review, 23, 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. (1999) ‘The Service Sector's Acquisition and Development of Information Technology: Infrastructure and Productivity’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T. ‘An Assessment of the SBIR Program in New England: Fast Track Compared with non-Fast Track Projects’, in the conference volume for the National Academy of Sciences Symposium on the Assessment of the SBIR Fast Track Program, May 5, 1999, forthcoming.

  • Scott, J. T., and Pascoe, G. (1987) ‘Purposive Diversification of R&D in Manufacturing’, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36, 193–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (1999) ‘R&D Trends in the U.S. Economy: Strategies and Policy Implications’, Planning Report 99-2, Program Office, Strategic Planning and Economic Analysis Group, National Institute of Standards & Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Wallsten, S. (1997) ‘Can Government-Industry R&D Programs Increase Private R&D? The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program’, manuscript, Stanford University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scott, J.T. The Directions for Technological Change: Alternative Economic Majorities and Opportunity Costs. Review of Industrial Organization 17, 1–16 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007875415472

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007875415472

Navigation