Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield pp 61–85Cite as

Underinvestment in Public Good Technologies

  • Chapter

Abstract

Although underinvestment phenomena are the rationale for government subsidization of research and development (R&D), the concept is poorly defined and its impact is seldom quantified. Conceptually, underinvestment in industrial R&D can take the form of either a wrong amount or a suboptimal composition of R&D investment. In both cases, R&D policy has not adequately modeled the relevant economic phenomena and thus is unable to characterize, explain, and measure the underinvestment. Four factors can cause systematic underinvestment in R&D-intensive industries: complexity, timing, existence of economies of scale and scope, and spillovers. The impacts of these factors vary in intensity over the typical technology life cycle, so government policy responses must be managed dynamically. In addition to understanding the causes of underinvestment in R&D, the magnitude of the deficiency relative to some “optimum” must be estimated to enable a ranking of technology areas with respect to expected net economic benefits from a government subsidy. Project selection criteria must therefore be based on quantitative and qualitative indicators that represent the nature and the magnitude of identified market failures. The major requirement for management of R&D policy therefore is a methodology that regularly assesses long-term expected benefits and risks from current and proposed R&D portfolios. To this end, a three-stage process is proposed to effectively carry out R&D policy analysis. The three stages are (1) identify and explain the causes of the underinvestment, (2) characterize and assess the investment trends and their impacts, and (3) estimate the magnitude of the underinvestment relative to a perceived optimum in terms of its cost to the economy. Only after all three stages of analysis have been completed can the underinvestment pattern be matched with the appropriate policy response.

Key words

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abernathy, W. and J. Utterback, 1978, ‘Patterns of Industrial Innovation,’ Technology Review 80 (June–July), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelis, D., 2000, ‘Capturing the Options Value of R&D,’ Research Technology Management 43 (July–August), 31–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., 1962, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,’ in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 609–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, F.P., 1998, ‘Traps, Pitfalls and Snares in the Valuation of Technology’, Research Technology Management 41 (September–October), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, F.P., 2000, ‘Valuation of Technology Using ‘Real Options’,’ Research Technology Management 43 (July–August), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L. and P. Auerswald, 2002, Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for Early-Stage Technology Development, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Technology Program (November).

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, R. and A. Jaffe, 1993, ‘How High Are the Giants Shoulders: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth ‘in O.J. Blanchard and S. Fischer (eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, G., 1998, ‘Innovation and Growth: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence ‘Neufield College, United Kingdom (July).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, P., 2002, ‘Tell Your Legislator the Truth about R&D,’ Research Technology Management 45 (November–December), 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R., 1960, ‘The Problem of Social Cost,’ Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–44.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R., 1992, ‘The Institutional Structure of Production,’ American Economic Review 82, 713–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal, 1989, ‘Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D,’ The Economic Journal 99 (September), 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darby, M. and L. Zucker, 2003, ‘Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology’, NBER Working Paper 9825 (July). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. and P. David, 1994, ‘Towards a New Economics of Science,’ Research Policy 23, 477–521.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., B. Hall, and A. Toole, 2000, ‘Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence,’ Research Policy 29 (April), 497–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., 1988, ‘Source, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation,’ Journal of Economic Literature 26 (September), 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, E. and B. Hinzmann, 1996, The Hype Curve: New Technology as the Modern-Day Gold Rush. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finan, W., 1998, Metrology-Related Cost in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1990, 1996, and 2001 (NIST Planning Report 98-4). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flamm, K., 1988, Creating the Computer: Government, Industry, and High Technology. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. and P. Senge, 1980, ‘A long-Wave Hypothesis of Innovation,’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change 17 (August), 283–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., 1958, ‘Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations,’ Journal of Political Economy 46 (October), 419–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., 1979, ‘Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth,’ Bell Journal of Economics 10, 92–116.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., 1988, ‘Productivity Puzzles and R&D: Another Non-explanation,’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., 1992, ‘The Search for R&D Spillovers,’ Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94 (1992, Supplement), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., 1995, ‘R&D and Productivity: Econometric Results and Measurement Issues,’ in P. Stoneman, (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd. pp. 52–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., 1996, ‘The Private and Social Returns to Research and Development,’ in B. Smith and C. Barfield, (eds.), Technology, R&D, and the Economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, pp. 140–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., 2002, ‘The Financing of Research and Development,’ NBER Working Paper No. 8773 (February). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., and J. Mairesse, 1995, ‘Exploring the Relationship between R&D and Productivity in French Manufacturing Firms,’ Journal of Econometrics 65, 263–293.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. and J. van Reenen 2000, ‘How Effective are Fiscal Incentives for R&D? A New Review of the Evidence,’ Research Policy 29 (April), 449–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., L. Orsenigo, and G. Psiano, 1999, ‘The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: Interactions among Scientific, Institutional, and Organizational Change,’ in D. Mowery and R. Nelson, (eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., 1996, Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program (report prepared for NIST’s Advanced Technology Program). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., 1998, ‘The Importance of ’spillovers’ in the Policy Mission of the Advanced Technology Program,’ Journal of Technology Transfer 23, (Summer), 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. and J. Williams, 1998, ‘Measuring the Social Returns to R&D,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 113 (November), 1119–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. and J. Williams, 2000, ‘Too Much of a Good Thing?: The Economics of Investment in R&D,’ Journal of Economic Growth 5 (March), 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. and K. Stiroh, 1999, ‘Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 31, 125–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justman, M. and M. Teubal, 1995, ‘Technological Infrastructure Policy (TIP): Creating Capabilities and Building Markets,’ Research Policy 24 (March), 259–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kash, D. and R. Rycroft, 1998, ‘Technology Policy in the 21st Century: How Will We Adapt to Complexity? ‘Science and Public Policy 25 (April).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. Chan and R. Mauborgne, 1997, ‘Value Innovation: The Strategic Logic of High Growth’, Harvard Business Review 75(1) (January–February), 102–112.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A., R. Nelson, and S. Winter, 1995, ‘On the Sources and Significance of Inter-Industry Differences in Technological Opportunities,’ Research Policy 24 (March), 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagace, 2003, ‘Innovation and Change: Making Biotech Work as a Business,’ HBS Working Knowledge (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=3247&t=innovation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., and G. Tassey, 1987, Strategies for Technology-based Competition, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., and J. Scott, 2001, ‘Public/Private Partnerships: Stimulating Competition in a Dynamic Market,’ International Journal of Industrial Organization 19, 763–794.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., 1968, Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., 1980, ‘Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing,’ American Economic Review 70 (December), 863–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., 1991a, ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovation,’ Research Policy 20, 1–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., 1991b, ‘Social Returns from R&D: Findings, Methods, and Limitations,’ Research Technology Management 34 (November–December), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., J. Rapoport, J. Schnee, S. Wagner, and M. Hamburger, 1971, Research and Innovation in the Modern Corporation, New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., A. Romeo, M. Schwartz, D. Teece, S. Wagner, and P. Brach, 1982, Technology Transfer, Productivity, and Economic Policy, New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, S., F. Narin, and D. Deeds, 2000, ‘An Analysis of the Critical Role of Public Science in Innovation: The Case of Biotechnology,’ Research Policy 29 (January), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensch, G. 1979, Stalemate in Technology, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L. and F. Sachwald, 2003, ‘Co-operative R&D: Why and with Whom? An integrated Framework of Analysis,’ Research Policy 32 (September), 1481–1489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., 1996, ‘R&D Externalities and Productivity Growth,’ STI Review 19, 39–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadiri, I., 1993, ‘Innovations and Technological Spillovers,’ (NBER Working paper No. 4423), New York: National Bureau of Economic Research (August).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council, 1999, Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., 1959, ‘The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research,’ Journal of Political Economy 67, 297–306.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., 1992, ‘What Is ‘Commercial ‘And What Is ‘Public ‘About Technology, And What Should It Be?,’ in N. Rosenberg, R. Landau, and D. Mowery (eds.), Technology and the Wealth of Nations, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., (ed.), 1993, National Systems of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., 1995, ‘Recent Economic Theorizing about Economic Change,’ Journal of Economic Literature 30(4), 48–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. and S. Winter, 1977, ‘In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation,’ Research Policy 6, 36–76.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A.C., 1932, The Economics of Welfare, 4th ed. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • RTI International, 2002, The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing (NIST Planning Report 02-3). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. (http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report02-3.pdf)

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P., 1990, ‘Endogenous Models of Technological Change,’ Journal of Political Economy 98, S71–S102.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N., 1982, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffin, R., 1996, ‘Externalities, Markets, and Government Policy,’ Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review (Third Quarter), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schankerman, M., 1981, ‘The Effect of Double Counting and Expensing on the Measured Returns to R&D,’ Review of Economics and Statistics 63, 454–458.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schmookler, J., 1966, Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiroh, K., 2001, ‘What Drives Productivity Growth,’ Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 7 (March).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 1982, ‘Infratechnologies and the Role of Government,’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change 21, 163–180.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 1991, ‘The Functions of Technology Infrastructure in a Competitive Economy,’ Research Policy 20, 345–361.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 1997, The Economics of R&D Policy, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group (Quorum Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 1999, R&D Trends in the U.S. Economy: Strategies and Policy Implications (NIST Planning Report 99-2), Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. (http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report99-2.pdf)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 2000, ‘Standardization in Technology-Based Markets,’ Research Policy 29, 587–602.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 2003, Assessing the Impacts of Government Research: Methods, Results, and Interpretations. (NIST Planning Report 03-1), Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (June).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G., 2004, ‘Policy Issues for R&D Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy,’ Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 153–185.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Teubal, M., D. Foray, M. Justman, and E. Zuscovitch, (eds.), 1996, Technological Infrastructure Policy: An International Perspective, Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J., 1979, The Dynamics of Product and Process Innovation in Industry, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Center for Policy Alternatives (February).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Stop 1060, MD, 20899

    Gregory Tassey

Authors
  1. Gregory Tassey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

    Albert N. Link

  2. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Emeritus, USA

    F. M. Scherer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tassey, G. (2005). Underinvestment in Public Good Technologies. In: Link, A.N., Scherer, F.M. (eds) Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25022-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

search

Navigation