Engineers, Firms and Nations: Ethical Dilemmas in the New Global Environment

  • Leonard LynnEmail author
  • Hal Salzman
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 22)


Global firms—which are the primary organizational entities through which commercial engineering is conducted—have largely lost attachment to their country of origins. Although they may retain some cultural heritage that stems from their country of origin, they are increasingly global organizations that have multiple “host countries” in which they have located some portion of their operations. As a result, they have a decreasing degree of investment in, or loyalty to, any one nation. At the macro, policy level, this new globalization raises questions about the context in which engineering work (as well as other work) is conducted. This structural change in firms and the process of technology development raises questions about engineering values and ethics. This paper will provide an overview of the structural changes in technology development based on fieldwork conducted by the authors, and discuss the value and policy implications of these changes.


Nationalism Technonationalism Globalization Collaborative advantage Stakeholders 


  1. American Electronics Association. (2005). Losing the competitive advantage? The challenge for science and technology in the United States. Washington, DC: American Electronics Association.Google Scholar
  2. Associated Press. (2005). Sun Microsystems expands around globe. CNBC news. Accessed 10 Feb 2014.
  3. Business Week. (2007). Where are all the workers? Bloomberg Business Week magazine. Accessed 10 Feb 2014.
  4. China Mobile. Investor Relations. (2014). Accessed 18 Feb 2015.
  5. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
  6. Cusumano, M., & Selby, R. (1995). Microsoft secrets: How the world’s most powerful software company creates technology, shapes markets and manages people. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, G. (1997). Mathematicians and the market. Hanover: Dartmouth College.Google Scholar
  8. Espenshade, T. J. (1999). High-end immigrants and the shortage of skilled labor. Working Paper No. 99-5. Princeton: Office of Population Research, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  9. Fierce Wireless. Grading the Top 8 Wireless Carriers in the Third Quarter of 2014. Accessed 18 Feb 2015.
  10. Freeman, R. B. (1976). The overeducated American. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, R. B., Emily Jin, & Chia-Yu Shen. (2004). Where do new U.S.-trained science-engineering PhDs come from? NBER Working Paper No. 10554. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, R. B. (2006). Does globalization of the scientific/engineering workforce threaten U.S. economic leadership?”. In Innovation policy and the economy (Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: NBER/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gallagher, J. (2011). Emerson’s David Farr is citizen of the year. St. Louis post-dispatch. Feb 13.
  14. GSMA Intelligence. Global Mobile Phone Data. Accessed 18 Feb 2015.
  15. Hill, C. T. (2007). The post-scientific society. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall, 78–84.Google Scholar
  16. Iritani, E. (2002). High-paid jobs latest U.S. export: Firms’ shifting of technical work to Mexico and China to cut costs bodes ill for many laid-off Americans. Los Angeles Times. Apr 2.
  17. Lowell, B. L., & Salzman, H. (2007). Into the eye of the storm: Assessing the evidence on science and engineering education, quality, and workforce demand. Research Report for The Urban Institute.
  18. Lynn, L., & Salzman, H. (2002). What makes a good engineer? U.S., German, and Japanese perspectives. Proceedings of European applied business research conference, Rothenberg, June.Google Scholar
  19. Lynn, L., & Salzman, H. (2004). Third generation globalization: The new international distribution of knowledge work. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 4, 1511–1521.Google Scholar
  20. Lynn, L., & Salzman, H. (2006). Collaborative advantage. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 74–82.Google Scholar
  21. Lynn, L., & Salzman, H. (2007). The real technology challenge. Change: Magazine of Higher Learning. July/August.Google Scholar
  22. Lynn, L., Meil, P., & Salzman, H. (2012). Reshaping global journal technology development: Innovation and entrepreneurship in China and India. Journal of Asian Business Studies, 6, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKinsey Global Institute. (2013). Urban world: The shifting global business landscape. Report, October.Google Scholar
  24. National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  25. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Appendix table 2–6. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
  26. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institution for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry, T. (2014). After the sun (Microsystems) sets, the real stories come out. IEEE Spectrum. May 30.
  28. Perry, T. (2015). Massive worldwide layoff under way at IBM. IEEE Spectrum. Feb 3.
  29. Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, November–December: 77–90.Google Scholar
  30. Salzman, H. (2000). The information technology industries and workforces: Work organization and human resource issues. Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology.Google Scholar
  31. Salzman, H. (2013). What shortages? The real evidence about the STEM workforce. Issues in Science and Technology (National Academy of Science policy magazine), Summer 2013: 58–67Google Scholar
  32. Salzman, H., & Lowell, L. (2008). Making the grade. Nature, 453, 28–30.
  33. Salzman, H., Kuehn D., & Lowell, B. L. (2013). Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market: An analysis of supply, employment, and wage trends. Economic Policy Institute. Accessed 10 Feb 2014.
  34. Saxenian, A. (2000). The origins and dynamics of production networks in Silicon Valley. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teitelbaum, M. S. (2008). Structural disequilibria in biomedical research. Science, 321(5889), 644–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Teitelbaum, M. S. (2014). Falling behind? Boom, bust, and the global race for scientific talent. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Von Hippel, E. (1994). ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wall Street Journal. (2006). High-tech titans unite on lifting visa caps. Wall Street Journal, 14 June, p. A2.Google Scholar
  40. Wiggin, A. (2010). Atlas isn’t shrugging, he’s outsourcing. Forbes. May 18.
  41. Wikipedia. List of countries by number of mobile phones in use. Accessed 18 Feb 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations