Advertisement

National security and national innovation systems

  • David C. Mowery
Article

Abstract

The “national systems of innovation” (NSI) framework for analyzing innovative performance and policy has been an important and influential area of scholarship for nearly 20 years, since the first articulation of the concept in Freeman (Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan, 1987). Surprisingly, however, the large literature on national systems of innovation has devoted little attention to the role of defense-related R&D investment and innovation. This paper surveys the role of national defense within national innovation systems, focusing in particular on the United States during and after the Cold War, including a brief description of post-9/11 trends in defense-related and national security investments in R&D. I also summarize some of the abundant literature on the role of defense-related R&D and procurement within specific sectors of U.S. industry, including aircraft, machine tools, and information technology.

Keyword

U.S. defense spending National innovation systems R&D Innovation 

JEL Classifications

O31 O32 O38 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This is a condensed revision of a paper presented at the PRIME/PREST workshop on “Reevaluating the Role of Defence and Security R&D in the Innovation System,” University of Manchester, September 19–21, 2005, and reflects trends and developments as of August 2006. I am grateful to conference participants and to Dr. Andrew James for useful comments, and appreciate Kei Koizumi’s permission to reprint two figures from the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s AAAS Report XXXI: Research and Development in the FY2007 Budget (2006). Research for this paper was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon and Kauffman Foundations, and by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Cooperative Agreement #0531184).

References

  1. Albright, P. D., & Dockery, H. A. (2006). A framework for homeland security research and development: the United States perspective. In A. D. James (Ed.), Science and technology policies for the anti-terrorism era. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alic, J. A., Branscomb, L., Brooks, H., Carter, A., & Epstein, G. L. (1992). Beyond spinoff. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2002). AAAS report XXVII: Research and development in the FY2003 budget. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). AAAS report XXXI: Research and development in the FY2007 budget. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  5. Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. S. (2004). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of innovation and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Best, M. H., & Forrant, R. (1996). Creating industrial capacity: Pentagon-led versus production-led industrial policies. In J. Michie & J. G. Smith (Eds.), Creating industrial capacity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borrus, M. (1988). Competing for control. Boston: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  8. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. (2006). Classified funding in the FY 2007 defense budget request. Retrieved date June 27, 2006, www.csbaonline.org.
  9. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. doi: 10.2307/2393553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowan, R. (1990). Nuclear reactors: A study in technological lock-in. The Journal of Economic History, 50, 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1995). Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development. Research Policy, 24, 851–868. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)00802-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dertouzos, M., Lester, R., & Solow, R. (1989). Made in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Edquist, C. (2004). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of innovation and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flamm, K. (1987). Targeting the computer. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  15. Flamm, K. (1988). Creating the computer. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  16. Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1990). The breakthrough illusion. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.Google Scholar
  19. Furman, J., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899–933. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00152-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldstine, H. H. (1993). The computer from Pascal to Von Neumann (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kevles, D. J. (1977). The physicists. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  22. Kleinman, H. (1996). The integrated circuit industry: A case study of product innovation in the electronics industry. Unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  23. Langlois, R. N., & Mowery, D. C. (1996). The federal government role in the development of the U.S. software industry. In D. C. Mowery (Ed.), The international computer software industry: A comparative study of industry evolution and structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leslie, S. W. (1993). The cold war and American science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lichtenberg, F. (1984). The relationship betweens between federal contract R&D and company R&D. The American Economic Review, 74, 73–78.Google Scholar
  26. Lowen, R. S. (1997). Creating the cold war university. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Malerba, F. (2004). Sectoral systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mazzoleni, R. (1999). Innovation in the machine tool industry: A historical perspective on the dynamics of comparative advantage. In D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The sources of industrial leadership. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, R., & Sawers, D. (1968). The technical development of modern aviation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Mowery, D. C. (1987). Alliance politics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  31. Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1989). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The United States. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (1999). Funding a revolution: Government support for computing research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Science Board. (2003). Science and engineering indicators 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  35. National Science Foundation. (2004). Division of science resources studies research and development in industry: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  36. Samuels, R. J. (1994). Rich nation, strong army: National security and the technological transformation of Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schankerman, M., & Pakes, A. (1986). Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. The Economic Journal, 96, 1052–1076. doi: 10.2307/2233173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stowsky, J. (1992). From spin-off to spin-on: Redefining the military’s role in American technology development. In W. Sandholtz, M. Borrus, J. Zysman, K. Conca, J. Stowsky, S. Vogel, & S. Weber (Eds.), The highest stakes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Teich, A. H. (2006). Impacts of post-September 11 security policies on US science. In A. D. James (Ed.), Science and technology policies for the anti-terrorism era. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  40. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). (1974). Request for comments 0675. Retrieved July 26, 2006 www.faqs.org/rfcs.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haas School of BusinessU.C. BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.NBERCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations