The starting point to consider a governmental design for informational society which meets the proposed criterion of promoting a high rate of discovery, invention and innovation is to examine the evolution of the political economy since 1790. In this examination a consideration of the development of incentives and institutional arrangements for discovery, invention and innovation is important in order to forecast future advances. Hence, the new governmental design should focus on making improvements which are unlikely to evolve from the current design.


Public Good Political Economy Federal Government Judicial Review Information Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References 2

  1. 1.
    For a discussion of the economic conditions at the end of the colonial period see any text in American economic history. For example, Hughes, J., 1990, American Economic History, 3rd edition, (Scott, Foresman and Company: Glenview)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The weaknesses of the confederation are detailed in the Federalist Papers Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor, T., 1955, Grand Inquest, (Simon and Schuster: New York)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roche, John P., 1961, The Founding Fathers, American Political Science Review, Vol 55Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For example see modern copy of: Hobbes, Thomas, 1640, Leviathan, Locke, John, 1705, Of Civil Government and Rousseau, J., 1763, The Social Contract Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    While the concept of a judicial review is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, a majority of the framers believed the judiciary had this power. See Sundquist, James L., 1986, Constitutional Reform and Effective Government, (The Brookings Institution, Washington)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Historical Statistics, Ser. F10-21, p139. For a summary see North, D.C., 1974, Growth & Welfare in the American Past, (Prentice-Hall,Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    North, Douglass C., 1965, The Role of Transportation in the Economic Development of North America, Les grandes voies maritimes dans le monde XVe–XIXe siecles, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Veysey, Laurence R., 1965, The Emergence of the American University, (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gunderson, G., 1976, A New Economic History of America, (McGraw-Hill: New York)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenberg, Nathan, 1972, Technology and American Economic Growth, (Harper Torchbooks: New York)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See reference 11 and for comment on McCormick see: Bruchey, Stuart, 1975, Growth of the Modern American Economy, (Dodd, Mead and Company: New York)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For a survey of the innovations in business organization, see: Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., 1977, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    That is not to say that the social rate of return on government’s efforts to promote transportation faster than the market would have, was necessarily positive. For example, in the case of canals, see: Ramson, Roger, 1964, Canals and Development: A Discussion of the Issues, American Economic Review, LIV, NO. 2 15. Gwynne-Thomas, E. H., 1981, A Concise History of education to 1900 A.D., (University Press of America, Inc.: Washington)Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Posner, R. A., 1986, The Economic Analysis of Law, 3rd Ed, (Little Brown, Boston)Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Hazard, L., 1971, Law and Changing Environment: History and Process of Law, (Holden-Day: San Francisco)Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    See reference 10Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    See: Berle, A. A. and G. C. Means 1933, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, (The Macmillan Company, New York), Hurst, J. W., 1970, The legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the United States, 1780–1970, (University press of Virginia: Charlottesville) and Liebhafsky, H. H., 1971, American Government and Business, (John Wiley & Sons, Hew York)Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Stanback, T., P. Bearse, T. Voyelle and R. Karasek, 1981, Services the New Economy, (Allanheld, Osmun Publishers: Totowa, NJ)Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    For a theory concerning the growth of government, see: Higgs, R., 1987, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical episodes in the growth of American government, (Oxford University Press: New York)Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    For a contrast between the early liberal view of the Progressive period with the radical view compare: Hofstadter, R., 1955, The Age of Reform, (Alfred A. Knoop: New York) with Kolko, G., 1963, The Triumph of Conservatism, (The Free Press: New York). Subsequent writers have tended to balance the two positions.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    For a survey of the depression see: Mitchell, B., 1960, Depression Decade: From New Era through New Deal 1929–1941 (Rinehart & Company, Inc.: New York)Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    For example for a survey of the Johnson’s Great Society see: Divine, R. A. (ed), 1981, Exploring the Johnson years, (The University of Texas Press: Austin) and for a survey of the increase in regulation see: Weidenbaum, M.L., 1977, Business, Government, and the Public, (Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs)Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 1985, 105 S.Ct 1005. This decision reflects the cumulative changes in Supreme Court interpretation of the 10th amendment.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Stine, Jeffrey K., 1986, A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940–1985, Report prepared for the task force on science policy, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, (U.S. Government Printing office, Washington, DC) NSF report on science policyGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    See reference 11Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    For example, by 1880 a majority of engineers were university trained. See: Ray, John, 1979, The application of science to industry, in Oleson, A. and J. Voss (eds.) The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920, (The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore)Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    For a reference to the development of industrial research see: Lewis, W. D., 1967, Industrial Research and Development in Kranzberg, M. and C. W. Pursell Jr. (eds), Technology in Western Civilization Vol II (Oxford University Press: London). For an interesting account of the development of industrial research at GE and Bell see: Reich, Leonard S., 1985, The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1962 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Appel, K. and W. Haken, 1977, The Solution of the Four color-map Problem, Scientific American, October, pp 108–121Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    A famous article of the social rate of return of agricultural research is: Griliches, Z., 1958, Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations, Journal Political Economy, October, pp 419–31.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Dertouzos, Lester, and Solow point out that one of the deficiencies of American manufacturing managers is the failure to innovate new strategies. See: Dertouzos, M., R Lester and R. Solow, 1989, Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, (The MIT Press: Cambridge)Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Knezo, Genevieve, 1986, Research Policies for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Report prepared for the task force on science policy, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, (U.S. Government Printing office, Washington, DC) NSF report on science policyGoogle Scholar
  33. 34.
    The ruling in US v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 gave administrative agencies this power.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    For a discussion, see, for example: Roethlistberger, F. J., 1941, Management and Morale, (Harvard University Press: Cambridge)Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Hausman, J. A. and D. A. Wise (eds), 1985, Social Experimentation, (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago)Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Sundquist, James L., 1982, The Decline and Resurgence of Congress, (The Brookings Institution: Washington)Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Grubb, W. N., D. Whittington, and M Humphries, 1984, The ambiguities of benefit-cost analysis: An evaluation of regulatory impact analyses under executive order 12291, in Smith, V. K. Environmental Policy under Reagan’s Executive Order: The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis, (The University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill)Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Olson, Mancur, 1971, The Logic of Collective Action, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge)Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    One of the first public choice theorists to consider individual incentives in politics was Downs. See: Downs, A. 1957, An Economic Theory of Democracy, (Little, Brown, Boston) The analysis presented is a variant of bounded rational choice theory. For a readable, nontechnical survey of current social choice theory the interested reader might consider: McLean, Iain, 1987, Public Choice: an Introduction, (Basil Blackwell: Oxford)Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    Logrolling does not necessarily converge to a stable solution. For example, see: Dummett, M., 1984, Voting Procedures, (Clarendon Press: Oxford)Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Dolan, R. and H. Lins, 1987, Beaches and Barrier Islands, Scientific American, Jul, pp68–77Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    The usual connotation of government efficiency is waste in the sense of using an excessive amount of resources to produce a given amount of output. A second type of inefficiency is producing an inappropriate amount of the public good. Niskanen argues that budget maximisation by bureaucrats leads to excessive amounts of public goods. See: Niskanen, W. A., 1971, Bureaucracy and Representative Government, (Aldine: Chicago)Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    See Hume, David, 1739, Treatise of Human Nature Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    Popper, Karl R., 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Basic Book, Inc.: New York)Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk, 1985, The Politics of Deregulation, (The Brookings Institute: Washington)Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    For example, reference 31 contains a proposed program of innovations to improve manufacturing productivity.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    Friedman, M and A. Schwartz, A History of Monetary Policy since 1867–1960, (Princeton University Press, Princeton)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Personalised recommendations