Abstract
America continues to be ranked among the most innovative high-tech economies but has historically lacked an integrated high-tech policy. One of the distinct features of the U.S. approach was the coexistence of many government measures – including massive military procurement – that promoted innovation and technology. Another driving force behind the historical dynamism of the U.S. high-tech economy is the country’s culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking. A more encompassing approach was introduced in 2009, when the Obama Administration released a Strategy for American Innovation. This initiative contains many provisions that are relevant for high-tech industries. After a general discussion, the chapter focuses on the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, which illustrates the relevant features of the U.S. innovation system and of the recent initiatives. ICT reveals the complexity of aligning measures in interrelated areas in order to design a coherent system of policies and reflects the challenges that need to be overcome by present and future public sector initiatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Stevenson-Wyler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, Public Law 96–480, October 21, 1980..
- 2.
Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980, Public Law 96–517, December 12, 1980.
- 3.
E.g., “Innovation’s Golden Goose,” The Economist, December 14, 2002, p. 3.
- 4.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of 2010, Public Law No: 111–358, January 4, 2011.
- 5.
Authorised in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–115, Feb. 19, 2009.
- 6.
- 7.
See http://www.internet2.edu/about, retrieved 5 April 2011.
- 8.
The history of U.S. telecommunications policy reform is multifaceted and evolved in a highly complicated policy-making environment with many checks and balances between the main actors. This system facilitates challenges to existing policies but makes broad and sweeping overhauls more complicated. Compared to the European Union (EU), U.S. reform started much sooner but unfolded in a much more gradual and slower pattern.
- 9.
Specifically, the FCC adopted three principles for fixed broadband access network operators: (1) no blocking of traffic and applications, (2) transparency of rules governing network management, and (3) non-discrimination, except in relatively limited scenarios, such as security concerns or binding capacity shortages, where network management is required. Mobile operators are subject to no blocking and transparency obligations but not the third one (FCC 2010).
- 10.
Throughout most of the twentieth century, Sweden held the top position with regard to ICT infrastructure availability and efficiency.
- 11.
Researchers at Bell Laboratories invented the transistor and made major contributions in a number of fields, including laser technology (used in fiber communication networks), mobile cellular and wireless local area technology, the C programming language, and sensor and imaging technology. Seven Physics Nobel Prizes were awarded to researchers at Bell Labs. After the break-up of the Bell System in 1984, Bellcore (now Telcordia) was spun-off from Bell Labs to produce similar research services for the newly established Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) that focused on the provision of local exchange carriers. In 1996, AT&T divested AT&T Bell Labs, integrating it into a new company, Lucent Technologies. Lucent Technologies became part of Alcatel-Lucent in 2006.As a consequence of the merger, Lucent Bell Laboratories and Alcatel Research and Innovation were integrated into a new Bell Laboratories. However, in 2008, only four physicists remained employed in basic research functions and the company announced that it would withdraw from basic research to focus on more immediately marketable areas such as networking technology and high-speed electronics.
References
Alic, J. A., Mowery, D. C., & Rubin, E. S. (2003). U.S. technology and innovation policy: Lessons for climate change. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Anderson, C. (2009). Free: The future of a radical price. New York: Hyperion.
Anderson, R. D., & Andes, S. M. (2009). The Atlantic century: Benchmarking EU and U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Washington, DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Standing on the shoulders of midgets: The U.S. Small business innovation research program (SBIR). Small Business Economics, 20(2), 129–135.
Bauer, J. (2005). Unbundling policy in the United States: Players, outcomes and effects. Communications & Strategies, 57, 59–82.
Bauer, J., & Bohlin, E. (2008). From static to dynamic regulation: Recent developments in U.S. telecommunications policy. Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, 43(1), 38–50.
Beinhocker, E. D. (2006). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Berejka, M. (2011). Multi-stakeholder-ism: Making it fly. Paper presented at the Silicon Flatirons Conference The Digital Broadband Migration: The Dynamics of Disruptive Innovation, February 13–14, 2011, Boulder, Colorado.
Berkshire Hathaway (2002). Annual report. Omaha, NE.
Block, F., & Keller, M. R. (Eds.). (2011). State of innovation: The U.S. government's role in technology development. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers.
Brock, G. W. (1981). The telecommunications industry: The dynamics of market structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brock, G. W. (1994). Telecommunications policy for the information age: From monopoly to competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brock, G. W. (2003). The second information revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cowan, T. (2010). The great stagnation: How America ate all the low-hanging fruit of modern history, got sick, and will (eventually) feel better. New York: Dutton.
Falch, M., Henten, A., & Vandrup, K. (2010). Mobile internet developments in Europe, East Asia, and the US. In A. Gentzoglanis & A. Henten (Eds.), Regulation and the evolution of the global telecommunications industry (pp. 317–340). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
FCC (2010). In the matter of preserving the open internet; broadband industry practices. GN Docket No. 09–19; WC Docket No. 07–52, Report and Order, December 23, 2010 (Preserving the Open Internet Order). Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
Flamm, K. E. (1988). Creating the computer: government, industry and high technology. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Fransman, M. (2010). The new ICT ecosystem: Implications for policy and regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frieden, R. (2005). Lessons from broadband development in Canada, Japan, Korea and the United States. Telecommunications Policy, 29(8), 595–613.
Greenstein, S. (2005). The economic geography of Internet infrastructure in the United States. In S. Majumdar, I. Vogelsang, & M. Cave (Eds.), Handbook of telecommunications economics, volume 2: Technology evolution and the Internet (pp. 287–372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Grindley, P., Mowery, D. C., & Silverman, B. (1994). SEMATECH and collaborative research: Lessons in the design of high-technology consortia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(4), 723–758.
White House. (2009). A strategy for American innovation: Driving towards sustainable growth and quality jobs. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House.
White House. (2011). A strategy for American innovation: Securing our economic growth and prosperity. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House.
Irwin, D. A., & Klenow, P. J. (1996). High-tech R&D subsidies: Estimating the effects of Sematech. Journal of International Economics, 40(3–4), 323–344.
Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Langlois, R. N. (2002). Computers and semiconductors. In B. Steill, D. G. Victor, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic performance (pp. 265–284). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2009). Bringing science to market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR awards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(3–4), 381–402.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39(5), 589–601.
Link, A. N., Teece, D. J., & Finan, W. F. (1996). Estimating the benefits from collaboration: The case of SEMATECH. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(5), 737–751.
Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The U.S. National Innovation System. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National Innovation Systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 29–75). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mowery, D. C., & Simcoe, T. (2002). The Internet. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic performance (pp. 229–264). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University–industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Negoita, M. (2011). To hide or not to hide? The advanced technology program and the future of U.S. civilian technology policy. In F. Block & M. R. Keller (Eds.), State of innovation: The U.S. government’s role in technology development (pp. 77–95). Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers.
NSF. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Industrial Research and Development.
NTIA. (1991). The NTIA infrastructure report: Telecommunications in the age of information. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
OECD. (2005). Governance of innovation systems. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2010). Main science and technology indicators, OECD science, technology and R&D statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00182-en, (Retrieved 24 April 2011). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Rafferty, M. (2008). The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy, 37(1), 29–40.
Ruttan, V. W. (2006). Is war necessary for economic growth? Military procurement and technology development. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, V. (2001). Die Transformation der Telekommunikation. Vom Staatsmonopol zum globalen Markt (1800–2000). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Stoneman, P. (2010). Soft innovation: Economics, product aesthetics, and the creative industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). U.S. bureau of economic analysis news, U.S. international trade in goods and services, December 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Van Schewick, B. (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the small business innovation research program. RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82–100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bauer, J.M. (2012). Entrepreneurship and Government in U.S. High-Tech Policy. In: Bauer, J., Lang, A., Schneider, V. (eds) Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12563-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12563-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12562-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12563-8
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)