Abstract
In its widest application science policy is concerned with education, the stock of knowledge, its availability and use, and research and development. Technology policy is concerned with the adoption and use of techniques — innovation, diffusion of techniques and their replacement. As is indicated in Table 2.1, however, the borderline between the two policy types is not clearcut.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and references
Carter, C. F. and Williams, B. R. (1964), Government scientific policy and the growth of the British economy, The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 32,p.198.
As far as I am aware there have been no empirical studies of the extent to which different educational institutions in fact lag or lead in the use of techniques.
See, for instance, Iinuma, J. (1973), The introduction of American and European agricultural science into Japan in the Meiji era, in: Technical Change in Asian Agriculture (ed. R. T. Shand ), Australian National University Press, Canberra, pp. 1–8.
Oshima, K. (1973), Research and development and economic growth in Japan, in: Science and Technology in Economic Growth (ed. B. R. Williams ), Macmillan, London, p. 318.
Oshima, K. (see ref. 4) p. 323.
Carter, C. F. and Williams, B. R. (see ref. 1 ) p. 197.
See, for instance, Griliches, Z. (1958), Research costs and social returns: hybrid corn and related innovations, The Journal of Political Economy, 66, pp. 419–31.
Ben-Porath, Y. (1972), Some implications of economic size and level for investment in R and D, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 21, pp. 96–100.
Ben-Porath, Y. (see ref. 8). p. 98.
Carter, C. F. and Williams, B. R., (see ref. 1 ) p. 199.
Eads, G. and Nelson, R. R. (1971), Governmental support of advanced civilian technology: power reactors and supersonic transport, Public Policy, 19, pp. 405–427 (extract: p. 426).
Oshima, K. (see ref. 4) p. 320.
See, for example:
Kemp, M. C. (1955), Technological change, the terms of trade and welfare, The Economic Journal, 65, pp. 457–69.
Duncan, R. C. and Tisdell, C. A. (1971), Research and technical progress — the returns to the producers, The Economic Record, 47, pp. 124–29.
Bhagwati, J. (1958), Immiserizing growth: a geometrical note, Review of Economic Studies (June).
See discussion later of Japanese policy in this regard.
Contributors to the new technology theory of international trade include:
Posner, M. V. (1961), International trade and technical change, Oxford Economic Papers, 13, pp. 323–41.
Freeman, C. (1963), The plastics industry: a comparative study of research and innovation, National Institute Economic Review, (Nov.), pp. 22–62.
Hirsch, S. (1972), The United States electronics industry in international trade, text in: The Product Life Cycle and International Trade (ed. L. T. Wells Jr.), Harvard University, Boston, pp. 39–52.
Hufbauer, G. C. (1966), Synthetic Materials and the Theory of International Trade, Duckworth, London.
Wells, G. C. (1969), Test ofa product cycle model of international trade: U.S. exports of consumer durables, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83, pp. 152–62.
Gruber, W., Mehta, D. and Vernon, R. (1967), The R and D factor in international trade and international investment of United States industries, Journal of Political Economy, 75, pp. 20–37.
Lowinger, T. (1975), The technology factor and the export performance of U.S. manufacturing industries, Economic Enquiry, 13, pp. 221–36.
Teubal, M. (1975), Toward a neotechnology theory of comparative costs,Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, pp. 414–31.
Gruber, W., Mehta, D. and Vernon, R. (see ref. 15f ) pp. 20–21.
Vernon, R. (1966), International investment and international trade in the product cycle, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, pp. 190–207.
Baldwin, W. and Childs, G. L. (1969–70), The fast second and rivalry in research and development, Southern Economic Journal, 36, pp. 18–24.
Baldwin, W. and Childs, G. L. (see ref. 18 ) p. 21.
If a new product is rapidly imitated by others and if they have advantages such as cost or marketing advantages, the innovator may gain little or even lose while the imitators profit handsomely.
This is a similar theory to the one advanced by Marris in his discussion of the rate ofgrowth of the firm and its profitability. See Marris, R. L. (1964), The Economic Theory of `Managerial’ Capitalism, Macmillan, London; and Wildsmith, J. R. (1973), Managerial Theories of the Firm, Martin Robertson, London, Ch. 7.
R and D expenditure may be partly a function of an economy’s growth rate and with a lag may feed back to increase that growth rate. This is particularly likely for industrial R and D since many firms devote a relatively fixed percentage, e.g. 2%, of their sales revenue to R and D.
Sec, for instance:
McConnell, C. R. and Peterson, W. C. (1965), Research and development: some evidence for small firms, Southern Economic Journal, 31, pp. 356–64.
Vernon, J. M. and Gusen, P. (1974), Technical change and firm size: The Pharmaceutical industry, Review of Economics and Statistics, 56, pp. 294–302.
Rosenberg, J. B. (1976), Research and market share: a reappraisal of the Schumpeter hypothesis, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 25, pp. 101–12.
Kamien, M. I. and Schwartz, N. L. (1975), Market structure and innovation: a survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 8, pp. 1–37.
Carter, C. F. and Williams, B. R. (see ref. 1.).
Baldwin, W. and Childs, G. L. (see ref. 18).
One of the problems with this presentation is that ideas are not homogeneous. However, the presentation is of heuristic value.
In other words scientific activity at home and home-produced ideas complement rather than compete with the import of ideas up to a point.
Up to a point the quantity of imported ideas may complement the quantity of ideas produced at home.
The efficient set is the set for which it is impossible to increase the quantity of imported ideas without reducing the quantity produced at home, and vice versa.
These curves are similar to iso-revenue curves or indifference curves in economic analysis.
For review of some of the relevant economic literature see:
Pearce, D. W. (1976), Environmental Economics, Longman, London.
Tisdell, C. (1978), A further review of pollution control, Research Report or Occasional Paper No. 44, Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, June.
This is ‘second best’ because unfavourable externalities may continue to exist and this may not be the most efficient way of reducing the overspills.
See, for instance, Kahn, A. E. (1966), The tyranny of small decisions: market failures, imperfections and the limits of economies, Kyklos, 19, pp. 23–47.
Recent Japanese science policy has been greatly influenced by this consideration. See Tisdell, C. (1975), An Australian review of Japanese science and energy policy, The Australian Quarterly, 47, pp. 44–61.
For example, see Nordhaus, W. and Tobin, J. (1970), Is Growth Obsolete? Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 319, December, Yale University, New Haven.
For a discussion of these issues, see Mansfield, E. (1968), Defence, Science, and Public Policy,Norton, New York, Parts 2 and 3.
For an interesting study of spin-off and interaction in research, see Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W. G., and Jevons, F. R. (1972), Wealth from Knowledge, Macmillan, London, especially pp. 24–32.
These arguments are summarized in Pavitt, K. (1976), Government support for industrial research and development in France: theory and practice, Minerva, 14, pp. 331–54.
The boundary lines are the ridge lines of production functions. See, for example:
Leftwich, R. H. (1976), The Price System and Resource Allocation, 6th edn, Dryden Press, Hinsdale, Ch. 8.
Tisdell, C. (1972), Microeconomics: The Theory of Economic Allocation, John Wiley, Sydney, p. 143.
In production theory such combinations correspond to the use of more resources than are needed to produce the quantity of output achieved.
Toulmin, S. (1965), The complexity of scientific choice II: Culture, overheads or tertiary industry? Minerva, 4, p. 158.
Toulmin, S. (see ref. 42) p. 159.
Johnson, H. G. (1965), Federal support of basic research: some economic issues, in: Basic Research and National Goals, US Government Printing Office, Washington, p. 132.
Toulmin, S. (see ref. 42).
See Saunders, C. T. (1977), Concentration and specialization in Western industrial countries in: Industrial Policies and Technology Transfers between East and West (ed. C. T. Saunders), Springer Verlag, Vienna.
Scherer, F. M. (1965), Government research and development programs, in: Measuring Benefits of Government Investments (ed. R. Dorfman ), Brookings Institution, Washington, and comments by E. Mansfield in the same volume.
Johnson, H. G. (1975), Technology and Economic Interdependence, Macmillan, London, pp. 26–27.
See, for instance, Tisdell, C. (1977), The government, education and research as factors in the development of Newcastle and the Hunter, in: The Future Economic Prospects for Newcastle in its Region (ed. J. Hill ), Institute of Industrial Economics, University of Newcastle, pp. 123–42.
Japan is planning a science city away from Tokyo.
Johnson, P. (1973), Co-operative Research in Industry: An Economic Study, Martin Robertson, London.
Johnson, P. (see ref. 51).
King, A. (1974), Science and Policy: The International Stimulus, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 81
King, A. (see ref. 53). p. 82.
Boxer, A. H. (1969), Experts in Asia,Australian National University Press, Canberra, p. 31 et seq.
See, for instance, Frank, A. G. (1971), Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America,Pelican, Harmondsworth, and other references given in Ch. 1, note 42.
For a stimulating discussion of appropriate technologies for LDCs see Schumacher, E. F. (1973), Small is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered, Harper and Row, New York; and by the same author, The Age of Plenty: A Christian View, St. Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1974.
See for example, Mandel, Ernst (1975), Late Capitalism, NLB, London.
The World Bank (1980), World Development Report 1980, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 112–13.
For instance Helen Hughes and colleagues argue that official exchange rates compared to purchasing parity exchange rates result in official estimates of growth rates of income in LDCs being understated relative to those of industrialized countries. See
Hughes, Helen (1980), Achievements and objectives of industrialization, in: Policiesfor Industrial Progress in Developing Countries (edsJ. Cody, H. Hughes and D. Wall), Oxford University Press.
Hughes, Helen (1980), Australian international economic perspectives, ANZAAS Paper, May, World Bank (mimeo).
For background references on Lindblom’s thesis see Ch. 1, note 23.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 C. A. Tisdell
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tisdell, C.A. (1981). Science Policy Options and Priorities. In: Science and Technology Policy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6932-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6932-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-6934-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-6932-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive