Abstract
Our interest in the links between civil and military research and development (R&D) arises largely from the importance attached to technological change in explanations of economic growth and in military force planning. The new knowledge and products developed in formal R&D programmes are an important element in the process of technological change, and in both the civilian and military sectors technological change has been a dynamic force for improved performance and structural change. Studies of economic growth in the United States, for example, attribute more than half of the total economic growth since World War I to technological change rather than to simple increases in factor inputs over time(1). On the military side, technological change has, in the years since World War II, transformed force structure and military strategy and fuelled a qualitative arms race.
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
John W. Kendrick, Postwar Productivity Trends in the United States,1948–1969 (New York: National Bureau for Economic Research, 1973), p.4.
See Adam B. Jaffe, “Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D,” American Economic Review vol.76, No.5, 1986, pp.984–1001
and F.M. Scherer, “Using Linked Patent and R&D Data to Measure Interindustry Technology Flows” in R&D, Patents and Productivity, Zvi Griliches, ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
The government retains “march-in” rights for patents of technology developed with government funds. In many cases the government is the only plausible customer for the new technology, so that there is little incentive to patent.
Frank R. Lichtenberg, “The Relationship between Federal Contract R&D and Company R&D,” American Economic Review, vol.74, no.2, 1984, pp.73–78.
US Comptroller General, International Trade Deficit: Causes and Policy Options for Solutions, GAO/NSIAD-87–135 (Washington: General Accounting Office, April 1987).
William F. Finan, Perry D. Quick and Karen M. Sandberg, The US Trade Position in High Technology: 1980–1986, A Report prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress, Washington, D.C., 1986 (mimeo), p.23.
Edward E. Learner, Sources for International Comparative Advantage: Theory and Evidence, (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1984).
Ibid., pp.35–6.
See Harry G. Johnson, “The State of Theory in Relation to the Empirical Analysis,” in Raymond Vernon, ed., The Technology Factor in International Trade, (New York: NBER, 1970).
Luc L.G. Soete, “A General Test of Technological Gap Trade Theory,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol.117, no.4, 1981, pp.638–659.
Kirsty Hughes, Exports and Technology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology, Innovation and Regional Economic Development, OTA-STI-238 (Washington: US G.P.O., 1984);
OECD, Technology Indicators and the Measurement of Performance in International Trade (Paris: OECD, 1983);
Ann Markusen, Peter Hall and Amy Glasmeier, High Tech America, (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986).
Lester A. Davis, “Technology Intensity of US Output and Trade,” Office of Trade and Investment Analysis, International Trade Administration, department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1982 (mimeo).
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology, Innovation and Regional Economic Development, (Washington: US G.P.O., 1984) (note 12 above)
The two measures differ in the time periods covered and in the base to which the R&D spending is compared. These differences are not important for our basic purpose, which is to identify those hightechnology industries that have a strong military component in their technology intensity.
OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, “Experimental Studies on the Analysis of Output. Part 2. International Trade in High Technology Products: An Empirical Approach” (Paris: OECD, 1983).
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 1984 (Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis, 1984), p.170.
Calculated from data in the International Trade Statistics Yearbook (New York: United Nations, 1983).
OECD, The Semi-Conductor Industry: Trade-related Issues (Paris: OECD, 1985), p.32.
OECD, OECD Science and Technology Indicators. No.2, p.117.
John Tilton, International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1971);
Ernest Braun and Stuart MacDonald, Revolution in Miniature (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
Kenneth Flamm, Targeting the Computer (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1987).
Luc L.G. Soete, “A General Test of Technological Gap Trade Theory,” (ref. 10 above), p.639.
See Judith Reppy, “Military Research and Development and International Trade Performance,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, April 15, 1987 (mimeo).
See OECD, Trends in Industrial R&D in Selected OECD Member Countries (Paris): OECD, 1979).
Kirsty Hughes, Exports and Technology, (ref. 11 above).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reppy, J. (1988). Technology and Trade: Does Military R&D Make a Difference?. In: Gummett, P., Reppy, J. (eds) The Relations between Defence and Civil Technologies. NATO ASI Series, vol 46. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7803-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7803-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8312-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7803-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive