Part of the Library of Public Policy and Public Administration book series (LPPP, volume 1)


As these chapters have shown, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan share certain similarities in their approaches to R&D policy while at the same time they exhibit considerable divergence. The similarities are anchored by the shared adoption of a science- and technology-based strategy for national competitiveness. From this common high-level policy strategy, these nations have independently developed some parallel and yet other quite dissimilar policy implementation approaches.


Industrial Policy National Competitiveness Auto Maker Research Funding System Century Battle 
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.


  1. Boer, F. Peter. “R&D Planning Environment for the ′90s — America and Japan,” Research Technology Management. Vol. 34, No. 2, 1991, 12–15.Google Scholar
  2. Bruce, Robert V. The Launching of Modern American Science: 1846– 1876. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. Cuomo Commission on Trade and Competitiveness. The Cuomo Commission Report: A New American Formula for a Strong Economy. New Yok: Simon & Schuster, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. Daniels, George H. Science in American Society: A Social History. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1971.Google Scholar
  5. Daniels, George H. American Science in the Age of Jackson. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  6. Dickson, David. “Concern and Anger Greet Shift of UK Science Unit Into Industry Agency,” Nature. Vol. 376, 13 July 1995, 103–104.Google Scholar
  7. Dupree, A Hunter. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Politics and Activities to 1940. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  8. Gabor, Andrea. The Man Who Discovered Quality: How W. Edwards Deming Brought the Quality Revolution to America — The Stories of Ford, Xerox, and GM. New York: Penguin Books, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. Greenberg, Daniel S. The Politics of Pure Science: An Inquiry Into the Relationship Between Science and Government in the United States. New York and Toronto: Plume Books, 1967.Google Scholar
  10. Lederman, Leonard L. “Science and Technology Policies and Priorities: A Comparative Analysis,” Science. Vol. 237, 4 September 1987, 1125–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Magaziner, Ira C. and Reich, Robert B. Minding America’s Business: The Decline and Rise of the American Economy. New York: Vintage Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, Ben R. and Irvine, John. Research Foresight: Priority-Setting in Science. London: Pinter Publishers Limited, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. National Research Council, the Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: Public Service and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. Prestowitz, Clyde V. Trading Places: How We Are Giving Our Future to Japan and How to Reclaim It. New York: Basic Books, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. Rahm, Dianne. “Federal Efforts to Enhance U.S. Competitiveness: The Encouragement of Domestic Cooperation,” Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 18, No. 1, Fall 1989,89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reich, Robert B. The Work of Nations. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. Swinbanks, David. “MITI Clears New Path for Japan’s Universities,” Nature. Vol. 376, July 1995, 110.Google Scholar
  18. Thurow, Lester C. The Zero Sum Solution. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Economic and Social ResearchLondonUK
  3. 3.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations