W 00 O D (j}\).) RESE SERV CH E, CON(;‘n_\£‘ESS|ONAL I 3 THE LIBRARY ' OF CONGRESS N G V C’ N E R V ' L} :34 C3 5; 5‘:""»? ail? 33% RAE?i~‘%f” Washington University‘ WASH U fl Y NOV 16 1989 Q ''~‘n.£1'‘i »' “‘ . ;_ 5 3 __ ‘,= Q 4, “J, __ . .. «:53 a 5.9”‘. 0 U E’ Issue Brie 5 Univérsit 3 O10-103939311 rzummrmWirEfiiI:'1/Mmiiimztrr INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IBBOOOS AUTHOR: Wendy H. Schacht Science Policy Research Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM -DATE ORIGINATED 01/10/80 DATE UPDATED 12/09/83 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 1212 cRs>~1 I880005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 ISSUE DEFINITION Concern is growing that U.S. industrial innovation is in some sense declining, with negative consequences for U.s. economic growth, productivity improvement, - and international trade competitiveness. Various recommendations have been made by industry, .academia, and Government for Federal policy options to stimulate industrial innovation, ranging from tax incentives and patent policy to Federal R&D spending. Debate centers on several issues, including: (l) Is U.S. industrial innovation declining in a meaningful sense, relative to historical levels or to the Nation's major trading partners?’ (2) Can the current economic situation be improved by stimulating industrial R&D and innovation? (3) what is the appropriate role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis industrial innovation? (4) What particular measures, if any, should be enacted and what priorities established? BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Technological innovation is the process by which industry generates new and improved products and production processes. It includes activities ranging from the generation of an idea, research, development, and commercialization,'to the -diffusion throughout the economy ~of new and‘ improved products, processes, and services. Research and development are integral parts of the innovation process, but they make no economic contribution unless the knowledge generated is integrated into the production process or manifested in a new or improved product that iS SOld on the. market. The status of industrial innovation in the United States has been a policy concern for more than a decade. Although P.L. 96-480, the -Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act was an attempt to mandate a Federal effort in this area, no large Federal programs directly addressing this concern have been established. The BACKGROUND section of this issue brief reviews events_ associated with policy concerns focused on innovation as a contributor to the economy. It does not treat topics such as tax policy Of regulatory reformr which are not aimed at influencing innovation but have important effects on innovation, nevertheless. In l963, Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary Herbert J. 'Hollomon proposed the Civilian Industrial Technology Program (CIT), an effort to upgrade the technological competence of "backward" medium and small business firms in industrial sectors with comparatively low rates of R&D activity. The following year, an experimental and limited program was authorized by the Congress in textiles and apparel, administered by the Office of Textile and Apparel Technology in the National Bureau of Standards. This program operated through grants and contracts to firms, trade associations, and educational institutions. It was discontinued at the end of l969 when it was decided that its major objectives had been achieved. A follow-up to the CIT} the State Technical Services Act of I965 (P.L. 89-182), was also initiated by Assistant Secretary Holloman. The purpose of the State Technical Services Program (STS) was to promote economic growth ‘by accelerating dissemination and utilization of scientific and technological, knowledge by industry. The STS program operated on a formula matching grant cRs- 2 IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 basis with each of the States and territories, through a single agen designated by the Governor. The program was terminated in FY70 when Congress denied the budget request. In I966, the Report on Technology and the American Economy was published by the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress, which was concerned with the possible role of automation in unemployment. The following year the .Panel on Invention and Innovation, under the Department of Commerce, released the report, Technological Innovation: Its Environment and Management. Also known as the "Cnarpie" report, it made recommendations for Federal policies to stimulate innovation. It has been regarded as the "classic" report in this area because its recommendations have remained valid in the eyes of many students of innovation over the years. Beginning in 1971 the Nixon Administration undertook the New Technological Opportunities Program (NTOP). The purpose of NTOP was to identify ways in which the Government could help stimulate technological innovations to solve critical domestic problems, thus improving the competitive position of the United States in world trade and utilizing the skills of unemployed scientists and engineers. None of the large-scale projects suggested was accepted, and the chief result of the effort was a three-part study program called the Experimental Incentives program, administered jointly by the National Science Foundation (the National R&D Assessment program and the =Experimental R&D_Incentives program) and the National Bureau Of Standards (the Experimental Technology Incentives program). These programs currentlv survive, albeit at relatively low levels of funding. President Nixon delivered to the Congress the first Presidential message on science and technology in March 1972. In this message he announced the proposed Experimental Incentives program, as well as other elements of lwhat he called a partnership between the Federal Government and private industry in an effort to marshal science and technology to strengthen the economy and improve the quality of life. In 1977 the Department of Commerce released a draft report, U.S. Technology Policy, prepared under Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology. Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson. This report made recommendations for improving U.S. technology policy to maximize the United States’ capacity to develop and utilize technology for national purposes. On Sept. 27, the first annual science and technology report, required by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282), was transmitted to Congress by President Carter. It included a discussion of issues related to industrial innovation; including research and development and economic progress, comparative performance of U.S. technolo9Y~ and the status Of basic research in industry. President Carter issued his Message on Science and Technology on Mar. 27, 1979.. In it the President spoke of the need for renewed vinnovation to address national problems of inflation, unemployment, foreign competition, and a decline in the growth of national productivity.- Six°months later, on Oct. 31, 1979, President Carter sent a message to t.: Congress outlining a series of measures designed to "help our country's continued role as the world leader in. industrial innovation." His announcement came as the result of an l8-month—long review'involving hundreds. of participants from the private sector and a large number of Federal CRS- 3 IB80005 UPDATE-12/O9/83 vgencies, in which policy options were developed and selected for the President's consideration. This review was headed by Secretary of Commerce Juanita Kreps and was directed by Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology Jordan Baruch. I - The former President outlined policy initiatives in the following areas: enhancing the transfer of technical information; increasing technical knowledge; improving the patent system; clarifying antitrust policy; fostering the development of smaller innovative firms; improving Federal procurement; improving our regulatory system; facilitating labor/management adjustment to innovation; and maintaining a supportive attitude toward innovation. ' The Department of Commerce was given lead agency responsibility for the implementation of the initiatives outlined by the former President. In response to this, the Department planned for the establishment of Cooperative. Generic Technology Centers and the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology. Both efforts were budgeted to start operations in FY81 prior to the Reagan budget revisions. The Cooperative Generic Technology Centers program planned to provide for in-house R&D, consulting and technical services, information system assistance, training, technical evaluation, and strategic planning in a joint Federal/university/ industry effort to transfer and utilize new innovative technologies. Three technological areas had been selected for the establishment of these Centers in the Department of Commerce including: powder metal processing, welding and joining, -and tribology (friction, wear, and lubrication). The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology was slated to operate within the National Technical Information Service and to concentrate on the marketing of Federal technology to the private’ sector to assist in the commercialization and utilization of federally funded R&D. To supplement the policies Carter identified in his October 1979 proposal, he announced the Economic Revitalization Program on Aug. 28, 1980. This effort detailed economic and tax incentives to spur innovation, issues which were not addressed in the earlier initiatives. Public meetings on innovation were held in connection with the President's message, including meetings sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Oct. 16-17, 1979) and the Franklin Institute (Nov. 29-30, l979). On Dec. 5-6, 1979, the National Academy of Engineering sponsored a Colloquium on Industrial Innovation and Public Policy Options. The purpose of the colloquium was to compare the policy recommendations made in several major recent studies of industrial innovation prepared by private and governmental groups.. with respect to congressional initiatives, three bills which impact on innovation became law in the 96th Congress. The_first of these, P.L. 96-302, the Small Business Administration Authorizations, amends the Small Business Act to authorize the Small Business Administration to make matching grants to State governments; regional units; State-chartered development, credit, or finance organizations; ‘and/or public or private institutions of higher learning to defray 50% of the cost of developing and operating a small business development center program. Created under Title II, the Small Business Development Centers Act of 1980, these centers are to provide, among other things, assistance in technology exchange, innovation, and development. The law also directs the NSF-supported innovation centers and the NASA -industrial applications centers to assist the centers created under this Act.- CRS- 4 ‘ 'IB8OOO5 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 The primary legislation in the innovation area was the passage of t Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of l98O (P.L. 96-480)} Incorporating several initiatives outlined by President Carter in his Industrial Innovation Message (Oct. 31, I979) and mandating several new activities, the law was designed to promote technological innovation for the achievement of U.S. economic, environmental, and social goals. This is to be achieved by (l) the creation of organizations within the executive branch to study and stimulate technological innovation, including the Office of Industrial Technology in the Department of Commerce and the National Technology Board; (2) the promotion of innovation and development through the .establishments of centers for industrial technology (supported by the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation); (3) the improved utilization of federally funded R&D by both State and local governments and the private sector through the establishment of the Center for -the Utilization of Federal Technology at the Department of Commerce and through Offices of Research and Technology Applications at Federal Laboratories; and (4) the institution of an exchange program of scientific and technical personnel between universities, industries, and the Federal laboratories. The bill also creates a National Technology Medal to recognize achievement in innovation. The FY82 Reagan budget contained no funding for the programs mandated under P.L. 96-480. The Center for .the‘ Utilization of Federal Technology, however, was established under the National Technical Information Service. FY83 funds will be available for the Office of Productivity, Technology. and Innovation within the Department of Commerce, but there are no plans to finance the cooperative technology centers. Instead the office will provide information to businesses on ‘productivity and innovation and will act as a broker between industry and academia to encourage (but n fund) interaction between these sectors. Because no additional funding -, required for the establishment of Offices of Research and Technology Applications, most agencies are complying, to some extent, with this mandate. In addition to Stevenson-Wydler, the Congress also passed P.L. 96-517, Amendments to the Patent and Trademark Act. This law sets forth a uniform Government patent policy with respect to giving title to inventions made under Federal contract to small business, universities, and non-profit organizations. The legislation also sets up a procedure for reexamination of patents. Part of the rational behind this law was to encourage the use and commercialization of the results of federally funded research and development. During the 96th Congress other legislative initiatives were made in the form of bills pertaining to innovation by small business; tax incentives for R&D, innovation, and venture capital formation; patents; and institutional changes to encourage innovation. Since a broad range of policies affect innovation, several committees have jurisdiction in this area. Efforts have begun in both the House jand 'Senate to communicate and cooperate across jurisdictional lines. In the House, an Ad Hoc Task Force on Industrial Innovation has been established, .chaired by Representative Stan Lundine to provide discussion sessions for Members interested in industrial innovation. » On June l8, l980, the House Task Force on Industrial Innovation and * a Congressional Research Service jointly sponsorédl a seminar on Trends in Innovation and the U.S. Economy.» Later that day, the House Committee on Science and Technology held a seminar on Research, Productivity, and the National Economy which dealt with many issues associated with innovation. CRS- 5 IBBOOOS UPDATE-l2/O9/83 The Joint Economic Committee initiated a Special Study on Economic Change in l978 to identify major changes in the economy and to analyze their policy implications. In December 1980, the committee released two reports which addressed the issues of research and innovation within this context. These ‘two studies, titled "Research and Innovation: Developing‘ a Dynamic Nation" .and "Research and Innovation: Developing a Dynamic Economy," are cited in the REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS section Of this issue brief. To present a different perspective on the industrial innovation issue, the House Science and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, held six days of hearings on the Human Factor in Innovation and Productivity (September 1981). These hearings investigated the impact of considerations such as management practices, labor activities, and labor-management interaction on increased productivity and economic growth. This was just one in a series of hearings held by different House and Senate committees (see REPORTS hereafter). In the 97th Congress, the major legislative efforts were in the areas of tax incentives to encourage research and development in the private sector and in small business innovation. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-34) provides, in part, for a tax credit of 25% of the qualified research expenditures of a corporation for the taxable year~ over ‘the base period research expenses. Qualified expenditures include in-house expenses (wages, supplies, and the amount paid for use of personal property in research) and contract expenses (65% of any amount paid or incurred to _any person for qualified research). The base period is the thfee ‘taxable' years immediately preceding the taxable year for which the determination is being Jade, with the exception of the transition years. The minimum base period research shall not be less than 50% of the qualified research expenses for the determining year. The bill also allows the 25% tax credit for 65%_ of fall payments to universities to perform basic research. Companies are also permitted a larger deduction for charitable contributions of equipment used in scientific research. The other significant piece of innovation-related legislation passed in the 97th Congress was the Small Business Innovation Research Act (P.L. 97-219). This law establishes a mandatory set-aside of a percentage of each agency's research and development budget be allocated to small companies. This is based upon the assumption that, since small firms are highly innovative and since the United States needs more innovation, the small business sector should receive a greater share of Federal R&D money. Additional activities in the 97th Congress centered on patent policy -- both patent term restoration and the development of a uniform Federal patent policy which gives contractors title to inventions made under Federal funding with the expectation that this will encourage increased commercialization of the results of federally financed R&D. Other bills were introduced which were designed to provide organizational responsibility for innovation and to encourage productivity improvement. To this end, P.L. 97-367, which directs the President to conduct a white House Conference on Productivity to develop recommendations to stimulate U.S. productivity and economic growth, was passed. ISSUE ANALYSIS CRS- 6 IB80005 UPDATE-12/O9/83 Is U.S. industrial innovation declining in some meaningful sense, relative historical levels or to our major trading partners? ‘ U.S. industrial innovation is very difficult to measure directly, due in part to difficulties in defining and identifying innovations. Analysis generally relies on indirect or partial indicators of innovation. These indicators may be classified as input indicators or output indicators. Input indicators are measures of the resources and effort devoted to generatinginnovations; commonly used indicators include R&D expenditures and the level Of manpower engaged in R&D. Output indicators refer t0 the results of the innovation process; they may measure the number of major innovations introduced, the number of inventions patented, or the effects of innovations in terms of earnings, productivity growth, or balance of trade. Since each individual indicator has deficiencies as a measure of innovation, it is necessary to look at a broad range of indicators to see if an overall picture emerges. In several input indicators of innovation in the United States, the following pattern exists: growth through the l960s, leveling or declining in the early l970s, then renewed growth (although not necessarily as rapidly) in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This pattern holds for the following indicators: national R&D expenditures, total and Federal funding for industrial R&D, scientists and engineers engaged in R&D, and small technical companies new public issues. With respect to trends in innovation outputs in the United States a seco*d° pattern appears. The data on number of innovations (although very poor) a. on patented application filings (actually a measure of invention) may be viewed as roughly consistent; they indicate a level of innovation output that is either stable or slightly declining. Another pattern-appears in several of the indicators comparing~ U.S. innovation to that of other nations. The United States still ranks first in absolute level in some indicators, and second or third in others. The growth rates of some innovation indicators of some foreign countries, however, especially Japan and West Germany, are higher than those of the United States, so these countries appear to be making gains relative to the United States. This multi-country pattern appears in a number Of both ~input and«‘ output indicators, including relative number of innovations, patent applications, productivity, balance? of trade in R&D-intensive products, patent balance (the number of patents granted to U.S. nationals ‘by foreign countries minus the number of patents granted to foreign nationals by the‘ United States), national R&D as a ratio of GNP, company-funded industrial R&D as a ratio of value-added in manufacturing, and R&D scientists and engineers per l0,000 workers in the labor force. Thus, in the United States at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s, input indicators are again on the rise, albeit not rapidly in all cases, after an extended period of constancy or decline. Innovation output indicators in the United States, however, appear to be relatively stable or possibly, slightly declining. In the international context, other countries, ‘notably Japan and West Germany, are making gains on the United States in ma indicators of industrial innovation. Different interpretations may be derived from the same or ‘similar data. The National Science Foundation, for example, concluded that, with respect to~ R&D input indicators, the United States still leads the world absolutely, CRS- 7 IBBOOO5‘ UPDATE-12/O9/83 .lthough other countries, particularly Japan and West Germany, are gaining. with respect to technology outputs and international earnings from R&D intensive activities, however, the NSF saw little or no erosion of U.S. technical capability relative to other nations. (See NSF, Science and Technology: Annual Report to the Congress in REFERENCES section.) The statistical data summarized above reflect a number, but not all, of the issues associated with industrial innovation. For example, statistics on the number of inventions and innovations do not shed light on the quality Vof those inventions and innovations in terms of originality, degree of advance in the state of technology, or economic significance. Further, a range of socioeconomic impacts of innovation are not adequately reflected in the statistics, especially social, environmental, and political impacts. will actions to stimulate industrial R&D and innovation help alleviate current economic problems? Despite methodological problems, a large number of economic studies seem to point in a common direction: the contribution of R&D and innovation to economic growth, productivity, and balance of trade is high; the return to private investment in R&D is high compared to alternative investments; and the return to society-at-large is about twice the return to private business. The consistency of statistical relationships found in a large number of economic studies, as well as the predictions of economic theory, lends credence to the existence of causal relationships. Contributions to economic growth and productivity are made at the levels of the individual industrial firm, the industry, and the national economy. Certain types of R&D and innovation activity, however, seem to be more closely related to economic growth than others. Development, as opposed to basic research, for example, is more closely related to short-term economic growth. However, basic research is vital to long-term economic growth as it provides the foundation for many important new innovations. Industry-funded R&D and innovation seem to have been more closely related to economic growth than Government-funded R&D and innovation (which are largely aimed at defense and space functions). Partly for this reason,enhanced industrial R&D and innovation have been recommended by some persons as a weapon in the fight against economic problems troubling the United States, such as slowing productivity growth, inflation, and balance of trade deficits. This is a key issue in various congressional hearings on the subject of industrial innovation and its relation to the U.S. domestic economy and international trade competitiveness. This concern is also the basis for many of the recent efforts aimed at producing policy recommendations for stimulating innovation, including former President Carter's Domestic Policy Review on Industrial Innovation, the passage of P.L. 96-480, the Stevenson-wydler Technology Innovation Act, Title II of P.L. 97-34, the Economic Recovery Tax Act,‘ and P.L. 97-219, the Small Business Innovation Development Act. A A strong proponent of the view that continued decline of U.S. industrial R&D and innovation will have serious negative economic consequences is Michael Boretsky, senior policy analyst at the Office»of Policy Development, Department of Commerce. Boretsky concludes that: The choice of solution to the problems the U.S. faces in technology could radically change the country's socio-economic system and the course of its history. CRS- 8 IB80005 UPDATE-12/O9/83 Continuation of current trends would lead, on the international front, to a decline in its economic and - political position, pressure on the external value of the dollar resulting in periodic formal or informal devaluations, and the gradual worsening of its terms of trade, causing a lowering of the standard of living. On the domestic front, these trends would result in a continued lag in productivity growth, mounting inflationary pressures, lasting high interest rates, pressures for the redistribution of income, and lagging improvements, even a decline, in the present level of the quality of life. ' ~ Other economists who have recommended measures tO stimulate R&D and innovation and t0 reverse current trends in productivity and in other. economic indicators include John W. Kendrick and Dale Jorgenson. Kendrick has recommended a tax credit or other subsidy for privately financed R&D and a substantial increase in Government R&D funding in selected areas, including basic research. Jorgenson testified that tax measures to stimulate capital formation would also stimulate innovation and productivity. (See Senate hearings on industrial innovation oversight in HEARINGS section.) Other economists, however, see little contribution of R&D and innovation to the current U.S. economic slow-down. Edward Denison, associate director, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, for example, found that he°was‘unable to explain a large portion of -the decline in the rate Ofg productivity growth in the United States. He investigated l7 suggested reasons and found that none of them explained a significant portion. T potential reasons investigated included curtailed expenditures for R&D, decline in opportunities for major new advances, decline in ingenuity, deterioration in technology, or increased lag in the application of new technology. Likewise, Richard Nelson has argued that an earlier slowdown in technical advance is not an important source of the current malaise. He argues, rather, that the current stringency in R&D budgets and the growing conservatism of R&D stem from economic malaise. They are consequence rather than cause. In a similar vein, a l979 report of the Council on Wage and Price Stability said that it was difficult to document the contribution of the leveling off of R&D expenditures to slowed productivity growth, especially for the sudden deterioration that occurred after 1973. Among the reasons cited by those who do not believe that there is a strong correlation between declines in R&D and innovation and the current decline in productivity growth is that productivity growth is due to a large number of factors, of which technological change is only one, and that it is difficult to isolate the effect of technological change. Moreover, most of the decline in national R&D expenditures has been due- to reduced Federal funding for defense and space R&D, which most studies have found’ to be “less productivity-enhancing for the economy than commercial R&D. Finally, the long lag times between R&D expenditures and the economic benefits of commercialized innovations have been cited. - The question of whether actions to stimulate industrial R&D and innovation will alleviate current economic problems, however, does not rest solely 1 whether a decline in R&D and innovation caused the problem. Richard Nelst , for example, argues that although declining R&D is a consequence of slow economic growth, rather than vice versa, still "slow and conservative technical advance can make it harder t0 crack_out Of the current rut. And- faster and more innovative technical advance may make it easier t0 get out." CRS- 9 IB80005 UPDATE-12/O9/83 To summarize, the evidence seems to indicate that industrial innovation is important to economic growth and productivity. It is, however, by no means the sole determinant of growth. Nor can immediate results be expected from innovation incentives, since economic effects may only come with long time lags. The causes of the Nation's economic growth and productivity problems are not fully understood. In this context, additional innovation and investment are widely perceived as appropriate, and perhaps necessary, in overcoming the problems. What iS the appropriate role. Of the Federal Government in relation Eg industrial innovation? In a basically capitalist economy, such as that of the United States, industrial innovation for commercial purposes is primarily a private sector activity. The Federal Government traditionally becomes involved only for certain, limited purposes, which may be viewed generally as the correction of perceived economic market imperfections. The issue of whether the Federal Government should become involved more broadly in the development of new commercial technology was -debated at the l979 National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Colloquium on Industrial Innovation and Public Policy Options. Economist Edwin Mills of Princeton University (presenting a report of the Committee for Economic Development) ‘and officials Of the Carter Administration outlined the traditional position with respect to Federal support of new commercial technology development. The traditional position rests on two assumptions: (l) economic market incentives generally provide for inadequate private investment in R&D and innovation; and (2) the decisions necessary in selecting and carrying out technology development projects should be made by those "who will bear responsibility for commercializing the resulting new products or processes. From these assumptions the basic tenets of the traditional position are drawn: (1) the Federal Government should become involved in stimulating R&D and innovation for the development of new commercial technologyk but (2) Federal involvement should be through such indirect means as tax incentives. Exceptions to this general rule include Federal support of basic research generally, R&D in cases where the Federal Government is the primary user (as in the pursuit of Federal mission responsibilities), and certain cases —a such as environment, health, and energy -- where special conditions seem to warrant Federal involvement. Qther participants at the NAE .colloquium, primarily industry representatives, argued that it is necessary for the Federal Government to become more extensively involved in the development of new comercial technology. These arguments were based largely on. perceptions that U.S. industrial innovation is declining, with negative consequences for -U.S. economic growth, productivity improvement, and international trade competitiveness. The passage of several laws in the past two Congresses (P.L. 96-480, P.L. 97-34, P.L. 97-219) seem to indicate that a-change is.underway toward broader Federal involvement in new commercial technology development. Even if it is accepted that the Federal Government should become involved more broadly in the development of‘ new commercial technologY. central .questions remain. How and in what situations should the Government’ become- involved in innovation, and what is the socially optimum level of investment CRS-lo IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 in innovation? Belief that there is underinvestment in innovation would n indicate to policymakers how much underinvestment there is nor indicate what types of policy mechanisms would be appropriate to address the problem. It would not indicate in what technological areas or phases of the innovation process the Government should become involved. Finally, a policy of Government intervention to correct market "imperfections" assumes that the Government is capable of making superior investment decisions, an assumption which past experience indicates may not be justified. Another reason often given for Federal involvement in innovation is that Federal policies in such areas as tax, antitrust, regulation, patents, and procurement have been discouraging industrial innovation. - Government policies that are impediments to innovation, some argue, should be reexamined and changed, where possible, to alleviate their negative impacts on innovation. This was a primary rationale for President Carter's Domestic Policy Review of Industrial Innovation. It should be noted, however, that very little is actually known about the impacts of current governmental policies on industrial innovation and what the effects of changes in policy would be. The ‘effects of policies on innovation are probably not simple and in some cases not uniform. More importantly, most of the policies that are claimed to impede innovation were established to serve other important national goals, such as sufficiency of Federal revenues; industrial competition, and environmental health and safety protection. An example of the difficulty’ of ‘assessing optimum trade-offs would be Government regulations which require cleaner a‘r and water, and increased worker and consumer safety. These results are value and increase well-being, but they cannot be measured directly and do not enter the Gross National Product (GNP). If existing policies are to be changed, it will probably involve difficult tradeoffs between increased innovation and other national goals. ‘ ' Recently, there have been calls for the formulation of a national innovation policy or strategy. A proposal of this nature is the report National Strategy for Technological Innovation. Similarly, a bill has been introduced to create a National Technology Foundation to serve as a focal point for innovation and applied technology within the Federal Government. Such a policy or strategy might have the benefit of focusing attention on an area which is currently the object of unintended impacts of many Federal laws and practices. Such a national policy might be difficult to formulate and implement, however. It should be noted that a science and technology policy for the United States was legislated in Title I of P.L. 94-282, the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act ‘of 1976, which includes reference to innovation. The fact that a policy for industrial innovation is now being called for may indicate that the earlier policy is perceived to be ineffective in stimulating innovation. ‘ What particular measures, if any, should be enacted? A wide variety of policy recommendations has been~ made for stimulating industrial innovation. Most recommendations fit into the follow‘ 1 classifications: tax policy; venture capital; foreign trade; Federal hid funding; economic regulation; environmental, health, safety, and consumer regulation; antitrust policy; labor and manpower policy; patent policy; Federal procurement; information dissemination; and further research -on~ innovation. In general, each recommendation needs t0 be evaluated on itS cns-11 IBBOOOS UPDATE-l2/O9/83 ;erits (that is, using criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, and equity) as well as in relation to other recommendations. Such evaluation is difficult, however, because little is known about how current policies affect innovation, now possible policy changes would affect innovation, and ‘how ‘different policies interact With each other in their effects on innovation. For these reasons, it is also difficult to establish a balanced strategy of selected policies to stimulate innovation or to establish priorities among different measures. n One of the issues to be considered in the evaluation of specific measures is the scope of the policy. some measures are aimed at private industry in general. Others are aimed at specific sectors, such as small business or high-technology industry. A number of bills and public laws would stimulate technology development in specific areas, such as energy: space, and automotives. Another issue in the evaluation of particular measures is whether Federal policy should aim to stimulate business investment in general, or R&D and innovation in particular. For instance, accelerated depreciation for plant and equipment, or an investment tax credit, have been suggested as measures to stimulate general economic activity that would result in enhanced innovation. More R&D or innovation-focused measures include specials tax treatment of R&D lexpenditures, new patent policies, and direct Federal funding of R&D. At a 1979 Colloquium of the National Academy of Engineering on Industrial Innovation and Public Policy Options, there seemed to be widespread agreement among the panelists that policies to'stimulate business investment would be the most effective in stimulating industrial innovation. Such policies, among which tax policies were most prominent, were given higher priority than others, such as regulatory reform and direct Federal support of R&D. Title II of the Economic Recovery Tax Act, P.L. 97—34,_ aims to encourage industry investment in research and development by encouraging tax credits for qualified work in this area. It remains to be determined what impact this law will have on innovation. A related issue is whether policy should seek to stimulate innovation through "technology-push" or "demand—pull." some policies, such as directed Federal funding of' R&D, seek to stimulate innovation by supplementing resources used in the generation of new technology. As pointed out earlier, however, innovation is more than R&D. New technology must be embodied in production processes or new products and introduced to the market before innovation occurs. Some policies stimulate innovation by increasing demand or investment in general. These "pull" policies provide an incentive for the private sector tO invest more Of itS OWH resources in innovation. It iS widely accepted that money invested in innovation projects for which there is no demand is likely to be money wasted. Both demand and supply influences, however, are critical to the innovation process, and it probably would be unwise to concentrate solely on only one set of. these forces. Economists Mowery and Rosenberg recently argued that Government policy fort innovation must not only deal with demand factors, but also with the supply of basic scientific and technological knowledge, as well as institutional aspects of the innovation process.. LEGISLATION Tax Incentives CRS-12 IBBOOOS UPDATE-12/O9/83 H.R. 702 (Stark et al.) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the income tax credit for increased research activities. Requires the allocation of all research and experimental expenditures paid or incurred in activities conducted in the United States source income, for income tax purposes. ‘Introduced Jan. 6, 1983; referred to Committee on ways and Means. H.R. 2591 (Aucoin et al.) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the percentage of costs which may be taken into account by a corporation for purposes of the income tax credit for certain basic research performed under contract by. colleges, universities, and research organizations. Expands the types of costs which may be taken into account for purposes of such credit. Introduced Apr. 19, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3031 (Stark et al.) Amends the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 to make permanent the income tax credit for increasing research activities. Introduced May 17, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3434 (Jones, J., et al.) Work Opportunities and Renewed Competition Act of 1983. Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to facilitate industrial revitalization and employment by improving the efficiency of the investment tax credit Introduced June 28, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4475 (Shannon et al.) High Technology Research and Scientific Education Act of‘ 1983. Improves and extends the R&D tax credit and deductions for donations of scientific equipment provisions of P¢L. 97-34, and has other purposes. Introduced Nov. 18, 1983; referred to Committee on ways and Means. S. 738 (Danforth et al.) V Amends the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 to make the credit for increasing research activities permanent. Introduced Mar. 9, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. 8. 1585 (Danforth et al.) Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to disallow the research and experimentation credit for contributions of certain scientific property used for research. Introduced June 29, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. —. S. 2165 (Danforth et al.) Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to increase research activities, to foster university research and scientific training, and to encourage the contribution of scientific equipment to institutions- of higher education. Introduced Nov. 18, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance.‘ ‘Research and Development H.R. 108 (Edwards et al.) CRS-l3 . ‘ IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 Joint Research Act of 1983. Authorizes‘ the Attorney General to issue certificates of review applicable under the antitrust laws with respect to joint research and development programs. Introduced Jan. 3, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held Sept. 14, 22, 28, 1983. H.R. 1243 (Brown, G.) Provides for a study on economically strategic technologies and identifies and provides for the development of such technologies. Introduced Feb. 3, 1983; referred to Committee on Science and Technology. H.R. 1952 (Synar et al.) _ Joint Research and Development Ventures Act of 1983. Allows businesses to jointly perform research and development. Clarifies the application of antitrust laws to cooperative R&D ventures. Introduced Mar. 8, 1983; referred to Committees on the Judiciary and on Science and Technology. House Science and Technology Committees hearings held July 12, 1983. House Judiciary Committee hearings held Sept. 14, 22, 28, 1983. H.R. 3393 (Sensenbrenner et al.) High Technology Research and Development ‘Joint Venture Act of 1983. Modifies operation of Federal and State antitrust laws for the conduct of certain joint research and development activities, and has ‘other purposes. Introduced June 22, 1983; referred to Committees on ‘the Judiciary and on‘ Science and Technology. Science and Technology Committee hearings held July 12, 1983. House Judiciary Committee hearings held Sept. 14, 22, 28, 1983. H.R. 3641 (Fish et al.) Reduces the extent of liability for violations ‘of Federal and State antitrust laws which arise from joint research and development programs, and has other purposes. Introduced July 25, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held Sept. 14, 22, 28, 1983. H.R..3878 (Moorhead, C., et al.) Promotes research and. development, encourages innovation, stimulates- trade, and makes necessary and appropriate amendments to the antitrust, patent, and copyright laws. Introduced Sept. 13, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held Sept. 22, 28, 1983. H.R. 3975 (Lungren et al.) Limits the application of the antitrust laws with respect to certain joint research and development programs. Introduced Sept. 22, l983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held Sept. 28, 1983. ‘H.R. 4043 (Fuqua et.a1.) . ' Modifies the operation of Federal and State antitrust laws with respect to certain joint research and development activities and has other purposes. Introduced Sept. 30, 1983; referred to Committees on ‘the Judiciary and on‘ Science and Technology. House Science and Technblogy Committee hearings held Oct. 6, 1983. Markup held Nov. 2 and 3, 1983. Reported to House, amended on Nov. 18, 1983.‘ H.R. 4415 (Fuqua) CRS-14 IB80005 UPDATE-12/O9/83) Manufacturing Sciences and Technology Research and Development Act or 1983. Establishes a program to conduct research and development for improved manufacturing technologies, and has other purposes. Introduced Nov. 16, 1983; referred to Committee on Science and Technology. S. 428 (Tsongas et al.) Economically Strategic Industrial Research. and Development Act. Provides for a study on economically strategic technologies and for the identification and development of such technologies. Introduced Feb. 3, 1983; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held June 21 and 23, 1983. S. 568 (Tsongas) - Joint Research and Development Ventures Act. Enhances competition by allowing for joint research and development ventures. Introduced Feb. 23, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held June 29, 1983. S. 697 (Bentsen) Private Sector Productivity Act of 1983. Improves the effectiveness of Federal policies, programs, and activities related to productivity in the private sector and to eliminate unnecessary barriers and obstacles created by the Federal Government to private sector productivity. Introduced Mar. ,7, 1983; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. S. 737 (Mathias et al.) Joint Research and Development Ventures Act of 1983. Allows businesses to perform joint research and development. Clarifies the application of antitrust laws to cooperative R&D ventures. Introduced Mar. 9, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held June 29, 1983. S. 808 (Packwood) Technical Information Clearinghouse Fund Act of 1983. Enhances the transfer of technical information to industry, business, and the general public by amending the Act of Sept. 9, 1950 (15 USC 1151 et seq.) to establish a Technical Information Clearinghouse Fund, and has other purposes. Introduced Mar. 15, 1983; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Reported to Senate favorably, without amendment, on March 31 (S.Rept. 98-48). Passed Senate, without amendment, Apr. 7, 1983. S. 849 (Heinz) Industrial Revitalization Act of 1983. ,Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to encourage the preparation and implementation of adjustment plans for industries materially injured by imports, and has other purposes. Introduced Mar. 18, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. S. 1286 (Gorton et al.) A bill to establish a program to conduct research and development for improved manufacturing technologies, and for other purposes. Introduced May 16; referred to the Senate Committee .on Commerce; Science, a Transportation. Hearings herd June 21 and 23, 1983. ' S. 1383 (Glenn et al.) Joint Research Act of 1983. Authorizes the Attorney General to issue CRS-15 IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 ertificates of review applicable under the antitrust laws with respect to joint research and development programs. Introduced May 25, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held June 29, 1983. S. l56l (Dole) The National Joint Research and Development Policy Act fo 1983. Provides limited antitrust protection to qualified joint research and development ventures. Introduced June 28, l983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. S. l84l (Thurmondby request) Promotes research and development, encourages innovation, stimulates trade, and makes necessary amendments to the antitrust, patent, and copyright laws. Introduced Sept. 14, 1983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held Oct. 26, 1983. Reorganization H.R. 481 (Brown, G., et al.) National Technology Foundation Act. Advances the national prosperity and welfare by creating a National Technology Foundation, and has other purposes. Introduced Jan. 6, l983; referred to Committees on Science and Technology and the Judiciary. ° ‘ - ' ' H.R. 638 (Minish) - National Development Act of l983. Establishes a National Development Bank to provide, among other things, loans for the establishment of businesses and industries to help achieve a full employment economy, and to provide- job training for unskilled and semi-skilled unemployed and underemployed workers. Introduced Jan. 6, 1983; referred to Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. April 28 hearings held. H.R. 990 (Lundine et al.) . National Industrial Development Act. Establishes a National Industrial Development Board for the purpose of formulating policy recommendations for industrial development in the United States. Introduced Jan. 226, 1983; referred to Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. H.R. 1896 (LaFalce) . . Amends the Defense Production Act of 1950 to establish the Bipartisan National Commission on Industrial Competitiveness to study the competitive posture of U.S. industries in world markets and to.report to the President and Congress on ways to improve such posture.- Introduced Mar. 3, 1983; referred to Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. ’ H.R. 2203 (Florio) Competitiveness in International Trade Act of 1983. -Establishes a Department of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, identifies and evaluates the competitive capabilities of the U.S., and develops and utilizes the Nation's resources to revive its position in domestic and foreign commerce. Introduced Mar. 21, l983; referred to Committees on Foreign Affairs, on ways and Means, and on Energy and Commerce. House Committee on Energy" and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism hearings held Apr. 5, 12, 28, May 25, and June 22, I983. ' CRS-l6 I IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 H.R. 2288 (Regula et al.) Establishes a Department of International Trade and Industry. Introduced Mar. 23, 1983; referred to Committee on Government Operations. H.R. 2525 (Pashayan et al.) Establishes a National Commission on Technological Innovation and Industrial Modernization. Introduced Apr. 13, 1983; referred to Committees on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, on Education and Labor, -on Foreign Affairs, on Energy and Commerce, on Judiciary, on Science and Technology, and on ways and Means. ‘ H.R. 2991 (Lundine et al;) Promotes industrial revitalization in the United States by establishing an Economic Cooperation Council which will collect and analyze economic data and make recommendations regarding actions which can be taken to improve the competitiveness and economic vitality of United States industries and by establishing the National Industrial Development Bank which will assist in providing financing for the long-term development of United States industries. Introduced May 12, 1983; referred to Committee. on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 3443 (wirth et al.) . _ Amends the Employment Act of 1946 to establish a National Economic Cooperation Council €o.improve the collection and use of economic data by the Government, to promote economic cooperation between labor, business, a‘ Government, to develop consensus economic policies, and has other purpose; Introduced June 29, 1983; referred to Committees on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs and on Government Operations. H.R. 3481 (Erdreich) Trade Policy and Reorganization Act of 1983. Establishes a Department of Trade and Industry, and has other purposes. Introduced June 30, 1983; referred to Committee on Government Operations. H.R. 3681 (McKinney et al.) Authorizes the establishment of transitional industries trade boards to increase the international competitiveness of U.S. industries, and has other purposes. Introduced July 27, 1983; referred to Committees* on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; on Education and Labor; on Employee Foreign Affairs; on Rules; on Science and Technology; and on Ways and Means. H.R..3712 (LaFalce)‘ Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act. Amends the Defense Production Act of 1950 to revitalize the defense industrial base of the United States. Introduced July 29, 1983; referred to Committees on Banking,» Finance, and Urban Affairs and on Education and Labor. Banking Committee markup held Sept. 14. 1983. ~ H.R. 4245 (Brown et al.) National Professions and Technology Foundation Act of 1983. Advances the national prosperity, quality of life, and welfare, establishes a National. Professions and Technology Foundation, and has other purposes. Introduced CRS-l7 ‘ IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 ct. 28, I983; referred to Committees on Science and Technology and on the Judiciary. H.R. 4432 (Bonker et al.) Establishes a Department of Commerce and Trade, and has other purposes. Introduced Nov. 16, I983; referred to Committees on Government Operations, on Agriculture, on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, on Energy and Commerce, on Foreign Affairs, on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, on Science and Technology, and on Ways and Means. H.R. 4360 (LaFalce et al.) Industrial Competitiveness Act. Improves the industrial competitiveness of the United States. Creates a Council on Industrial Competitiveness and a Bank for Industrial Competitiveness. Introduced Nov. 10, 1983; referred to Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. - H.R. 4361 (LaFalce, et al.) Advanced Technology Foundation Act. Promotes the commercial application and diffusion of advanced technology within industrial sectors. Introduced Nov. 10, l983; referred to Committees on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, and Science and Technology. - H.R. 4362 (LaFalce et al.) Establishes a Council on Industrial Competitiveness and a Bank for Industrial Competitiveness. Introduced Nov. 10, 1983; referred’to Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. 8. l2l (Roth et al.) Establishes a Department of International Trade’ and Industry. Introduced Jan. 26, 1983; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. Hearings held Mar. l7, Apr. 26, May ll, l2, June 24, 29, Sept. l4, l5, 1983. Ordered to be reported favorably with. an amendment in the nature of a substitute on Oct. 4, 1983. Reported to Senate Oct. l8, l983. S. 331 (Byrd et al.) Creates the National Investment Corporation to encourage productivity growth in the U.S. economy through targeted use of financial resources. Introduced_Feb. l, l983; referred to Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. ' s. 718 (Specter) A ‘ Establishes a Commission on High Technology and Employment Potential. Introduced Mar. 8, l983; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. C S. 965 (Levin) National Industrial Development Act. Establishes a National Industrial Development Board to make recommendations on national industrial development priorities and to advise agencies and congressional committees on national industrial policy. Introduced Mar. 24, 1983; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. ~ CRS-18 IBBOOOS UPDATE-l2/O9/83 Patents S. 2l7l (Dole) Amends Title 35 of the United States Code for the purpose of creating a uniform policy and procedure concerning patent rights in inventions developed with Federal assistance, and for other purposes. Introduced Nov. 18, l983; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Tax Incentives: Education and Training H.R. 9l (Donnelly) Computer Equipment Contribution Act of 1983. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an increased charitable contribution deduction for corporations that donate computers to primary and secondary schools. Requires that donations be made under a written plan which provides that 75% of such equipment will go to low- or middle-income schools. Introduced Jan. 3, 1983; referred to Committee on ways and Means. H.R. 701 (Stark et al.) Computer Contribution Act of 1983. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase for one year the maximum allowable charitable contribution income tax deduction for corporations which donate computers during l984 to prima“" and secondary schools. Requires that contributions be nondiscriminatory to geographic areas or economic status of the'donees, and be used directly in the education of students. Introduced Jan. 6, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 836 (McCurdy et al.) Math and Science Education Act. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a credit to certain. employers for compensationd paid to employees with pre—college mathematics or science teaching certificates who are employed for the summer months by such employers or who are employees who teach a limited number of hours. .Introduced Jan. 25, 1983; referred to Committee on ways and Means. H.R. 897 (Schneider) Amends the Internal ‘Revenue Code to provide tax incentives for the training of skilled labor in labor-short industries. Introduced Jan. 25, l983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3095 (Shannon et al.) Amends the Internal Revenue Code of l954 to encourage the contribution of scientific equipment to institutions of higher education and to foster university research and scientific training. Introduced May 23, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4244 (Jenkins) High Technology Vocational Education Act of ~l983. Amends the Internal. Revenue Code of l954 to promote the contribution of high technology equipment CRS-19 IB80005 UPDATE-12/09/83 {o selected vocational and technical programs to promote Qtraining. Introduced Oct. 28, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. S. 108 (Grassley) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to encourage contributions of equipment to post—secondary vocational education programs and to allow a credit to employers for vocational education courses taught by an employee without compensation and for temporary employment of full-time vocational educational instructors.“ Introduced Jan. 26, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. S. 876 (Bentsen) Science Education Improvement Act of 1983. Permits a one-time tax credit for teachers to gain certification in math and science. Introduced Mar. 22, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. S. 1194 (Danforth et al.)/H.R. 3098 (Stark et al.) Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage the contribution of scientific equipment to elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education and to foster university research and scientific training. Introduced May 3, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. Hearings held May 27, 2983. H.R. 3098 referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. ' S. 1195 (Bentsen et al.) ' ° Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to promote the contribution of scientific equipment to elementary and secondary schools and universities and to foster university research and scientific training. .Introduced May 3, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance. Hearings held May 27, 1983. Education and Training For detailed description of additional bills refer to IB82062 -- U.S. Science and Engineering: Education and Manpower. H.R. 1310 (Perkins et al.) - Provides assistance to improve elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education in mathematics and science; provides a national policy for engineering, technical, and scientific personnel; provides for cost-sharing by the private sector in training such personnel; ‘and has other purposes. Introduced Feb. 8, 1983; referred to Committees on Education and Labor and on Science and Technology. Education and Labor Committee markup held February 8 and reported to the House, amended, on Feb. 17, 1983 (H.Rept. 98-6 Part I). House Science and Technology Committee hearings held. Feb. p16, 1983. Committee markup held on Feb. 22, 1983. Bill reported to House, amended, on Feb. 25, 1983 (H.Rept. 98-6, Part II). Measure passed House, iamended, on Mar. 2, I983. Referred to Senate Committee on Labor and Human-Resources Mar. 8. 1983. s. 1285 (Hatch) Improves the quality of mathematics and science teaching and instruction in the United States and for other purposes. Introduced May 16, 1983; referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Reported in. lieu of S. 530, S.'l09l. Reported to Senate, May 16, 1983, without written. report. written report filed June 13. HEARINGS U.S. Govt. U.S. CRS-20 IB80005 UPDATE-l2/O9/83 Congress. House. Committee on the Budget. Task Force on Economic Policy and Productivity. Productivity in the American economy. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. Jan. 12, 13, and 15, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. Congress. House. Committee on the Budget. Task Force on Inflation, and Committee on Science and Subcommittee on Science, Research, Technology. and Technology. Productivity and technical innovation. .Hearing, 96th Congress, lst session. July 23, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. Congress. House. Urban Affairs. Committee on Banking, Finance and Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization. U.S. industrial strategy. Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session. Sept. 22, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,-1982. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Government 96th Subcommittee on Science, and innovation: Congress, Research, and Technology. an engineering perspective. Hearing, lst session. June 5, 1979. Washington, U.S. Print. Off., 1979. A Government and innovation: Congress, lst session. Sept. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. field hearings. 7 and 8, 1979. Hearing, 96th Washington, Government and innovation: Hearings. 96th Congress, and 2, 1979. university-industry relations. lst session. July 31; Aug. 1 Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. The human factor in innovation and productivity. Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.i Off., 1981. 780 p. H.Rf 6910, National Technology Foundation Act of 1980. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. Sept. 9, 10, 16-18, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on International Finance; and Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. Export policy, part 7. Joint Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session on oversight on U.S. high techno1ogy.exports. May 16, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings on industrial innovation oversight, 96th Congress, lst session. Nov. 14, 1979. Senate. Congress. Committee on Commerce, Science, REPORTS CRS-21 IB80005 UPDATE-12/O9/83 and Transportation. Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. Oversight of science and technology policy, part 2. Hearings on oversight of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. Feb. 10 and Apr. 26, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space; and U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. Oversight of science and technology policy, part I. Joint Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session on oversight of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. Feb. 14, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. Committee on Labor and Human RGSOUFCES. COHQFGSS. Senate. . Productivity in the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity. American economy, 1982. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session, Mar. 19 and 26; Apr. 2 and 16, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. ‘ Indus U.S. »Seminar. AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS Congressional record [daily Hll982-12005. trial innovation colloquy. ed.] v. 125, Dec. 13, 1979: Congress. House. Industrial innovation, message from the President of the United States transmitting proposals for fostering industrial innovation. Oct. 31, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 8 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House. Document no. 96-214) Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization. An industrial policy for America: is it needed? April 1983. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. At head of title: 98th Congress, 1st session. print. Committee Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight.and Investigations. Capital formation and industrial policy. July 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. At head of title: 97th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. Analysis of hearings on H.R. 6910, the national technology foundation act of 1980. May 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., At head of title: 97th Congress, lst session. Committee print. l98l. Seminar on research, productivity and the national economy. 96th Congress, 2d session. June 18, 1980. CRS-22 IB80005 UPDATE-12/09/83 Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. --——— Stevenson Technology innovation act of 1980. Report. 96th Congress, 2d session. July 29, 1980. _Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Report no. 96-1199. ‘ --——— Technology and innovation for manufacturing. Proceedings of a conference May 4, 5, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session. Committee Print. ——--- The human factor in innovation and productivity. October 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. At head of title: 97th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. National strategy for technological innovation. October 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 63 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, lst session. Committee Print. U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Research and innovation: developing a'dynamic nation. Special study on economic change, vol. 3. Dec. 29, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 521 p. ' At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session. 'Joint Committee Print. ——--- Research and innovation: developing a dynamic economy. A staff study. December l980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 40 p. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Abernathy, William J.; Clark, Kim B.; and Kantrbw, Alan M. Industrial renaissance. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1983.? 194 p. Boretsky, Michael. Trends in U.S. technology: A political economist's view. American scientist, v. 63, Jan./Feb. 1975: 81. ‘Denison, Edward F. Explanations of declining productivity. growth. Survey of current business, V. 59, Augustgl979: l-24. Freeman, Christopher. The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1983. 250 p. v Kendrick, John W. Productivity trends and the recent slowdown: Historical perspective, causal factors, and policy options. Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1979. (Contemporary economic problems), 52 p. ~ Mansfield, Edwin, et al. Social and private rates of return CRS-23 IBBOOOS UPDATE-l2/O9/83 from industrial innovations. Quarterly journal of economics, V. 91, May 1977: 221-240. Mansfield, Edwin; Romeo, Anthony; Schwartz, Mark; Teece, David; Wagner, Samuel; and Brach, Peter. Technology transfer, productivity, economic policy. New York, WW Norton and Company, 1982. 243 p. Nelson, Richard R. Technical advance and economic growth: Present problems and policy issues. Paper prepared for " an International Conference on Science and Technology organized by the Center for Science and Technology Policy of New York University in March 1979. (mimeo), 15 p. Ramo, Simon. America's technology slip. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1980. 297 p. Reich, Robert. The next American frontier. New York Times Books, 1983. 324 p. U.s. Executive_0ffice of the President. Council of Wage and Price Stability. Productivity, a report submitted to the Congress. Washington, July 23, 1979. (mimeo), 36 p. U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Industrial innovation and its relation to the U.S. domestic economy and international trade competitiveness [by] Mary Ellen Mogee. Washington, Congressional Research SErvice, Oct. 13, 1978. 61 p. ‘ Multilith 78-204 SPR U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Tables of innovation indicators [by] Mary Ellen Mogee. Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service, Dec. 19, 1979. U.S. National Science Foundation. Science and technology: annual report to the Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 67 p.