Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development

Abstract In this paper we argue that the ‘standard’ view of the relationship between military and civilian technology is too simple and cannot account for the variety of historical experiences. In order to understand this relationship, attention must be paid to two things: that technologies have a lifecycle, in different parts of which different types of learning are important; and that the relationship between military and civilian sectors will change depending on the nature of the technology involved, in particular whether it is a process or a product technology. In addition, the standard view does not pay heed to the fact that there are specific organizational requirements to realize any potential cross-benefits. We describe a framework with which to analyse the various features of the relationship taking into account these considerations.

[1]  John A. Alic,et al.  Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World , 1992 .

[2]  Richard B. Freeman,et al.  Supply and Salary Adjustments to the Changing Science Manpower Market: Physics, 1948-1973 , 1975 .

[3]  David C. Mowery,et al.  New Developments in U.S. Technology Policy: Implications for Competitiveness and International Trade Policy , 1989 .

[4]  J. Fagerberg.  International Competitiveness: Errata , 1988 .

[5]  J. Alic.  The federal role in commercial technology development , 1986 .

[6]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth , 1990 .

[7]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Economic policy and technological performance , 1987 .

[8]  Paul A. David,et al.  Economic policy and technological performance: Some new standards for the economics of standardization in the information age , 1987 .

[9]  Frank R. Lichtenberg,et al.  The Impact of the Strategic Defense Initiative on US Civilian R&D Investment and Industrial Competitiveness , 1989 .

[10]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Perspectives on technology , 1977 .

[11]  Carl Barus.  Military Influence on the Electrical Engineering Curriculum Since World War II , 1987, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[12]  Willem A. Smit.  Steering the process of military technological innovation , 1991 .

[13]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Technological diversity and coherence in Europe: an analytical overview , 1992 .

[14]  K. Hartley,et al.  Defence R&D and crowding-out , 1990 .

[15]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the black box , 1983 .

[16]  Gregory Tassey,et al.  Technology infrastructure and competitive position , 1992 .

[17]  R. Cowan.  Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in , 1990, The Journal of Economic History.

[18]  J. Bernard,et al.  Deference Innovation Stock And Total Factor Productivity , 1990 .

[19]  Irvin C. Bupp,et al.  Light water : how the nuclear dream dissolved , 1979 .

[20]  James N. Danziger.  Technology and Productivity , 1979 .

[21]  R. Cowan.  TECHNOLOGICAL VARIETY AND COMPETITION: ISSUES OF DIFFUSION AND INTERVENTION , 1989 .

[22]  Dominique Foray,et al.  L'évaluation économique de la recherche et du changement technique , 1991 .

[23]  J. Bernard,et al.  Defence Innovation Stock and Total Factor Productivity , 1992 .

[24]  R. Cowan.  Tortoises and Hares: Choice among Technologies of Unknown Merit , 1991 .

[25]  Ariel Pakes,et al.  Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During Thepost-1950 Period , 1985 .