Article Summary of “science and Technology Policies, National Competitiveness, and the Innovation Divide” by Carin HolroydEssay Preview: Article Summary of “science and Technology Policies, National Competitiveness, and the Innovation Divide” by Carin HolroydReport this essayMay 10, 2011Article Summary“Science and Technology Policies, National Competitiveness, and the Innovation Divide” -Carin HolroydSummaryA technological development have allowed for more efficient transfer of goods and services and has the world on a trend towards a globalized economy; different regions (within and beyond national borders) are interdependent although they have specialized resources and production, each part is essential to complete the final product. Developing countries in Asia, such as China and Taiwan, have promoted their manufacturing industries causing a decline of such industries in the developed world due to their relatively higher production costs. More developed countries have begun shifting focus from their failing manufacturing industries to promoting science, technology, energy solutions, and product development. Likewise, todays economy is dominated by technology giants such as Nokia, RIM, and Google, not the manufacturing, auto, or steel industries as seen not more than a decade ago.
We must analyze different strategies and plans different governments implement and the correlating results on the nations economy. One concern was the “digital divide” that refers to the national differences in reactions to new technologies such as the internet and how different rates of uptake of technology has affected countries development and situations. Perceptions of what government should do have changed over the years back and forth from times of high government involvement during the world wars, to the 80s where the government had a laissez faire attitude and did very little, then back to times of recession where the population demanded for the government bail out and action. In the mid 19th century European empires extended the globe, the United States was on the rise, and the 60s was the dawn of the technological boom in Japan followed by other East Asian countries soon after. The conditions for a free market seem to stand in direct tradeoff with national economic stability. Governments under Regan and Thatcher reduced taxes, regulations, and reduced trade barriers, believed to have triggered the period of prosperity that followed; Smiths invisible hand would regulate and ensure the business cycle and the government should have minimal involvement. Although many credit these changes with economic growth they may also have compromised the nations economic stability. In todays global economy critics argue that national agendas are outweighed by interests and investments that extend national borders; the actions of private corporations collaborating for research, development, and specialized labor inevitably affect the nations as well as the global economy. Again recalling the affect of the “digital divide” that has allowed some nations to excel and grow exponentially while others continue struggling with poverty and stagnant growth. Although wealthier countries may dedicate only a small percentage of their resources to science and technology the same amount is unmatchable by poorer countries continuing to widen that divide.
Having a large population located on a relatively small area of land, Japans economy has long depended on trade, refining imported materials into actualized products. By the 70s Japan was already a leader in manufacturing; the nation experienced a time of financial prosperity for the upcoming decades. The oil crisis in the same decade had the American market open up as smaller cars became preferred and the Japanese auto industry prospered. Japan had accumulated wealth from the manufacturing boom since the 70s and in the 90s the government devoted a total of just under $200 billion dollars to the Science and Technology sectors of the economy enabling them to build the infrastructure for lasting growth. The Japanese government developed 3 basic plans implemented over the last decade to ensure their position as world leaders. Universities and research facilities were created and promoted to ensure skilled labor, to attract great minds from overseas, and increase product development and innovation.
[…]
From an analysis of data from a number of US government agencies, it is clear that the American economic policies favoring big business were designed to strengthen the dominant U.S. economy. During the last decade the U.S. government has created over $1 trillion in economic activity in the United States since 2009 — $1.3 trillion for each of the 13 largest companies listed in the Forbes list
If America were a country that is strong on the global economy, it was in fact a country that was a strong supporter of a globalism that took over from what was then Japan. In that country there was a huge economic and political union that was formed between the American government and its citizens. As a result, American companies would not leave the country and were in a strong position to continue doing what they loved with their companies. America’s economic development, development and political union was based on a comprehensive reform. This was achieved through the creation of one nation for the first time in 2076. It was the U.S. government who led the development of this nation.
From those historical documents, can we establish that all of that came from these same agencies?
[…]
1. [President of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in 1969, says ‘I am proud to say that NASA’s Science and Technology Development Program has grown into one country for the first time in history, the United States of America.[source]
2. In 2003, as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Science, Technology, and Engineering Development Program – the American Space Research Council – NASA was founded. In 2005, under NASA’s leadership, the U.S. entered a relationship with the European Space Agency (ESA). NASA is responsible for the development of and maintenance of the International Space Station, including missions to the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Other US Space Agency projects and NASA programs include:
European space station development program for the next two years, while ESA will take over NASA’s human-rated spaceflight training program in November 2004.
European manned flight training program for the next two years after Space Coast in March 2006; Space Coast was created as part of the European Space Agency’s $7 billion Space Shuttle program to shuttle astronauts to and from the ISS.
A European and US partnership to bring European and other space programs together; The ESA has awarded €1.3 billion to the development of eight European-developed satellites for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as well as nine American and European spacecraft for the US government’s national military program. The funds will be distributed between NASA, ESA and the European Space Agency.
European cooperation in the development and flight training of NASA’s commercial crew, with a mission that is planned to launch in 2010 and potentially carry passengers into the International Space Station within seven years. Although not necessarily a positive development, it makes the US an attractive partner.
In 2008, during the same year that Ronald Reagan secured a US presidential bid, the United States had a new president, Jimmy Carter, who gave America the world’s highest priority for its space program in space. In fact, only 10 years ago, Obama had said that “our country is the biggest space country on Earth.”[source]
Even though space has become a major business for many Americans and for the governments of many nations, many who have visited space in recent years did not like what they saw.
“While some may see the U.S. government as a big, good, shining beacon of American leadership, that is not the case,” said Chris Dufresne, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s National Security Program
Canada has a small population relative to the area encompassed by her national borders and her economy depends strongly on her natural resources. Canada has housed manufacturing infrastructure for trade with the United States, who also buy most of the raw materials that provides the finance to drive the economy. Although natural resources are a strong currency, Canada has seen competition from rising Asian manufacturing industries. Leaders search for alternative sectors to promote jobs and growth. With a decline in the manufacturing industry, developing the science and technology sectors is the most prospective option. Although Canada ranks in the top five for percentage of national GDP invested in science and technology other nations such as Japan were growing more quickly with higher government investment and prerogative. Under the conservative governments prerogative to lower taxes on new businesses to stimulate growth alongside government support for research they hope to invest in strategic and specialized areas of Science and Technology to dominate niche sectors as leaders such as Japan are already so powerful and farther ahead in development, Canadas resources and efforts would be stretched too thin to compete in numerous fields. Government actions to ensure economic stability such as, monitoring banks and corporate actions, cushioned the Canadian economy during the recent recession; during this time of low unemployment, growth in S&T areas, and strong Canadian currency, the decision to dedicate a higher percentage of GDP to R&D would be most well accepted.
Nigeria, having gained independence in 1960 and slavery abolished barely 25 years earlier, is in a far different situation than Japan or Canada. Commodities such as clean water and