Cited by 122Innovation Policy and R&DTechnology Assessment and ManagementFirm Innovation and Growth

Competing in Advanced Manufacturing: The Need for Improved Growth Models and Policies

Tassey, Gregory·2014·Journal of Economic Perspectives

Abstract

The United States has underinvested for several decades in a set of productivity-enhancing assets necessary for the long-term health of its manufacturing sector. Conventional characterizations of the process of bringing new advanced manufacturing products to market usually leave out two important elements: One is “proof-of-concept research” to establish broad “technology platforms” that can then be used as a basis for developing actual products. The second is a technical infrastructure of “infratechnologies” that include the analytical tools and standards needed for measuring and classifying the components of the new technology; metrics and methods for determining the adequacy of the multiple performance attributes of the technology; and the interfaces among hardware and software components that must work together for a complex product to perform as specified. If the public–private dynamics are not properly aligned to encourage proof-of-concept research and needed infratechnologies, then promising advances in basic science can easily fall into a “valley of death” and fail to evolve into modern advanced manufacturing technologies that are ready for the marketplace. Each major technology has a degree of uniqueness that demands government support sufficiently sophisticated to allow efficient adaptation to the needs of its particular industry, whether semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, computers, communications equipment, medical equipment, or some other technology-based industry.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/jep.28.1.27

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The failure to recognize that 'learning in production' is the ultimate driver of industrial dynamics, especially innovation dynamics, is reflected in the dominant innovation policy paradigms since the 2000s.

    “The failure to recognize that 'learning in production' is the ultimate driver of industrial dynamics, especially innovation dynamics, is reflected in the dominant innovation policy paradigms since the 2000s -for example, by the 'Lisbon Agenda' in Europe (for a critique see Soete, 2007), and the neglect of production in the discussion of the innovation economy in the US (for a critique see Pisano”

    From Industrial Policy in the 21st Century (2020) · cites this paper as Tassey, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tassey, G.
Affiliations
National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Tassey, Gregory
Venue
Journal of Economic Perspectives
Published
2014-02-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
27-48
ISSN
0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065610504
Cited by
122
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
19.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Economic Perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Innovation Policy and R&D
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Technology Assessment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Firm Innovation and Growth
Keywords
advanced manufacturing, technology policy, technology platforms, valley of death, public-private research collaboration, technology commercialization, manufacturing productivity, state support for innovation, technology standards

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review