IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/1513.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

R & D Activities and the Technology Game: A Dynamic Model of U.S.-JapanCompetition

Author

Listed:
  • Ryuzo Sato

Abstract

This paper presents an international comparison of R&D activities in basic and applied research. The commonly-held view that Japan is not spending much on basic technology development cannot be empirically substantiated from the study of the historical trends. However, the fact that in the U.S.A. the largest proportion of industrial R&D expenditures is spent on the defense and aero-space related industries (60%) ,while Japan is spending the largest proportion (60%) on the chemical, electronics, communication and automobile industries, may indicate that in effect Japan emphasizes the development of applied technology.The second part of the paper is to show how two countries, one with heavy R&D activities in basic technology (the U.S.A.)and the other with heavy R&D activities in applied technology(Japan), can compete in the world market with their productivity differences in basic and applied fields. A simple model of differential game is presented to explain how Japan can increase the market share by utilizing both the informational and productivity efficiencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryuzo Sato, 1984. "R & D Activities and the Technology Game: A Dynamic Model of U.S.-JapanCompetition," NBER Working Papers 1513, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:1513
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w1513.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbara J. Spencer & James A. Brander, 1983. "International R & D Rivalry and Industrial Strategy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(4), pages 707-722.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dewit, Gerda & Leahy, Dermot, 2004. "Rivalry in uncertain export markets: commitment versus flexibility," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 195-209, October.
    2. Alireza Naghavi & Yingyi Tsai, 2015. "Cross-Border Intellectual Property Rights: Contract Enforcement and Absorptive Capacity," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 62(2), pages 211-226, May.
    3. Adel Ben Youssef & Ludovic Ragni, 1998. "Politiques environnementales stratégiques et concurrence internationale : théorie et évidences," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 83(1), pages 81-98.
    4. Giammario Impullitti, 2007. "International Schumpeterian Competition and Optimal R&D subsidies," Economics Working Papers ECO2007/55, European University Institute.
    5. Joanna Poyago-Thotoky, 2003. "Optimal Environmental Taxation, R&D Subsidization and the Role of Market Conduct," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 15-26, Spring.
    6. Yasunori Ishii, 2001. "International duopoly with overseas production and strategic trade policies," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 227-246, October.
    7. Naoto Jinji, 2003. "Strategic policy for product R&D with symmetric costs," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 993-1006, November.
    8. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2000. "Robust Rules for Industrial Policy in open Economies," Working Papers 200021, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    9. Spencer, Barbara J. & Jones, Ronald W., 1992. "Trade and protection in vertically related markets," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 31-55, February.
    10. Besanko, David & Tong, Jian & Wu, Jianjun, 2016. "Subsidizing research programs with "if" and "when" uncertainty in the face of severe informational constraints," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 1605, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    11. Aaron Tornell, 1989. "Inconsistencia dinámica de los programas proteccionistas," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 4(1), pages 61-82.
    12. Odagiri, Hiroyuki & Nakamura, Yoshiaki & Shibuya, Minoru, 1997. "Research consortia as a vehicle for basic research: The case of a fifth generation computer project in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 191-207, May.
    13. Roland Kirstein & Birgit Will, 2006. "Efficient compensation for employees' inventions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 129-148, April.
    14. Liviu-George Maha & Andreea-Nicoleta Donici & Andreea Maha, 2012. "Limits And Difficulties In Implementing The Strategic Trade Policy," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 4(4), pages 736-746, December.
    15. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Bernard Franck & Robert Frank Owen, 2004. "L'internationalisation de la recherche fondamentale d'une firme," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 114(3), pages 353-370.
    17. Spencer, Barbara J., 1988. "Capital subsidies and countervailing duties in oligopolistic industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 45-69, August.
    18. Joanna Poyago-Thotoky, 2003. "Optimal Environmental Taxation, R&D Subsidization and the Role of Market Conduct," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 15-26, Spring.
    19. Amir, Rabah & Wooders, John, 2000. "One-Way Spillovers, Endogenous Innovator/Imitator Roles, and Research Joint Ventures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-25, April.
    20. Collie, David, 1991. "Export subsidies and countervailing tariffs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3-4), pages 309-324, November.
    21. Brown, J David & Earle, John, 2001. "Privatization, Competition and Reform Strategies: Theory and Evidence from Russian Enterprise Panel Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 2758, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:1513. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.