- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
RECENT TRENDS IN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
Abstract
This paper examines the rhetoric underlying policies for technological innovation in Australia over the past five or six years. The analysis is based on two approaches to policies for technological innovation which compete in the political arena: non-interventionism and economic nationalism. These approaches are completely general and aim to outline the scope of the rhetoric surrounding policies for technological innovation. Major policy statements and reports of the Liberal government prior to the federal election in March 1983 are analysed in terms of the two approaches, as is the Science and Technology Platform and pre-election statements of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). Recent policy initiatives taken by the Labor government are also reviewed. It is concluded that the rhetoric of the non-interventionist approach has dominated the development of policies for technological innovation up to March 1983. The ALP rhetoric is more in line with economic nationalism and this is seen to provide some challenges to the implementation and possible success of more direct measures to stimulate technological innovation. However, the most recent policy initiatives taken by the new government suggest that if the rhetoric of the ALP platform and pre-election statements is to be put into practice, much more needs to be done.
Content
Author and article information
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Australian Labor Party (ALP), National Recovery and Reconstruction Plan, mimeo, 1983 and ALP, ALP Platform, Constitution and Rules as Approved by the 35th National Conference, Canberra 1982, ALP, Barton, ACT, 1982.
It would be possible to develop a framework in terms of a perfect market versus a command economy. While the choice of the terms ‘non-interventionist’ and ‘economic nationalist’ reflects some reliance on economics, it needs to be stressed that the approaches developed here are general in nature and are not meant to represent ideal types. See, for example, the broad range of issues discussed in Barry Jones, Sleepers, Wake!, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1982.
The theoretical grounds for government intervention are based on neo-classical economic studies which argue that a market economy would tend to underinvest in inventive activities such as basic and applied research and technological innovation. If it can be established that the rate of return from innovation to society exceeds the private rate of return (to firms and individuals), there exists a case for government intervention in the market for the support of innovation. Further, if it can be established that the social return from indigenous research exceeds the social return from imported know-how, there is a case for giving some sort of preference to the former. See, for example, R. Nelson, ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research’ in N. Rosenberg (ed.), The Economics of Technological Change, Penguin, 1971; K. J. Arrow, “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention’ in D.M. Lamberton (ed.), Economics of Information and Knowledge, Penguin, 1971; C. Tisdell, ‘The international realpolitik of science and technology policy’, Prometheus, 1,1, 1983, pp. 127–43; and Industries Assistance Commission (IAC), Certain Budgetary Assistance to Industry, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1982, p. 63.
OECD, Policies for the Stimulation of Industrial Innovation, OECD, Paris, DSTI/SPR/75.58, October 1975
OECD, Technical Change and Economic Policy, Paris, 1980, p. 17.
IAC, New Technology and Industry Assistance, Discussion Paper, AGPS, Canberra, July 1983, p. 2.
J. Gilmour, ‘The industrial policy debate in a resource hinterland’, Search, 13, 7–8, 1982, pp. 194–204; OECD, 1980, op. cit., p. 18.
J.N.H. Britton and J.M. Gilmour, The Weakest Link: A Technological Perspective on Canadian Industrial Underdevelopment, Background Study No. 43, Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1978, p. 158.
D.J. Daly and S. Globerman, Tariff and Science Policies: Application of a Model of Nationalism, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1976, p. 68.
S. Globerman, ‘Canadian science policy and technological sovereignty’, Canadian Public Policy, 4, 1, 1978, p. 38.
Department of Science and Technology, Submission to the IAC Inquiries into Computers etc., Metal Working Machine Tools and Robots, Occasional Paper 1/83, Department of Science and Technology, Canberra, May 1983.
Australian Government, White Paper on Manufacturing Industry, AGPS, Canberra, 1977.
R. Johnston, ‘The control of technological change in Australia’, in S. Hill and R. Johnston (eds), Future Tense, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, 1983, p. 108.
Australian Government, op. cit., p. 17.
ibid., pp. 17–18.
ibid., p. 26.
Study Group on Structural Adjustment, Report, AGPS, Canberra, 1979, Vol. 1.
A positive government response may not necessarily imply a determined government action to overcome a problem.
Study Group on Structural Adjustment, op. cit.; House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 23 August 1979, pp. 562–73.
Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia (Myers Report) Technological Change in Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1980, Vol. 1; House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 18 September 1980, pp. 1517–26.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 30 April, 1981, pp. 1830–53.
Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment (Jessop Report), Industrial Research and Development in Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1979; House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 11 June 1981, pp. 3035–43.
Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs, Report of the Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs, AGPS, Canberra 1982; House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 29 April 1982, pp. 2062–3.
IAC, 1982, op. cit.; Prime Minister, Statement on Taxation and Industry Assistance Measures, Press Release, 19 July 1982.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 30 April 1981, pp. 1833, 1839.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 29 April 1982, p. 2062.
Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs, op. cit., p. 1
ibid., pp. 2–4.
R. Johnston, ‘Australian science policy: now we can steer, where do we want to go?’, Current Affairs Bulletin, 59, 3, 1982, pp. 20–30.
Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System (Campbell) Report, AGPS, Canberra, 1981.
ALP, 1982, op. cit., pp. 147–54; 1983, op. cit.
ALP, 1983, op. cit., p. 24.
ALP, Science and Technology Policy, mimeo, February 1983.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 1 December 1983, pp. 3139–62.
ibid., p. 3141.
ibid., p. 3140.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 16 November 1983, pp. 2760–1.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 9 November 1983, p. 2469.
‘A Budget Debate’, Search, 14, 9–10, 1983, pp. 282–3.
ibid., p. 282.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 1 December 1983, p. 3144.
ibid., p. 3139.
See, for example, Department of Science and Technology, op. cit.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 1 December 1983, p. 3156.
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates, 3 November 1983, p. 2348.
The Age, 29 August 1983, pp. 1–2.
Financial Review, 27 January 1983, p. 1.
See L. Gelzer, Tariff Politics, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1982, pp. 27, 34.
See, for example, Department of Science and Technology, Submission to the Uhrig Review of the Industries Assistance Commission, Occasional Paper 6/83, Canberra, October 1983.