There is widespread belief that the
emergence of giant industries has been accompanied by an equivalent surge in
industrial research. A recent study of important inventions made
since the turn of the century reveals that more than half were the product of individual inventors
working alone, independent of organized industrial research. While
industrial laboratories contributed such important products as nylon and
transistors, independent inventors developed air conditioning, the automatic
transmission, the jet engine, the helicopter, insulin, and streptomycin. Still
other inventions, such as stainless steel, television, silicones, and Plexiglas (Plexiglas: n.树脂玻璃(多用以制造飞机座舱罩、镜片等))
were developed through the combined efforts of individuals and laboratory
teams.
Despite
these finding, we are urged to support monopolistic power on the grounds that
such power creates an environment supportive of innovation. We
are told that the independent inventor, along with the small firm, cannot
afford to undertake the important research needed to improve our standard of
living while protecting our diminishing resources; that only the giant
corporation or conglomerate, with its prodigious assets, can afford the kind of
expenditures that produce the technological advances vital to economic progress. But when we examine expenditures for research,
we find that of the more than $35 billion spent each year in this country,
almost two-thirds is spent by the federal government. More than half of this
government expenditure is funneled into military research and product
development, accounting for the enormous increase in spending in such
industries as nuclear energy, aircraft, missiles, and electronics. There are
those who consider it questionable that these defense-linked research projects
will either improve our standard of living or do much to protect our
diminishing resources.
Recent
history has demonstrated that we may have to alter our longstanding conception
of the process actuated by competition. The price variable, once perceived
as the dominant aspect of the process, is now subordinate to the competition of
the new product, the new business structure, and the new technology. While it
can be assumed that in a highly competitive industry not dominated by single
corporation, investment in innovation—a risky and expensive budget item—might
meet resistance from management and stockholders concerned about cost-cutting,
efficient organization, and large advertising budgets, it would be an egregious
error to equate the monopolistic producer with bountiful expenditures on
research. Large-scale enterprises tend to operate more comfortably in stable
and secure circumstances, and their managerial bureaucracies tend to promote
the status quo and resist the threat implicit in change. Moreover, in some
cases, industrial giants faced with little or no competition seek to avoid the
capital loss resulting from obsolescence by deliberately obstructing
technological progress. By contrast, small firms undeterred by large investments in
plant and capital equipment often
aggressively pursue new techniques and new products, investing in innovation in
order to expand their market shares.
The conglomerates are not, however, completely
except from strong competitive pressures. There are instances in which they too
must compete with another industrial Goliath, and then their weapons may
include large expenditures for innovation.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-9-27 13:41:00
楼主
