Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$59.95



View/Hide Left Panel

ment and private funding, the diverse portfolio of government-funded research awarded through peer review, strong intellectual property and securities regulation, and the financing of innovation “led by a uniquely dynamic venture capital industry.”f

It is generally considered important for the United States to continue to reassess the environment for innovation and to address shortcomings wherever possible; some believe current incentives for companies to innovate and commercialize are strong and not in need of a significant overhaul.

  

aP. W. Bauer. “Are WE in a Productivity Boom? Evidence from Multifactor Productivity Growth.” Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, October 15, 1999. Table 1. Available at: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Com99/1015.pdf.

  

bD. W. Jorgenson, M. S. Ho, and K. J. Stiroh. “Projecting Productivity Growth: Lessons from the US Growth Resurgence.” Discussion Paper 02-42. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, July 2002. Available at: http://www.Rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-02-42.pdf#search=’U.S.%20productivity%20growth’; Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Productivity and Costs, 2nd Quarter 2005, Revised.” News Release, September 7, 2005. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm.

  

cM. Dertouzos, R. Lester, and R. Solow. Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.

  

dNational Research Council. US Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Renewal. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

  

eR. J. Gordon. Why Was Europe Left at the Station When America’s Productivity Locomotive Departed? Working Paper 10661. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2004. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10661/.

  

fR. J. Gordon. The United States. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor, and R. R. Nelson, eds. Technological Innovation and Economic Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Pp. 49-73.

cific changes recommended here create significant opportunities. It should be noted that several focus-group members and reviewers raised product liability and tort reform as areas for potential improvement. However, the committee determined that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which represents a major policy change, is a step forward in the national approach to issues of product liability.9

ACTION D-1:
ENHANCE THE PATENT SYSTEM

Enhance intellectual-property protection for the 21st century global economy to ensure that systems for protecting patents and other forms of intellectual property underlie the emerging knowledge economy but allow

9

Statement on S.5, the Class-Action Fairness Act of 2005. White House press statement. February 18, 2005.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement