WHOI-90-52

More documents

Recommendations

Info

arers wil bend to such review remains in question. Procurement policies currently are undergoing close scrutiny by the Commission of the Europe Communities (CEC). However, the focus of this scrutiny is directe primarly at those (nondefense) areas in which changes in procurement policies ca make the largest difference: telecommunications, trsport, energy, and water (CEC, 1989). Under the provisions of the GA'I, a "buy national" procurement policy for defense manufactures is not necessaly considered a nontaff barer to trade. Beuse trditionally much of the international trde in MEI has involved defense manufactures, we do not expet that the haronization of procurement policies within the common market wil have much of an additional effect on the competitive position of U.S. firms in the MEI industry. A speial typ of nondefense procurement policy is relevant to the MEI industr. One source of support for R&D in marne electronics results from the offshore oil and gas lease alloction policies of the United Kigdom and Norway. In these countres, offshore exploration and development licenses are not distrbuted by competitive bid, as in the United States, but instead through a discretionar procss (OTA, 1985). There is no official requirement for Nort Sea offshore energy producing firms to fund R&D as par of their British lease obligations, but R&D expenditures are use as one criterion in allocting offshore entitlements. As a result, the U.K. oil majors generate some $20 milion in annual external mare R&D funds--an order of magnitude larger than direct British government R&D expenditures in this area. In Norway, the government keeps recrds (voluntay supplied) of offshore firs' support of R&D conducted by Norwegian companies and considers both the quantity and quality of this support when makng lease alloctions. This has resulte in substatial financial and technica assistace from energy companies for product development at Norwegian firms, although resulting products have not always been successful commercially (Cook and Surrey, 1983). The United Kingdom also has use offshore lease alloctions to enforce its policy of preferential treatment for "British-base" offshore service and supply firms. The U.K. Offshore Supplies Office (OSO) monitors interactions between energy companes and service firms and influences offshore entitlement aloctions for the purpse of maintaning and supportng the existence of an offshore service industr. In 1985, the "British-base" requirement was changed to "majority British-owned, " prompting several U.S. companes to reorganize their operations in the United Kingdom (DoS, 1989). OSO activities represent an explicit effort to keep Britan at the forefront of new offshore tehnology developments. There has been little evidence to date of technica stadards16 affecting MEI saes to Europe, 16 Technica product stadards are importt for severa reasons. Governments or nonprofit stadard setting institutions may require that products meet minimum stadards to protect public heath, saety, and the environment. By decreasing information asymmetres between producers and consumers on complicate high tehnology products, public stadards also may be importt in the prevention of consumer fraud. Industry groups ca play an importt role in market 25
ut other industres have been affected adversely by the imposition of stadards established by the EC (WSJ, 1989). In the marne electronics field, the internationally accepted Automatic Radar Positioning Aid (ARPA) stadards established by the International Martime Organization (IMO) under the provisions of the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) helpe British, West German, and U.S. firms achieve leading positions in the "upper end" of the large, deep-se radar market. A major worr for U.S. manufacturers is that Europe products wil become more competitive as a result of the stadardization procss. If U.S. firms are place on an unequal footing as a result of stadardization, international trade disputes could result. Hinson and Platzer identify five potential problems with the procss of stadard setting in the EC. These include restrcted access to Europe markets, restrcted parcipation in stadard setting, the isolation of American stadards, the setting of higher stadards in Europe ("upward harmonization"), and testing and certfication problems. In the past, the EC has been involved directly in the setting of detaled technica product stadards. This centralized approach proved unsuccessful becuse of the inordinate amount of time and effort involved. More recntly, the EC has revise its approach to issue directives that identify "essential requirements" for broad product categories. The EC has state its intention to issue its stadards, where possible, so that they are in conformity with international stadardssetting organizations. More detaled tehnica stadards ca be issued by private Europe-wide or national stadard setting bodies. 17 The EC' s new Marne Science and Technology (MAST) resech program has included as one of its agenda items the preparation of norms and stadards for oceaographic instrumentation and oceaographic methods (MAST, 1988). This agenda item presents an unusual case, becuse development through the setting of technica stadards. Such stadards increase the interchangeabilty of electronic product components, for example, and faciltate the comparson of products from different suppliers. In both public and private stadad setting, there is considerable potential for the use of technica stadards as a nontaff barer to international trade. 17 The two most importt international stadard-setting groups are the International Stadards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnica Commission (IEC). The three major Europe stadard setting bodies are the Europe Committee for Stadardization (CEN), the Europe Committee for Electrotechnica Stadadization (CENELEC), and the Europe Telecommunications Stadards Institute (ETSI). For defense technologies within an alliance such as NATO, the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) exists to set stadards on milita technologies. Beuse France does not paricipate in NATO's milta activities, the Independent Europe Program Group (IEPG) was established in 1976 to playa role similar to CNAD. 26
Page 2: -- !! -== -I" 0- ;; .- -rt õ=.. ai
Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT Thirteen short papers addr
Page 7 and 8: The Status and Promise of Electroni
Page 9 and 10: During the two yeas we have been at
Page 11 and 12: There is currently a major debate r
Page 13 and 14: The Inuence of Japanes Industrial T
Page 15 and 16: profier, an ocea acoustic tomograph
Page 17 and 18: manufacturing would predict between
Page 19 and 20: References Advisory Committee for T
Page 21 and 22: e both winners and losers from the
Page 23 and 24: ecause they are major end users of
Page 25 and 26: A final, but not insignificat, set
Page 27 and 28: Europen Programs in Marne Science a
Page 29 and 30: proposa included a line item speifi
Page 31: from 12 Europe countres, has been a
Page 35 and 36: Indee, if barers fall, the effect c
Page 37 and 38: References Andre, M. 1987. Resech a
Page 39 and 40: Peet, G. 1986. Techniques and metho
Page 41 and 42: These statistics becme a reaity dur
Page 43 and 44: should make it easier to coordinate
Page 45 and 46: proposas submitted to SBIR and appr
Page 47 and 48: An Overview of Technology Transfer
Page 49 and 50: follow the fortunes of that industr
Page 51 and 52: choosing resech paths. In general,
Page 53 and 54: Foundation (NSF) in 1985 and 1988,
Page 55 and 56: In the field of ocography, spin-off
Page 57 and 58: Opponunities for technology transfe
Page 59 and 60: "Strategic Allnces" as an approach
Page 61 and 62: summar then, the desired result of
Page 63 and 64: international ecnomic competitivene
Page 65 and 66: NAT LABS , .. R&D .... ... í7 I DE
Page 67 and 68: the radar were "burned in" for a pe
Page 69 and 70: Differences between ~ Defense am ~
Page 71 and 72: chemica industr's 1989 R&D.2S Bang
Page 73 and 74: We are seing a high use of facsimil
Page 75 and 76: pretty nealy global. Except for the
Page 77 and 78: Stadard-C wil disappoint some users
Page 79 and 80: Introduction The Status and Promi o
Page 81 and 82: optional feature of some systems. T
Page 83 and 84:
in order to tae full advantage of t
Page 85 and 86:
Fishermen and operators of workboat
Page 87 and 88:
of the inherent limitations of rada
Page 89 and 90:
One example is an America Petroleum
Page 91 and 92:
intensification of domestic aquacul
Page 93 and 94:
System Output The system output inc
Page 95 and 96:
Although the geographica sce of pro
Page 97 and 98:
In contrast with the heavily use wa
Page 99 and 100:
"works." The tida data (Figure 2, p
Page 101 and 102:
". o ,. - LI u . '- 0 o .c 0: 0: ::
Page 103 and 104:
Concluding Remarks Obviously we are
Page 105 and 106:
All is not new. Commentators someti
Page 107 and 108:
of academic resech is critica, both
Page 109 and 110:
stang point, the model allows the p
Page 111 and 112:
of exchange among the university an
Page 113 and 114:
and progras. Benefits, on the other
Page 115 and 116:
14: 10 Technology Transfer and Inte
Page 117 and 118:
15:30 Where do we stad now? Gary Gl
Page 119 and 120:
Dr. Allyn C. Vine Mr. Malte von Mat
Page 122:
50272.101 PAGE WHOI.90.52 REPORT DO
show all

WHOI-90-52

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?