ITIF-美国新兴的产业政策方法（英）-2021.10-37页_476kb

Emerging Industrial Policy Approaches in the United States: Summary

Core Content

The U.S. federal government, historically hesitant to pursue industrial policy outside of defense, is now actively developing a new set of industrial policy programs in response to competition from China. These initiatives are characterized by their scale and scope, aiming to bolster critical technologies, secure supply chains, and enhance economic competitiveness. The paper traces the evolution of industrial policy in the U.S., outlines the definitional and economic debates surrounding it, and identifies the current thrusts and challenges of these new approaches.

Mainstream Economic Opposition

Mainstream economists, particularly those rooted in neoclassical economics, have traditionally opposed industrial policy, favoring market-driven solutions. They argue that government intervention is only justified in cases of "market failure," such as when private entities cannot manage high risks or costs. However, they generally reject direct involvement in technology implementation, which is central to industrial policy. This perspective has shaped the U.S. economic policy landscape, making industrial policy a contentious and often avoided topic.

Historical Context of Industrial Policy

Industrial policy in the U.S. has evolved through several key periods:

1. Cold War Era (1950s-1970s)

   • Focused on military and space technologies.
   • Agencies like DARPA and NASA played a critical role.
   • The U.S. developed a connected innovation system, integrating government, industry, and academia.

2. Competition with Japan (1970s-1980s)

   • Japan's advancements in quality manufacturing led to a decline in U.S. industrial dominance.
   • The U.S. introduced programs like the Bayh-Dole Act, SBIR, and STTR to support commercialization of research.
   • Sematech was established to counter Japanese dominance in the semiconductor industry.

3. Climate and Energy Innovation (Clinton and Obama administrations)

   • The Department of Energy (DOE) shifted focus to new energy technologies and innovation.
   • Programs such as ARPA-E and the Loan Programs Office (LPO) were created to support renewable energy and energy efficiency.
   • These efforts aimed to bridge the gap between research and market implementation.

4. Advanced Manufacturing (2012 onwards)

   • The U.S. created 16 Manufacturing Innovation Institutes to support advanced manufacturing technologies.
   • These institutes combine industry, academia, and government to foster innovation and technology adoption.
   • Despite progress, the funding remains insufficient to drive major transformation in the manufacturing sector.

Key Programs and Initiatives

• Semiconductor Production: The U.S. is investing heavily to regain its lead in semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.
• Endless Frontier Act: Aims to boost R&D in critical technologies and support the innovation pipeline.
• Energy Demonstration Projects: Includes initiatives like ARPA-E, which focuses on developing and testing new energy technologies.
• Secure Supply Chains: Emphasizes domestic production of critical goods such as pharmaceuticals, advanced batteries, and critical minerals.
• Operation Warp Speed: A rapid vaccine development program that demonstrated the potential of government-industry collaboration in times of crisis.

Supporting Infrastructure and Operating Mechanisms

To make these new industrial policies operational, the U.S. needs:

• A new talent base to support innovation and technology development.
• Integrated research connections between government, academia, and industry.
• Strong manufacturing foundations and supply chains.
• Testing, demonstration, and technology certification systems.
• Flexible contracting and financing mechanisms.
• Procurement strategies that align with national priorities.

Critical Gaps and Challenges

• Funding Shortfalls: The current level of federal investment in manufacturing innovation is insufficient to drive meaningful transformation.
• Implementation Gaps: Many programs lack the necessary mechanisms to test and finance new technologies in the private sector.
• Partisan and Political Concerns: The Solyndra scandal in 2011 highlighted the risks of government involvement in industry and led to a temporary retrenchment in industrial policy.
• Complexity of Collaboration: Industrial policy requires extensive public-private partnerships, which can be difficult to coordinate and sustain.

Conclusion

The U.S. is redefining its approach to industrial policy in response to global competition, particularly from China. While historical efforts have focused on defense and specific technological sectors, the new wave of industrial policy seeks to integrate the entire innovation pipeline, from research to market entry. This shift is necessary to restore U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and secure critical technologies. However, it must be carefully managed to avoid past pitfalls and ensure that these policies are both effective and sustainable.