We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
LITTLE NOVELTY IS NOW ATTACHED TO THE PHENOMENON OF Britain's relative industrial decline inasmuch as this had been the subject of interminable debate since well before the First World War. However, compelling reasons can be found now for examining one particular dimension of British performance, namely, industrial innovation. First, it is not too long since the ACARD reports appeared on Britain's capacity to embrace new technology. Secondly, NEDO has only recently published what constitutes the most comprehensive strategy yet devised for the UK electronics industry and, since electronics represents the core technology of the late twentieth century, the British position in this industry needs to be more widely appreciated in any appraisal of industrial innovation. Thirdly, the official level of UK unemployment (3.34 million in September 1982) suggests that without some prospect of reduction, organized labour is unlikely to endorse new technology where this leads to the widespread displacement of employment.
1 ACARD is the Cabinet Office’s Advisory Council For Applied Research and Development.
2 NEDO (Electronics EDC), Policy for the U. K. Electronics Industry, NEDO, 1982.
3 See Pavitt, K. (ed.), Technical Innovation and British Economic Peformance, London, Macmillan, 1980.Google Scholar
4 Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London, Unwin, 1974, pp. 84–5.Google Scholar
5 Pavitt, Op. cit. p. 6.
6 NEDO, Industrial Performance: R & D and Innovation, NEDO, 1981; see also Labour Research, November 1980.
7 ACARD, Industrial Innovation, London, HMSO, 1978, p. 15.
8 ACARD, Technological Change, London, HMSO, 1980, p. 35.
9 ACARD, The Application of Semiconductor Technology, London, HMSO, 1978.
10 Lorenz, C., ‘Technology: Britain’s Need for Winners’, Financial Times, 8 01 1980.Google Scholar
11 Industrial Innovation, op. cit., p. 17.
12 Party, Labour, 16–19: Learning for Life, 1982, p. 15.Google Scholar
13 Confederation of British Industry, Technology—putting it to work, 1982, p. 40.
14 Select Committee on Science and Technology, Innovation Research and Development in Japanese Science Based Industry, HC682–1, 1978, para. 8.
15 Ibid, para. 25.
16 ACARD, Information Technology, London, HMSO, 1980, p. 30.
17 Policy for the U. K. Electronics Industry, op. cit. p. 1.
18 Ibid, p. 2.
19 Ibid, p. 13.
20 Wallace, W. (ed.), Britain in Europe, London, Heinemann, 1980. p. 133.Google Scholar
21 Electronics Times, 6 May 1982.
22 See TUC‐Labour Party Liaison Committee’s Economic Planning and Industrial Democracy, 1982; and The Guardian, 18 August 1982.
23 See C. Freeman, ‘Government Policy’, in Pavitt, op. cit., pp. 310–25.
24 A. Gamble, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity in British Economic Policy, 1960–80’, PSA Conference Paper, April 1982.
25 Industrial Performance, op. cit., pp. 4–13.
26 NEDC, Industrial Policy in the U. K., NEDC (82)25, 1982.
27 Financial Times, 6 May 1982.
28 Electronics Times, 6 May 1982.
29 NEDC, Electronic Components, Sector Working Party Report, 1981, p. 2.
30 Brittan, S., ‘De‐industrialization is good for the UK’, Financial Times, 3 07 1980.Google Scholar
31 Wilkinson, M., ‘Stark Arithmetic of Productivity’, Financial Times, 31 08 1982.Google Scholar
32 See Freeman, C. et al., Unemployment and Technical Innovation, London, Frances Pinter, 1982 Google Scholar; and Brittan, S., ‘The Spectre of Jobless Prosperity’, Financial Times, 30 04 1981.Google Scholar
33 Electronics Times, 29 July 1982.
