Friday, October 14, 2005
Global Competition and U.S. Prosperity
Keeping Us in the Race - New York Times
Thomas Friedman's column this week raises some key points that are also covered in The World is Flat. According to Friedman there should be a national debate on the issue of
Part of the answer lies in America's lack of interest in science and science education when compared to our competitors; part of the answer lie in refusal of the Federal government to back the research and development of our scientific and technological infrastructure that we will need to be competitive in the years to come. There seems to be a crisis of leadership in this area, a failure to engage in long term planning on the part of government and industry. Friedman quotes from a report by a "bipartisan study group" formed by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine:
Both the report and Friedman seem to think that we will have trouble keeping up with other nations that are planning and investing in digital infrastructure and science at a rate that we do not seem prepared to match. The report comes up with a number of steps to narrow this gap. Friedman calls for a major federal campaign to address this imbalance:
Thomas Friedman's column this week raises some key points that are also covered in The World is Flat. According to Friedman there should be a national debate on the issue of
why so many U.S. manufacturers are moving abroad - not just to find lower wages, but to find smarter workers, better infrastructure and cheaper health care. It would be about why in Germany, 36 percent of undergrads receive degrees in science and engineering; in China, 59 percent; in Japan, 66 percent; and in America, only 32 percent. It would be about why Japanese on bullet trains can get access to the Internet with cellphones, and Americans get their cellphone service interrupted five minutes from home.
Part of the answer lies in America's lack of interest in science and science education when compared to our competitors; part of the answer lie in refusal of the Federal government to back the research and development of our scientific and technological infrastructure that we will need to be competitive in the years to come. There seems to be a crisis of leadership in this area, a failure to engage in long term planning on the part of government and industry. Friedman quotes from a report by a "bipartisan study group" formed by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine:
Because of globalization, the report begins, U.S. "workers in virtually every sector must now face competitors who live just a mouse-click away in Ireland, Finland, India or dozens of other nations whose economies are growing. ... Having reviewed the trends in the United States and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. ... We are worried about the future prosperity of the United States. ... We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost - if indeed it can be regained at all."
Both the report and Friedman seem to think that we will have trouble keeping up with other nations that are planning and investing in digital infrastructure and science at a rate that we do not seem prepared to match. The report comes up with a number of steps to narrow this gap. Friedman calls for a major federal campaign to address this imbalance:
These proposals are the new New Deal urgently called for by our times. This is where President Bush should have focused his second term, instead of squandering it on a silly, ideological jag called Social Security privatization. Because, as this report concludes, "Without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position."
