THE CARTER CENTER
II Ill II 111/HH/1 /IIIII TCC00010039
Common Sense on Competitiveness
Conference Report Series Volume I, Number I
Co,chairs: The Honorable Jimmy Carter U.S. Secretary of Labor Ann McLaughlin
Convened April 1988 The Carter Center Atlanta, Georgia COMMON SENSE ON COMPETITIVENESS
The Carter Center of Emory University Atlanta. Georgia April 25-26, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter ...... 4 Executive ummary ...... 6 Education and Human Re ources ...... 8 Research and Development ...... 11 Manufacturing ...... 13 Global Markets ...... 16 Fiscal and Monetary Policy ...... 18 Leadership ...... 20 Appendices List of Participants ...... 21 Bibliography: Publications on Competitivenes .. 24 The Carter Center of Emory University ...... 26 Consultation on Competitiveness I
T,is spring, Secretary ofLab or Ann McLaughlin and I invited 1 ;;any ofAmeri ca 's best minds to 7be Carter Center ofEm ory University in Atlanta for a Consultation on Competitiveness. More than 100 business and labor leaders, educators and economists, researchers and scientists, politicians and policymakersjrom throughout the country attended. 7bey shared at least one char acteristic: in one way or another, all are experts on competitive ness, having either made their own institutions more competitive or used their knowledge and experience to help others become so.
7bey shared a single, overriding goal: to help Secretary McLaughlin and me identify the best ideas for helping America compete. Participants came to the consultation aware of Americas competitive crisis. Indeed, competitiveness has been discussed and dissected from virtually every angle recently. Hundreds of changes in public policies and private operating procedures have been advanced; one study prepared for our meeting cross-indexed scores of competitiveness-related proposals found in 54 reports that have been published in the past few years. (A list of the reports studied is found on page 24.) Secretary Ann McLaughlin, former President jimmy Carter and Consultation Our goal was to identify the best ideas, the ones that work. 'lbese Coordinator Sidney Topol ultimately will be passed on to the next President of the United States as part of the American Agenda, a bipartisan set of recom mendations from a group offormer administration officials headed by former President Gerald Ford and me.
We wanted our participants to answer a few basic questions. For example, what have you done in your own institutions to improve productivity, quality and marketing, key elements of competitive ness? As you look ahead, what additional improvements do you envision? Finally, what would you recommend to others? In other words, what works, what might work, what are your priorities for the nation?
We wanted workshops, not lengthy lectures or special speakers. All of our participants were experts. 7bey met in some large sessions where speakers addressed parts of the competitiveness "Big Picture," but mostly in smaller working groups that tackled specific problems and solutions. Throughout, in every session during the two-day consultation, they were encouraged to use each other as sounding boards for good ideas.
We think we found some. Many of them were supported by all the attendees, others by only some. We encouraged consensus, but also realized that some of the newer or more controversial ideas from the consultation could become the mainstream solutions of tomorrow. We have included these ideas in this report as well. If the proposals have a common denominator, it is that they make good common sense. And we can begin implementing some of them today. I THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY Ul\IIVER ITY I
We began the consultatio1l with the recognition that many of the nations compelilzvene::;·s problen-1s are related. sometimes making them seem insoluble A world-class economy, for example, depends 012 a high-quality manufacturing base, but in too many ways manufacturing has been neglected Superior manufacturing, in tum, relies on top-flight research ami del.'elopment, but there are many signs that other nations are gaining ground on our once commanding lead m technological innovation. Technological inno vation depends on well-educated citizens, but the multiple shortcomings of Amen·ca s education and training system have been amply documented.
Time after time, when discussing one issue, participants zeroed in on others- so that a discussion of manufacturing almost inevitably turned toward the problems of inadequate education and training or Americas lack ofglobal awareness. Most participants agreed that all the key issues must be addressed simultaneously; we do not have the luxury ofso lving problems one at a time.
In addition to the specific issues, several broader themes kept recur- An Wang and Rosalynn Carter n·ng. They included: • The need for greater flexibiliz)' by individuals and institutions. • The need to reduce harriers hetu•een and u•ithin organizations and to form nel.l'partnerships. • The need to think long-term. be.yond the next quarter, semester or collective bargaining agreement. • The need for leadership. Leaders hal'e to take chances and, just as important, he given. a chance- to make mistakes. modifv pro grams to fit chanpJnR needs. experiment, expand.
We began the consu/tatwn with a sobering recogmtion of the enormous stakes. If America lets itselfslzp into second place in world commerce. sctence, technology and education, we will inevi tably see our standard of living slide c1s well. The expansion that has meant hope for millions ofAmericans will slow and perhaps stop. As our economy contracts, we are divided into haves and have-nots: an educated elite ready to take advantage of change, and a majon'ty in peril, afraid of change and unable to manage it. Paul Vokker
We ended the two-day session with renewed optimism, with a roll up-our-sleeves sense of determination. As one participant observed, America is like a teenager, full of hope, but with a lot to team. It is time we began- all of us- to put to work what we already know.
We know a lot- and baue the capaci~y to make our knowledge work for all Americans. As we approach the end of this century, competitiveness is our newest national challenge -and our greatest opportunity Consultation on Competitiveness
~CUTIVE SUMMARY Unless these problems are ad must be given the authority and dressed promptly and decisively, autonomy to transform the The United States faces a com Americans will be saddled with chool ucce sfully - and be petitiveness crisis. The indicators increasing debt, lower are abundant. standards of living and
reduced economic MANUFACTURING PRODUCTIVITY TRHNOS An opportunities. Trends In absolute growth, In thousands of alarming number of American doll.a.t!i per manufacturing employee students and workers do not 1972-1986
seem to have the skills needed to Consultation partici 32
succeed in the more demanding pants identified several 30 overarching national jobs of the modem economy. 28 Many American inventions never strategies for helping make it from drawing board to U.S. companies and marketplace, or arrive too late - workers compete more 2• long after aggressive foreign firms effectively. Individuals 22 have captured customer loyalty. and institutions must 20 Some American products have become more flexible. 11 been improperly designed or Barriers between and 18 priced too high to compete with within organizations top-quality foreign imports. must be reduced and .. ' 72~----~------~ '73 '7< '75 '78 '77 ' 78 '78 '80 '81 '82 ·u ·8• '85 '88 • Other Summh 7 nations are: C.1 n:1da, France, Italy, japan, Partly as a result, not enough new partnerships United Kingdom and We~t Germany American companies have pene formed - between Source: Council o n Compctltlvcnc,;, trated foreign markets with U.S. colleges and public goods and services. schools, between man- agement and workers, among held accountable for results. Furthermore, the United States business, labor, education and Participants offered a number of continues to consume more than government. All sectors need to suggestions for achieving these do a better job of thinking and goal , which included: establish acting long-term, beyond the next ing a minimum of 2,000 model INVESTMENT INDEX Index of compar.uJve growth trends quarter, seme ter or collective schools nationwide as labora 1972-1986 bargaining agreement. Better tories for educational change in results would come if all areas the next three years; offering all were improved simultaneously. four-year-olds who need assis The United States does not have tance a Head Start-type preschool the luxury of addressing its com experience; and ensuring that petitiveness requirements one by lifelong learning and retraining one in a static sense; our com programs are made universally petitors are dynamic and are available to U.S. workers.
• Other Summh 7 nations are: Canada, France, attempting to win our markets. Italy, japan, United Kingdom and West Germany. ll. Research and Development Source: Coundl on Competitiveness More specifically, consultation econd, American know-how participants identified six priori must be focused on technological it produces, helping to create an ties for action. Within each, development, and more specifi abysmally low national savings specific suggestions were offered. cally, on moving American rate that undermines the country's inventions from laboratory to ability to finance needed invest I. Education and marketplace. As a fitting starting ments in its infrastructure of Human Resources point for change, the next education, research facilities and First, the nation must improve its pre ident should revitalize the factories. Finally, many schools and expand its lifelong Office of cience and Technology, Americans are unaware that other training programs. Educational appoint a cience advisor early nations have caught up with, and reform will require extensive and expand the Office's work on in some cases surpassed, U.S. change. Teachers and principals competitivenes . To facilitate a performance. I THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY )
more market-driven approach to nology. Above all, manufacturers cost of capital in the United States technology research and develop need to get closer to their mar relative to our trading competitors ment, corporations should better kets, thinking globally but treating remains high. To ensure a integrate their research, develop their customers as if they were
ment, production and marketing right around the corner. THAD£ TRENDS functions. Universities should Trends ln absoluk growth Exportt. of goods and services, In bUUoos provide expanded licensing and IV. Global Markets of u.s. dollar8 royalty payments to encourage Fourth, boosting American com 1972·1987 faculty entrepreneurship. Both petitiveness demands more than sectors must increase incentives good ideas and well-made prod and rewards to encourage the de ucts. It also requires an aggressive vdopmem of young scientists and international sales effort. Ameri engineers. can businesses, workers and gov ernment must make a national ill. Manufacturing commitment to think globally. Third, improving U.S. competitive Government's role should be to ness demands not only good encourage U.S. exports- mainly Soun;~ Counctl on Compeuuvc::nes.' ideas, but also doing a better job by ensuring stable exchange rates, of making what the nation in rigorously enforcing existing trade commitment to investment eco vents. Despite recent talk about a laws and aggressively seeking to nomics, government fiscal policy services-drive n, post-industrial open foreign markets to U.S. needs to be restructured. society, the manufacturing sector firms. Businesses need to seek remains the mainstay of the U.S. out niche markets abroad, borrow The main strategy is to reduce the economy. Manufacturers were foreign innovations and employ federal deficit substantially by urged to tighten product cycles, to foreign nationals, and establish 1993- with $60 billion in spend maintain productivity growth of at foreign alliances, when necessary. ing cuts in the next five years, To facilitate these split roughly in thirds among changes, American busi defense, entitlements and other STANDARD OF UVJNG TRENDS Trends ln absolute growth, ln thousands of ness needs to be retrained programs. These reductions most dol.brs per employee 1972-1987 from the top down - likely will need to be combined 3 5 with CEOs committing with some sort of revenue in their organizations to crease. Of the options consid
30 foreign expansion and ered, consumption taxes were the mid-level managers preferred alternative, with an 25 becoming better versed in emphasis on raising cigarette, foreign languages and alcohol and gasoline taxes. 20 cultures. Although some experts supported a national value-added tax (VAT), V. Fiscal and it was agreed that more thought Monetary Policy needs to be given to the regres 1 0~~------+--~------~ Fifth, improving American sive nature of a VAT if consensus ' 72 '73 '74 '75 '78 '77 '78 ' 7i '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '88 '1 7 productivity and quality is to be forthcoming. • Other Summu 7 nallons :trt:: Can<~l.hl , France. ll<~ly . .Japan, Lnitcd Kingdom .md Wc.,l Germany. will require a significant Source Counc1l on Compeuuvenc"' national investment in the VI. Leadership nation's competitive infra Finally, America's public and structure: education and private leaders must assume least 2 percent a year, and to training programs; R&D facilities; responsibility for raising public commit their organizations to total manufacturing plants; and global awareness of the competitiveness quality control. Top priorities are marketing operations. To make crisis, for developing a pragmatic to improve teamwork between such investments possible, the series of solutions and for selling managers and employees and to national savings rate must in those ideas to their various expand the use of computer-aided crease from 3-4 percent to 8-9 constituencies. Restoring l design and manufacturing tech- percent a year. Moreover, the America's ability to compete must - -{2]- become a national priority. Consultation on Competitiveness
EDUCATION AND Our nation a ks more of its sented in the classroom. On one HUMAN RESOURCES schools now than ever before. point, virtually everyone agrees: The schools are expected to teach education is the key to the future Americans have valued education a wider range of students a of American competitiveness. highly since the first colleges were diversity of subjects, to provide established and young scholars day-care functions unheard of in The first step toward real progress studied while their parents previous generations, to act as is to acknowledge the dimensions invented America. What too surrogate parents for students of the education and training many young students lack today, whose families have fallen apart. crisis, consultation participants however, are what were once At the same time, educators are said. All people - especially stu considered primary educational pulled and tugged by every dents - must see the importance skills: reading, writing, arithmetic, culture or interest group that of education to all other endeav basic logic. Those basic skills are wants to ee its perspective repre- ors. Competitiveness depends on now essential to America's ability to compete.
Just as basic are the training and retraining needs of millions of • Among 17-year-old American high school seniors, only 20 percent are workers, who now must partici able to write a letter asking for a job; 12 percent can rank six fractions correctly from largest to smallest; 4.9 percent can analyze and use in pate in lifelong learning to keep formation from a bus or train schedule. up with the ever-escalating de mands of the modern workplace. • Eight percent of the country's colleges now require foreign language training, compared to 34 percent 15 years ago. It is easy to assess blame for the country's educational crisis: many • One ofevery four ninth-graders will not graduate from high school. children do not have family For minorities and the poor, the rates are higher. support anymore; television is the culprit; we are moving beyond • By 1990, 75 percent ofAmerican jobs will require education or conventional skills; teachers are training beyond high school. paid too little. • While smaller companies will contribute greatly to future job creation, many lack formal training programs. Half of all formalized private The problem is more complicated sector training is conducted by only 200 to 300 large companies. than the e factors would suggest. In the past the nation agreed on • In the next 50 years, 38 million Americans, the majority of them what it meant to be educated. minorities from educationally and economically deprived back Organized education started in grounds, wilt join the workforce. kindergarten, ended in 12th grade for most, after college for some. • More than 90 percent ofthose who will be employed in 1990 and 75 Increased diversity in society and percent of those who will be working in the year 2000 are already in a decrease in the power of tradi the workforce. tional institutions has destroyed • Only 6.4 percent ofAmerican 17-year-olds can handle "multi-step that consensus. Today, it is be problems and algebra" that are taught in high school, and only 51.1 lieved that schooling should begin percent can solve "moderately complex procedures and reasoning" virtually at birth and extend taught in junior high school. throughout one's career - and beyond. Basic skills must be re • In 198 7, an estimated 1 million young people dropped out ofsc hool emphasized, and retraining needs and an additional 700,000 students graduated as functional to become routine throughout illiterates. American industry. • Every $1 spent to prevent educational failure saves $4.75 in the cost of remedial education, welfare and crime in the future. r THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY I
much more than education, but until later, when solutions will be • Schools need to be operated education makes better managers, more expensive, complicated and more like businesses, with provides more future workers perhaps too late. enough rewards given to the best with language training and to encourage all to work hard, Whatever specific and enough risks to encourage strategies are sub-standard teachers to leave the THE LEAR.NlNG ENTERPRISE Sources ofU.S. education and ttainlng, in bUllons ofdolb.nJ adopted to system. 1986 improve the schools - and • If revolutJonary changes are Employere• improvements needed, as many participants probably will be suggested, the most practical way community to introduce and test them is driven- through a series of model pro
Po,tMcondary the cornerstone grams. Within the next three must be years, the nation's school districts accountability. should try to establish model Government school6, insulated from institu • Local schools tional pressure. Panicipants 100 150 200 250 50 mu t be given recommended that at least 2,000 • lndudc:' fonnal ,anc.l mfonn.al employ'"' tr:nnmg Sour,c. Amer"an Socacty for Tr;nnang and Dc:velopmen1 sufficient author such models be started. Teachers, ity and autonomy parents, principals and business to get results and executives all must be involved in cultural knowledge of countries be held responsible for success or devising these new laboratories in which we want to compete, failure. for educational change. produces more and better engi neers, and helps us better under • Elected school boards with in • I Iungry kids do not learn well. stand the forces that make for, dependent taxing powers should Programs like Head Start put kids and perpetuate, our underclass. be encouraged, giving local edu into schools with full stomachs. cators freedom to innovate, but Panicipants suggested that all Parents. business executives. holding them accountable for four-year-olds who need workers, educatorc,, politicians using that free- and studenb all must be per dom \\IScl} suaded that they have a direct. personal stake in improving the • Merit pay educational system. should reward achievement by Students must see the connections outstanding between quality education and individual their ability ro earn a decent teachers and living. to provide for self and principab; at the family It is just as important to same time. see the darker side, to show the ineffiCient. inept relationship between inadequate teachers must be schooling and dead-end jobs, lack penalized or of advancement and, in extreme merit pay be cases, imprisonment. comes just another part of Adults must understand that the the pay nation has a choice: it can fix the package. education problem now or wait
Matina Horner, President, Radcliffe College, and Michael Dertouzos, M.I.T. ---l:]- Consultation on Competitiveness
assistance should have access to MATH REPORT CARD Head tart or a similar program to Percentage of 17-year-olds proficient in various math skills give them a fair chance at learning 1986 and in life.
• American workers must keep learning just to keep up. Lifelong Multi-step problem-solving learning programs and worker and algebra J retraining programs need to be Moderately complex available and utilized by all procedures and reasoning businesses. It is not just a matter I of personal growth. The great Basic operations and beginning majority of current employees will problem-solving I still be on the job 20 years from I I now. No matter how quickly or Beginning skills effectively we reform our educa tional establishment, the bulk of I I the work force will consist of Simple arithmetic present workers for decades to come. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 • Those who have left the formal educational system as damaged Note: Bottom two k'Vcls Include material taught in elementary schools, middle two levels in goods - that is, functionally junior high and top level in high school. illiterate - must be given as Source: National AS.'iCMmcnt of Educational Progress much remedial training as they need to begin to take advantage of available job opportunities. skilled and educated work force and specific kill requirements that made this country the twenti have changed, the central chal America's free public schools have eth century's dominant economic lenge to educators remains the been the envy of the world. They power. As the United tares same: teach our children and turned an assembly of immigrants approaches a new century, it can workers well. into one country, and produced a accept no less from its school system. Although circumstances I THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY l NIVERSITY I
RESEARCH AND breakthrough that changes entire each other. Products are im D EVELOPMENT industries. Blockbuster inventions proved continuously through a make headlines, hut they alone constant give-and-take involving Technological innovation has long are not enough anymore. inventors, producers and market been America's strong suit, pro ers. It is called tinkering: America viding an cnormou~ advantage in Whtle the present system pro used to be the best in the world at our competit"ion with other na duces occasional breakthroughs, it it. We must become the best at it tions. This has changed. Foreign also tends to produce too many again. nations have caught up with, and solutions for problems that do not sometime:-; surpassed, America's exist or provides solutions too Cross-functional teams, dispensing once seemingly insurmountable technical or expensive to with traditional interdepartmental technological lead in many areas, implement. jealousies, are used in many other from basic to high tech industries. countries to help hasten an idea The Lnited tate needs to adopt from drawing board to market At the same time, moving an idea a more market-driven approach to place. In too many American from mind to market is more R&D, con ultation participants cases, the solution for a given complex, cumbersome and costly urged. Other countries, especially problem may lie just outside a than ever. The acceleration of Japan, have reversed the block laboratory door or down the hall, new technology has compressed buster process - focusing first on but rigidity within the research product cycle times significantly, the market demand for the final system prevents the sharing of l ideas. Market-driven R&D is also bener • Although the United States continues to spend more on R&D than its top at deciding when to pay the costs four competitors combined, japan :S and West Genna ny :S non-defense of pioneer research, and when to R&D intJestments as a percentage of GNP bcwe been risinp,faster than be a "fast-follower," lagging A menca 's for the past flt•e years. slightly behind the cutting edge, hut commercializing usable • In a rr?cent survey of L .S college and unttoerslfr deans ofengmeenng, foreign technology when it is ph}:szcal sctences, life sciences. computer sczences and mathematical sciences, more than half ranked their research facilities as onlv 'fair" or appropriate. The national Lack of "poor " a global perspective sometimes leado.; to an unwillingness to • Forezp,n compames and inventors captured OJ6.8 percent of the Ameri exploit foreign technology - the can patents au•arded in 1987. up from 44 9 percent in 1986 and con "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome. tuwinp, a 20-year trend 1be top three recipients of l S patents uoere japanese finns. The market-driven philosophy needs to find a home on cam • In l l.S p,raduate schools of engineering, foreip,n students represent about puses as well. While universities 40 percent of enrollments and receive owr half of new US doctorates in will continue to perform much of engineering And o1•er 50 percent ofall US engineering faculty under the basic research in this country, the age of35 are foreign-hom and the proport1011 ts increasing they need to realize that their best • Federal mvestment in university research facilities and equipment has professors are not likely to remain declmed 95 percent 111 the last 20 years in teaching unless they are free to explore some of the profitable possibilities that arise from re search. The nation's colleges so that companies have less time product and working backward, need closer connections to the to conceive an idea, put a product making incremental refinements industries that ultimately use into production and beat the as necessary. their research, both to compen competition to market. sate individual scholars and to Funher, Japanese corporations maintain the vital li nk between America always has been best at make sure their workers ta lk to laboratory and marketplace. the blockbuster invention, the Consultation on Competitiveness I
Expanded licensing and royalty First, the R&D tax credit should be - for science and engineering payments for faculty would go a reinstated and made permanent. students and faculty members long way toward bringing a Second, tax provisions supporting alike. professor's salary up to that of his lifelong learning should be corporate colleague. reconsidered. In the meantime, U.S. immigration policies should continue to Government must begin to act as Government also a research asset and marketing needs to create a MORE PATENTS GOING OVERSEAS facilitator. A fining starting point climate for a Percentage of U.S. patents awarded annually to fordgners would be forceful action by the healthy national 1979·1986 next president to revitalize the R&D network, Office of Science and Technology well-connected to and to refocus its mission on industry, schools competitiveness. The president and business. The should select a new science lack of coordina- advisor soon after his election - tion among both to alert the public to government technology's importance in agencies extends 35 America's future and to pull to government/in 30 together the resources of industry, dustry partner 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 government and higher education ships, which pale in fashioning a comprehensive next to the pro Source: U.S. Patem Office action agenda. grams of many other developed countries. For encourage an influx of foreign The science advisor should work instance, despite recent improve born scientists, whose talents with the scientific community to ments, transferring the technology represent a "brain gain" for the persuade Congress to enact two from federal laboratories to United States and whose enthusi private asm and energy provide an industry eloquent testimonial to the NON·DEFI!NSE R&D SPENDING As a pucentage of Gross National Product remains a opportunity that is still the hall 1981-198S slow and mark of America.
2.7 J:;----an • cumber some The United States was built on process. good ideas. America invented '·'Iv-..------::::~ modern democracy and agricul 2.3 West Germany A technol ture, developed an unmatched L ogy-driven transportation system with the 2. 1 economy locomotive, steamboat, automo United States ---===-::=:: 1.9 a a a needs bile and airplane, cured a host of technically diseases, and ushered in the trained computer and biotechnology :: t~. people. To revolutions, among other 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 encourage accomplishments. Source: National Science Foundation the develop- ment of The challenge for America's U.S.-born scientific and engineering commu laws needed to help America's re scientists and engineers, govern nity today is to build on that searchers and engineers lead the ment and business should proud heritage - and, in so country's push toward excellence. increase support for graduate doing, to make it possible for its fellowships. To supplement this manufacturing and service sectors financial aid, companies should to compete throughout the world. expand their summer internships I THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY I
MANUFACTURING national manufacturing sector. Stabilizing exchange rates is just l Furthermore, gains in manufactur one way in which the public Manufacturing remains the main ing productivity, so essential to sector can help revitalize t..: . . stay of the American economy, national competitiveness, have manufacturers. Reducing the despite aiJ the talk about the helped offset flat productivity federal deficit, hence boosting the "post-industrial society" and the growth in the service sector. national savings rate, should "new service economy." Good make more capital available for ideas are not enough. Unless we Finally, merchandise still accounts investment in facilities-moderniza can make what we invent more for the vast majority of American tion programs. improving productively than foreign nations. trade. nless we boost the America's education and training we will continue to lose exports of American-made prod system should help make avail- competitiveness. uct'i, the United Stares will be able more skilled employees - unable to make significant reduc to manage the businesses, to Despite a decline in manufactur tions in its trade deficit, the most design and engineer the new ing jobs over the past few visible symbol of our declining competitiveness. • Real wages in the United States The devaluation of have been dropping approxi the dollar buys mately 6 percent a year com time to revitalize pared to other industrialized American manu nations. facturing, but only if the time is used • The cost of capital to A mencan wisely- to manufacturers ts three times the develop new cost in japan. technologies and • Manufacturing employed 79. I utilize innovative million people in 1987, a decline management tech o.ftwo million from 1979. niques - consul tation participants • Manufacturing, de~pite account pointed oul. The tnp, for only 20 percent of the realignment in the nation's Gross Domesllc Product. decades, manufacturing still international currency market<; has significant spzllouer effects on accounts for a substantial portion has been extremely helpful. As other sectors A 1 percent in of U.S. output, provides entry the dollar has devalued some 50 crease in manufacturing unem level and high-wage jobs, and percent against the yen and ployment, for instance. causes generates much of rhe service Deutsche mark since 1985, unemployment rises of3.2 percent in the construction mdustry growth. Manufacturing's American goods have become industry. 2 4 percent 111 seroices continual need for better process more competitively priced in and 1.5 percent in retail trade technology is a powerful spur to world markets. mdustrial research and develop • An estimated 5 to 15 million ment; the products of the much manufacturing jobs will be touted new technology literally restructured by the end ofthe would never get off the drawing century, with an equal number board without a vital, healthy made obsolete. Sixteen million new jobs u•i/1 be created by 1995. but 90 percent ofthem u>i/1 be in the seroice sector
- (2:.1 ------C consultation on Competitiveness I
technologies and to operate the Manufacturers need to get closer suggested that a worthy goal machinery on the factory floor. to their markets and pay more would be 2 percent growth a year attention to market share and for both the manufacturing and External progress is just the start, long-term growth. Steps should ervice ectors. uch a level however, participants aid. The be con idered to isolate compa would be a minimal goal for major improvements must come nies from the relentless, short- manufacturing, an ambitious one term demands of for services. shareholders. AVERAGE ANNUAL MANUFAC11JIUNG PRODUCI1VTIY GROWTH Average annual percentage increase While foreign Organizations must commit 196o·1985 competitors were themselves to total quality con
10 r------~~~-r patiently establish trol. American manufacturers • u.s ing international hould con ider providing quality 8 JAPAN distribution and far beyond the level demanded 0 B.R:J'E ervice networks by customer , and demand the and cultivating same performance from their customers during suppliers. taff should be pro the 1970s and vided with univer al quality 1980s, American training so that a philosophy of 3 producers all too "low rejects" can be transformed often were fo into one of "no rejects." Mecha cused on quarterly nisms such as the National profits. In too Quality Awards should be used 1U0·88 1088·70 many instances, to recognize and reward Source: OECD lh.>~oncal Swt"tlcs; 'Tbe Case for MamifactunllR 111 when tariffs, high-quality performance. America~ Fultlre quotas and other trade tools gave Making these improvements from within - from American American corporations a tempo requires constant communication manufacturers them elves. rary advantage over foreign rivals, that cuts acros all departments, American business could profit that breathing space was used to from research to marketing, and from a concept recently popular rake in windfall profits instead of that link management and labor in educational circles: back to being een as a chance to recap into new team with common basics. In this case, the basics are ture market hare. goals. pecifically, consultation a comprehensive understanding participants proposed the ex of the manufacturing process as a Manufacturers need to tighten panded use of profit-sharing continuous cycle that must draw product cycles, meeting market arrangments and programs to on the skills of the entire corpora demands in less time and with increase job-security in the face tion. All phases of the cycle must products that are as practical to of rapid technological change. be coordinated - from initial make as they are easy to use. While foreign manufacturers were idea through production, market The use of computer-aided assembling quality-assurance ing and distribution. The same design and manufacturing sy - councils and building worker fragmentation and linear ap terns, allowing companies to management rapport during the proach that has slowed the quickly customize products, past few decades, too many development of American innova should become more widespread. American companies let labor and tions has tended to reduce the management drift apart, losing efficiency of production Manufacturers must become sight of mutual goals. Lack of a as well. committed to improvements in "shared take" by workers and productivity and quality. National productivity goals should be set high: consultation participants
G --- THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY
The intelligence and creativity of the television network presidents workers must be mobilized as in a hotel room and stating part of an across-the-board manufacturing's case. upgrading of manufacturing. Manufacturing is being asked to Beyond making the specific im lead the nation mto a new era of provements outlined above, economic growth. Such a American manufacturers must challenge is nothing new The take the lead in changing public country's manufactunng base has perception about industry's invented and re-invented itself for central role in revitalizing U.S. almost 200 years, ever since competitiveness. As manufactur Alexander JIamilton called on a ing has lost its luster, too SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF MANUFAC'nJJUNG UNEMPLOYMENT Increase In sector unemployment rate from one point of manufacturing many of unemployment America's 1986 best and WUllam Crutchfield, Jr., brightest Crutchfield Corporation have Prol... tonaJ chosen inadequate communication within careers in factories often led to disastrous marketing, quaHty and productivity !ides. finance and law. Just as employees must recognize To attract WholeooltT-
management's needs for effi the next Constrvc11on ciency and profits, corporations generation must boost the investment in their and moti · I 0 workers significantly. giving them vate the '><>Un. t<- n.,. Ct.LY.· f or .\lumifac/111111}1. Ill AmL'I"U:a\ Fll/111'(' the tools with which to ··work current smarter" and provide constant one, manufacturing needs to young United States to develop a training Jnd retraining to help regain tts rightful place at the manufacturing capability to fuel them master new, computer center of American industry. national expansion. The stakes driven manufacturing technology. Manufacturing executives have a - and opportunities - are responsibility to get that message equally great today. across, even if it takes, as one participant suggested. corralling Consultation on Competitiveness
GLOBAL MARKETS Foreign trade U.S. EXPORTS is not a Selected countries, in billions of dollars 1987 The United States is a trading luxury for nation and always has been. the United Hong Kong American clipper ships took States: Italy America's best manufactured because a Taiwan goods and the crops from its growing France fertile fields and brought back the number of S. Korea materials to make more goods, domestic w Germany turning a profit both ways. As our jobs are Unoled Kongdom country industrialized, American directly tied Moxlco products gained a worldwide to exportS of reputation for quality and innova goods and tion. "Made in America" meant services, o 5 10 1s 20 25 3o 35 •o 45 50 55 so the best. America's Source: Censu; Bureau standard of Today, despite remaining the Living in- world's single largest exporting creasingly reflects our ability to Assuring America' future success nation, America's share of world ell abroad. If America can't as a world trader requires first and trade has slipped. Rapid gains by retrieve its prowess at overseas foremo t a national commitment other nations mean that the trade, it will suffer rising trade to think globally, consultation United States must work harder to deficits, fall further behind those participants said. Government can penetrate foreign markets, to countries that do understand and help in two respects, by making trade a national priority and by creating an environment that facilitates expanded trade oppor • For the past 15 years, U.S. exports of manufactured goods have grown tunities for U.S. ftrms. three percent less per year than those ofthe rest of the world. This would mean: • In. 1980, the United States bad a $26.1 billion trade surplus with devel oping countries in. the trade ofmanufactured goods. By 1986, that • table exchange rates and surplus bad turned into a trade deficit of $27.9 billion. low capital costs. American ex porters have been victimized by • American imports ofmanufactured goods from developing countries exchange rates that priced U.S. (in Latin America and elsewhere) more than doubled from 1980 to good out of foreign markets and J984Jrom $34 billion to $70 bit/ton. by interest rates that drove up the cost of capital to levels that gave • In 1980, the United States imported 14.6 percent of ils capital goods. In 1987, the figure was 37.7 percent. foreign competitors an unfair advantage. • From 1979to 1985, the U.S. share ofindustn"al countries' exports declined by 4.3 percent in automatic data processing equipment, 2.3 • A well-funded R&D infrastruc percent in consumer electronics, 6.3 percent in electronic parts and 2.8 ture and good educational system. percent in business electronics. American marketers cannot compete if they are selling poorly designed products made by inadequately trained workers. make goods of high enough exploit the world market and quality to compete with foreign become less and less able to lead, • Rigorous enforcement of manufacturers, to identify new either economically, culturally or existing trade laws to protect markets and to understand the politically. against unfair foreign trade prac cultures that dictate customer tices and piracy of U.S. patents, preferences in foreign lands. ( THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY I
copyrights and other intellectual The most successful American channels. Mid-level executives property. In too many cases, traders take the long view, need more foreign language capa American traders have been developing relationships with bility and a bener understanding stymied by import and distribution their customers and patiently es of other cultures. Entry-level barriers erected by foreign nations tablishing distribution and service workers need a better basic mtent on protecting their home networks. They have a global per education. markets while they spective, seeing the United States penetrate ours. market not as a sanctuary but The recent fall of the dollar, and as an opportunity to explore the subsequent surge in exports, • Multilateral trade legislation new ideas. that guarantees fair access by U. Successful ftnns into foreign markets. exporters are not at all • Export-promotion programs bashful about that help U.S. businesses identify borrowing foreign opportunities and pene and improv trate overseas markets. A more ing- ideas aggressive federal trade role also from foreign might include passage of antitrust competitors; legislation that would expand the they are not degree to which industries could afflicted by cooperate with each other and the "Not with government in foreign ven Invented tures. Some consultation partici Here" pants suggested legalizing cartels syndrome. for overseas operations. They use foreign Governments, however, don't nationals wisely, aggressively seek should not be used as an excuse compete in international trade - out niche markets abroad, estab for complacency or quick proftts, businesses do. lish foreign alliances and cooper- but as an opportunity to build ate effectively with future markets. I TRADE DEFIOT government officials Current account balance, In billions of dollars and educators. Their In fighting for our economic 1980·1987 success should be future, scapegoating the foreign emulated hy others. competition is no answer. Protec 20r---~----T---~----~--~----~--~ tionism is no refuge. America --r-.. As a scatting point, invented modern sales and mar ?0 - 1-- •o American business keting techniques, primarily to i\. service our own booming econ eo """ needs to be retr.tined 80 from the executive suite omy. The challenge now is to "\. 100 " down. At the top, chief hone and refine those techniques ·120 t--- executive officers need and apply them in the new and ~ 1•o to reject the false allure expanding international ·1 80 of protectioni m and marketplace. IDeO 1881 ID82 1883 IDe• 1885 1888 ID87 -- commit their organiza tions to the multiple, Current Jccnum
~ ------Consultation on Competitiveness
FISCAL AND debt and the interest payments on Deficits drive up the cost of MONETARY POUCY it represent a lien on our goods capital needed by manufacturers and assets. They also constrain trying to open foreign markets, Much of the explanation of the our independence in both domes retrain their workers or buy state long-term U.S. competitive prob tic and foreign policy. America's of-the-art equipment to upgrade lem rests with low national future increasingly is tied to the their facilities. Lack of inve tment savings, a high cost of capital and policy choices of its foreign in people and technology trans the resulting inadequate level of creditors. lates into low productivity national investment. Despite a growth. Deficits also worsen the massive inflow of foreign capital, A reduction in the fiscal deficit is American tendency toward short the U.S. net investment rate in the the most critical step to restore term economic planning. The 1980s was lower than in the three our national economic health. political leadership needed to previous decades and lower than The deficit, which remained well encourage change and experi most of our advanced industrial over $150 billion in 1987, exacer mentation too often has been trading partners. Foreign borrow bates most of the problems preoccupied by deficit-caused, ing was used to finance a related to competitivene s. The short-term fiscal crises.
Consultation participants urged significant reductions in the federal budget by 1993; some • Net savings in the United States have fallen from 7.8 percent ofGNP in 1979 to 2 percent in 1987. thought that a short-term deficit amounting to about 1 percent of • fn 1970 American wages were 4.5 times greater than japans. By GNP would be acceptable. Re Late 1987, that ratio bad fallen to 1.2. ducing the deficit by that amount would require spending cuts of • Net national product per worker rose only 2.2 percent from 1979 to about $60 billion in the next five 1986. Consumption per worker, however, rose 8.8 percent. years; it was suggested that the cuts be divided roughly in thirds • Between 1970 and 1985, japan invested an average of50 percent among defen e, entitlement more per employee than the United States. Recently the disparity bas program and other expenditures. increased to 100 percent. Others pointed out that a decline in interest rates could save the government additional billion in annual interest payments on domestic consumption boom and deficit figures are not just abstract federal borrowings. to cover the huge federal govern numbers. Every dollar used to ment deficit, with little left over to service the federal debt means There was less agreement about support a major increase in our less money available fo r teacher the need for, or the magnitude of, national investment effort. Fed salaries, student aid or new revenue increases that might be eral deficits absorbed two-thirds research equipment. Government needed - either in place of or in of our national savings over the borrowing to finance its debts addition to the proposed spend last seven years. Without foreign means that better ideas flowing ing cuts. Taxes on consumption loan , we would have been from a ·ucce ful commercial were the preferred alternative. In unable to realize even the rela R&D effort will have trouble creases in cigarette, alcohol and tively low investment rate that we reaching the market because they gasoline taxe were mentioned. achieved. cannot find low-cost venture Some advocated pa sage of a capital. national value-added tax. Taxing As a nation, we have become capital gains at death and taxing increasingly reliant on foreign securities transfers also were capital. Our growing foreign I THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY I
together with iET NATIONAL lNVESTMl!NT VS. NET NATIONAL AVING expenditures that add linle to the Average annual percent of Gross Oome!Jtic Product our allies to nation's global competitiveness. 1962·1985 develop a plan for Therefore, incentives are needed greater macro to encourage American citizens to economic save rather than spend. Tax balance in incentives for individuals and the world deferred-compensation plans for economy. employees are two promising possibilities. Deficits are not the only By reducing the fiscal deficit and cause of introducing policies to increase America's low private savings, our overall goal savings and should be to increase America's investment national savings rate to 8-9 per rates. Com cent a year. With this pool of pared to other funding, we could fmance a S.Oc....___ _._ ___ _,_ ___ _.______. nations, the greater portion of our investments American tax internally without having to 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 system fails to borrow from abroad. Nel Nalionai Saving encourage Source. Beyond tbe Trade Dejlcil sufficient Prudent spending by both indi corporate or viduals and government will allow offered as options for raising private savings and investment. the nation to chart a competitive revenue without the regressive Instead of giving preferential tax future beyond the next budget aspects of consumption taxes. treatment for R&D expenditures resolution. Such a commitmem Participants agreed that a work or worker training, for instance, will give us renewed control over able deficit-reduction package the United States provides tax our own destinies and allow us to must spread the burden, so that breaks for vacation homes and pursue an agenda of investment one group in society does not feel other consumer-oriented for the future. victimized by another. Deficit reductions should be phased in to FEDERAL BUDGET DEFlCIT avoid recessionary pressure. ln bUUom of dollars Ideally, we should coordinate 1981·1989 domestic deficit reduction with 0 policies that help stimulate foreign ·25
economies. We must work ·50
·75
1 981 1 982 1983 1984 1 985 1 986 1987 1988 •• 1989•• •• COOforeca-o~ S I Consultation on Competitiveness I LEADERSHIP Leaders must help the public demanding standards for understand the complexity of the students, teacher , workers and Consultation participants focused overlapping problems. And they managers; potential tax hikes; on five priorities for action to must counter the presence of a reductions in consumption. bolster U.S. competitiveness: powerful and vocal minority that argues either that there is no real Yet, successfully addressing the • Reforming American education problem or that America's eco competitivenes challenge will and ensuring the universal availa nomic future can be assured with bring a wealth of benefits: larger bility of lifelong learning. a few quick fixes, such as adjust paychecks and improved stan ing exchange rates or passing a dards of living; increased pride in • Restoring the country's research trade bill. performance and renewed respect and development capability and on the world stage; modernized focusing more of American inven To begin with, the right words factories and revitalized tiveness on products people want must be found to describe the communities. to buy. economic challenges and oppor tunities. The American people The nation needs to identify - • Instilling new respect for manu must understand that declining and promote - model programs: facturing and encouraging more competitiveness is not an abstrac good chools, companies that productivity and quality improve tion, but that it has recognizable nurture innovation and foster ments by individuals and con equences: lower wages, lost productivity growth, businesses industries. jobs, lowered expectations for that have successfully cracked future generations, and the hu foreign markets. Quality achiev • Reclaiming America's status as a miliation of having "Made in ers must be turned into new premier world trader. America" no longer universally American heroes. A sustained recognized as the badge of education and public relations • Persuading people to spend quality. campaign will be needed to help less, ave more and make a spread the good news and to national commitment to invest in Finding the right words means ensure that the model efforts America's future: schools, facto shifting the focus of national at multiply. ries, re earch facilities and the tention to the long-term- a like. tough job, made tougher in an Having establi hed pragmatic pri age of instant analy is. It means orities for action, public and Implementing these five steps will building ownership of the com private leaders have an obligation require a sixth - the willingness petitiveness challenge, so that to spread the word. At regional of dedicated public and private Americans are more willing to and national fo1ums, they need to leaders to provide a positive accept responsibility themselves discuss the e solutions with each vision of change and help foster a and slower to seek an external other and with their peers in renewed commitment to scapegoat- foreigners, for other professions. excellence. instance, or the schools or politicians. Leaders not only need to talk to The first goal for leaders is to each other, they need to carry the help develop broad public aware More important, it means going standard within their own organi ness and acceptance of the com beyond a pessimistic recitation of zation . All Americans must come petitiveness challenge. Because the indicators of decline by chal to understand that competitive solving the competitiveness crisis lenging the American people to ness isn't some arcane business will require efforts by all Ameri respond to a positive vision of school theory. It is all of us, cans, they first must be convinced change. To be sure, bad news working harder and smarter, for that a crisis exists, that it can be loses elections, and many of the ourselve and our country. Noth addressed, and that their efforts po sible corrective actions ing less is worthy of the effort and will make a difference. needed to regain a competitive nothing else will do. edge are unpopular: entitlement and defense budget cuts; more ~~------~ ( THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY ) USTOF Roy LAsh Gary Bertsch ~ PARTICIPANTS Chairperso11 Co-Director . . I Fi')cal and Monetary Policy Center for East-West Trade Poltcy Jimmy Carter University of Georgia Co-Chairperson Arthur Blank Ann McLaughlin OPENlNG SFSSION SPEAKERS President Secretary of Labor Home Depot, Inc. Co-Chairperson Derek Bok Albert Shanker Alan S. Blinder Sidney Topol Murray L. We1denbaum Professor ofEconomics Consultation Coordinator Princeton University Barbara Klante DerekBok Consultation taff D~rector PANEIJSTS President Bill Spencer Panel I Harvard University Interaction Associates Leadership/Monetary Pohcy Conference Facilitator George N. Hatsopoulos Donald M. Bolle Lawrence Summers Dean Wayne D. Gantt Richa rd E. Cavanagh College of Engineering and Project Economist Applied Sciences Panel// Lehigh University Manufacturing/Global Markets William G. McGowan C. Sidney Boren WORKING GROUP CHAIRPERSONS Laura Tyson Vice President Corporate Planning and Budget Matina S. C. jackson Grayson Horner Bell oulh Corporation Chairperson Education Panel III Fred Branfman Research and Development/ Director Howard D. Samuel Human Resources Rebuild America Vice-Chairperson Michael Dertouzos Education joseph D. Duffey Gresham T. Brebach Alan H. Magazine Managing Parlner Robert W. Galvin Management Information Consulting Chairperson Arthur Anderson and Company Global Markets PARTICIPANTS Robert Broadwater Arden Bement Executive-in-Residence Chazrperson TenrenceB . A~n College ofManagement Research and Development Dow, Lohnes & Albertson Georgia Institute of Technology An Wang Roy l-Ash James K. Campbell Vice-Chairperson Vice-Chairman Corporate Group Vice-President Research and 11evelopment CED National Economil Slalu!> U.S Operations Sidney Harman James Balloun Dot>. Coming Corporatl()n Chazrperson MdGnsey & Co James Cannon Manufacturing David J. Barram American Agenda, Inc. Brian Turner Vice President for Corporate Affairs Jimmy Carter Vice-Chairperson Apple Computer, Inc. Manufacturing Richard E. Cavanagh Mr. Frank Barron Executive Dean William Farley Vice President of Public Affairs john F. Kennedy School of Chairperson Rome Coca-Cola Bartling Government Leadership Arden Bement Harvard University Mel Levine Vice President Ken Charon Vice-Chairperson Technical Resources College ofBusiness Admmistration Leadership TRW Inc. Georgia State University Consultation on Competitiveness Richanl Cooper Martin s. Geisel Erwin Kelen Coopers & Lybrand Dean President and CEO Owen Graduate School of OataMyte Corporation Jacqueline B. Cotseo Management President and CEO Vanderbilt School of Management Thomas F. Keller Cmsen Capital Dean c. Jackson Grayson Fuqua School of Business William G. Crutchfield, Jr. Chairman Duke University President American Productivity Center Crutchfield Corporation Charles K.irbo Daniel Greenberg Ki ng & Spalding Gerald J. Day Chairman and CEO Dean Electro Rent Corporation Barbara Klante College ofManagement Consultation Staff Director Georgia Institute of Technology Robert E. Hall The Carter Center Professor Michael Dertouzos Stanford University Director Laboratory fo r Computer Science Sidney Harman Chairman Chairman M.I.T. Commission on Industrial Harman International Productivity Ludus H. Harvin m Joseph D. Duffey Chainnan of the Board and CEO Chancellor Rose tores Inc. University of MassachusettS George N. Hatsopoulos Amitai Etzion.i Chairman and President Harvard Business School Thermo Electron Corporation William Farley Curtis A. Hessler Chairman Senior Vice President and Charles B. Knapp Farley Industries General Counsel President UNi Y David Feld University of Georgia President Matina S. Horner Paul Krugman To Alan H. Magazine SamNunn Albert Shanker President U.S. Senator President Counctl on Competitiveness Georgia American Federation of Teachers John H. Makin George Peacock Wilbur A. Steger Director of Fiscal Policy Sh.uiies Cbaimzan and CEO President American Enterprise lm;titute Equitablt: Real F~<;tate Investment Consad Research Corporation Management, Inc. Steven Malin Gordon Stewart Sen tor Economist Robert W. Philip, Jr. American rock Exchange The Conference Board, Inc. Partner Arthur Anderson & Company Lawrence Summers Marilu McCarty Nathaniel Ropes Professor for Political Associate Professor of Economics Tino Purl Economics Georgia Institute of Technology McKinsey & Co. Harvard University Robert McCullough Irvin E. Richter Nancy Teeters Managing Partner Chainnan and CEO Vice President & Chief Economist Arthur Anderson & Co. Hill International TBM William G. McGowan John E. Robson Tom R. Thomsen Chairman and CEO Dean President MCI Communications School ofBusiness Administration AT&T Technology Systems Group Emory University Ann McLaughlin AT&T Secretary ofLabor Robert D. Rogers Sidney Topol U.S. Department of Labor President Cbatrman Texas Industries, Inc. R. Tim McNamar cientific-Atlanta, Inc. Managing Director John W. Rosenblum Brian Turner Conover & McNamar Dean Colgate Darden Graduate School of Laura Tyson Jerry Mercer Business Administration Berkeley Roundtable President University of Virginia University of California PDQ Air Service Allen B. Rosenstein Paul Volcker Alan G. Merten Chairman ofthe Board Chairman Dean Pioneer Magnetics, Inc. james D. Wolfensohn, Inc. College of Business Adrmnistratto11 University of Florida Gillian Rudd An Wang President Chairman and CEO Michael H. Mescon The Rudd Company Wang Laboratories, Inc. Dean College of Business Administration Hermon Russell Murray L Weidenbaum Georgia State University President Edward Ma//tnckrodt Distinguished H .]. Russell Constructlon Company Untverslly Professor of Economics Ram.ond Miles Washington University Dean Howard D. Samuel School of BtLSmess Admtnistratzon President Anne Wexler University of California Industrial Union Department Wexler, Reynolds, Harrison and AFL-CIO Schule, Inc. Guy Millner Chairman and CEO Bill Spencer john T. Wigg Norrell Corporation Senior Associate Vice President ofManufacturing Interaction Associates Operations George P. Mitchell Xerox Corporation Chairman and President Martin C. Schwanzberg Mitchell Energy & Development, President Hans Wolf Corp. CRI, Inc. Vice Chairman of the Board Syntex Corporation Eleanor Holmes Norton s. Stephen Selig m Georgetown University President Joe B. Wyatt Selig Enterprises Chancellor Vanderbilt University L------~ ------I Consultation on Competitiveness BffiUOGRAPHY: Brooks, Harvey; National Science Center for the Study of American PUBliCATIONS ON Policy and Technological Innovation, Business, How Import Restraints COMPETITIVENESS The Positive Sum St:ratcgy; Harnessing Reduce Employment, June 1987. Technology for Economic Growth, National Academy of Sciences, Center for the Study of American The American Assembly, Running National Academy Press, Washington, Business, U.S. Employment Opportuni Out of Time, ovember 1987. D.C., 1986, pp. 119-167. ties in a Competitive World Economy, July 1987. American Business Conference, Brooks, Harvey; Technology as a Winning in the World Market, 1987. Factor in U.S. Competitiveness; U.S. Charon, Kenneth A.; What's Missing Competitiveness in the World in the Productivity Struggle: Tapping American Productivity Center, Economy, Scon, Bruce R. and Lodge, the White Collar Workforce. Productivity Perspectives, 1988. George C., ed.; Harvard Business School Press, 1984. Cohen, Stephen; Thurow, Lester; Balloun, James S.; McKinsey & Zysman, john; U.S. Manufacturing: Company, Leadership in a Changing The Busin ess Round Table on Inter Our Position in the Global Market, World, Presentation to the Rotary national Competitiveness, American Luncheon Speaker eries of the Club of Atlanta, January 1988. Excellence in a World Economy, june Congressional Economic Leadership 1987. Institute, July 1987. Blumenthal, W. Michael; The World Economy and Technology Change, Center for Applied Studies in Interna Cohen, Stephen S. and Zy man, john; Article drawn from the Elihu Root tional Negotiations, Coping with a Manufactttring Innovation and Lectures delivered to the Council on Changing World Economy: External American Industrial Competitiveness, Foreign Relations ovember Debts - International Trade - Forf!ign Science, American Association for the December 1987. Investments, 1987. Advancement of cience, Vol. 2239, March 1988, pp. 1110-1115. Branscomb, Lewis M. ; Brooks, Center for the rudy of American Harvey; Carter, Ashton B; Doty, Paul; Business, Toward a More Open Trade Committee for Economjc and Zinberg, Dorothy S.; Dual-Use Policy, january 1983. Development, Business and the Technologies: Balancing Economic Public Schools: Investing in Our and Security Interests in Federal R&D Center for the Study of American Children, 1985. Investment Strategies. A Proposal to Business, A National Development the Sloan Foundaton, eptember Bank: Ghost of the R.F.C. Past, june Commjnee for Economic 1987. 1984. Development, Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educa Branscomb, Lewis M. ; Toward a Center for the Study of American tionally Disadvantaged, 1987. National Policy on Research and Business, American Steel: Responding Development, Address to the North to Foreign Competition, February Committee for Economic east Conference of the Council on 1985. Development, Toll of the Twin Research and Technology Deficits, 1987. (CO RETECH) and The Conference Center for the Study of American Board, October 1987. Business, A "Dutch Uncle" Talk on Commjnee for Economic Foreign Trade, October 1985. Deyelopment, Work and Change, Brooks, Harvey; Can Science and Labor Market Adjustment Policies in a Technology Rescue the Faltering U.S. Center for the Study of American Competitive World, 1987. Economy?, Materials and Society, Business, Learning to Compete, April Vol. 9, No. 1, 1985, pp.1-12. 1986. The Conference Board, Restructuring Education, 1987. Center for the rudy of American Business, Do Tax Incentives for Investment Work?, June 1986. ~ ------~ THE CARTER CE'\ITER OF EMORY l'NIVERSITY Council on Competitiveness, Dornbush, Rudiger; Poterba, james; National Association of Manufacturers, Americas Competitive CnsJS: and Summers, Lawrence; The Case Manufacturing Creates Americas Confronting the New Reality, April for Manufacturing in Americas Strength, October 1987 1987. Future, 1988. Nauonal Academic~> of Sciences and Council on Competitivcnc~>s. Policy Guile, Bruce R.; Brooks, Harvey; ed.; Engineering, Management of Statement. Restori11p, Amenca ~" Trade Technology and Global Change Technology. The Hidden Competifil'e Position. Apnl 1987 Industry. Compames and 1\/atzons m Adt,antage. 1987 the World Economy, Nattonal Acad Council on Competitiveness, Toward emy of Engineering, at1onal Acad Pastor, Robert; 7be Cry-and-Sigh a Pro-Competllive Fz.scal Policy, A emy Press, Washington, D.C.. 1987 Syndrome· Congress arzd Trade Polu:_v. Report of the Fiscal Polley Task Force American Enterprise Institute Studies to the Executive Committee of the Hatsopoulos. George N.; Presemation in Political and Social Proct.:s~es, 1983 Council on Competitiveness, March to Congressional Economic Leadership 1988 (work in progress, not Institute, March 1988. Petersen, Donald E.; Commentary: available). Whether You Win or Lose, l Iyatt Manufacturing Studies Board, Toward Magazine, Fall 1987, pp. 16-17. Council on Competitiveness, a 1\ew Era in U.S. Manufacturing: Technology at the Crossroads: The 7be Need for a National Vision, 1986. Petersen, Donald E.; Remarks, Commercial Challenge to American Appendix C: A Review of Policy Rec Emerging Issues Forum, 'orth Innovation, March 1988 (work in ommendations of Selected Study Carolina State University, March 1988. progress, not available). Committees, Panels and Commissions, 1979-1985. President's Commission on Industrial Council on Competitiveness. Competitiveness, Global Competition - .Education Reform ProJeCt, March 1988 Manufacturing Srud1es Board, Human The Neu• RealiZJ•, Volume 1, january (work in progress, not available). Resource Practices.for Implementing 1985. Adva11ced Manufacturing Technology, Council on Competiuvcncss, 1986. Thurow, Lester C. and Tyson, Laura Competitiveness Polic)' Program for D'Andrea; The .t:conomic Black Hole, the President and the AdministratiOn, McLaughlin, Ann; Remarks to the Foreign Policy, Carnegie Endowment March 1988 (work in progress, not Distnct Export Council National for International Peace, Number 67. a\ .Hiable ). Conference. Washington. D C . '-lummer 1987, pp j-21 February 1988 Cyert, Richard M and Mowery. Da\id L <., Department of l:-.ducat1on and C., ed.; Technology and Employment, Murphy. Terrence Roche; 7be lligh U.S. Department of Labor; 7be Bottom Innovation and Growth in the C.S Tech Balancing Act, Remark:-;: l.ine· Basic SkilL~ in the Workplace, Economy, Panel on Technology and Strategic Exports Controls Conference, 198H. Employment, Commmee on Science, Tht! Royal Institute of International rngmeering, and Public Pohcy, Affa1rs and the American Chamber of WL·1denbaum, Murray; Tou•ards a National Academy of ciences, Commerce in the United Kingdom, Competititl(?ness Agenda, Washington ational Academy of Engmcering, Chatham House, London, "'ovember l n1ver~1ty, Apnl 1988. and Institute of Medtcine, National 1987. Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987. National Alliance of Business, Employment Policies: Looking to the Democratic Leadersh1p Council, Year 2000, 1986. Winning in the World Economy. October 1985. "-ational Academy of Engmeering, The Competitive Status of U.S. Industry- An Ouen•teu·. 1985. Consultation on Competitiveness THE CARTER CENTER BOARD OF ADVISORS Dominique de Menil President OF EMORY UNIVERSIIT Ivan Allen, ill The Menil Foundation, Inc. President President William H. Foege The Ivan Allen Company The Menil Collection Executive Director Former President President and Founder William C. Watson, Jr. Allanta Chamber of Commerce The Rothko Chapter Director of Operations Former Chairman of the Board of Trustees Gerald R. Ford James T. Laney Woodruff Arts Center 38th President ofthe United States President Christopher B. Hemmeter Emory University Dwayne 0. Andreas Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert Strickland Archer Daniels Midland Company Hemmeter Corporation Chairman ofthe Board Chairman Japan-Hawaii Economk Council Emory University U -US R Trade and Economk Council Vice President's Pacific Advisory Chaimzan Committee Pre idem Reagan's Task Force on Will..iam G. Hyland FEllOWS International Private Enterprise Editor W. Michael Blumenthal Foreign Affairs Harold]. Berman Deputy Assistant to President Ford for U.S. - Soviet Relations Chairman and Chief Executive Officer U iSYS Corporation National Security Affairs Thomas Buergenthal 64th U.S. Secretary ofthe Treasury Former Director ofIntelligence Human Rights Chairman Department of State U.. Delegation to the Kennedy Martin E. Marty Karl Deutch Round of TrJde egotiations International Relations Faiifax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor John Brademas Richard A. Joseph President Unjversity of Chicago African Studies ew York University President American Academy of Religion Ellen Mickiewicz Former Member Soviet Media and International U.. House of Representatives and President Communications Hou e Majority Whip The Park Ridge Center Former Chairman of the Board of Eleanor Holmes Norton Robert Pastor Directors Latin American and Caribbean Professor ofLaw Federal Reserve Bank of ew York Studies Georgetown University Law Center Former Chainnan Jimmy Carter Dayle E. Powell Chairman of the Board Equal Employment Opportunity Conflict Resolution 39th President of the United States Commission Tntstee Kenneth W. Stein Anne Cox Chambers The Rockefeller Foundation Middle Eastern Studies Chainnan Atlanta ewspapers, Inc. SamNunn Director of Cox Enterprises U.S. Senator Former U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Georgia Chairman Warren Christopher enate Armed Services Committee Chairman Chairman O 'Melveny & Myers Governmental Affairs' Permanent Former Deputy Secretary ofState ubcommittee on Investigations President ofthe Board of Tntstees of Stanford University I THE CARTER CENTER OF EMORY UNIVERSITY I - j Frank Press President National Academy of Sciences Former Science Advisor to the President and Director of the Office ofScience and Technology Policy Appoi1lted IYy President Nixon to the National Science Board Paul A. Volcker Chaim1an james D. Wolfensohn, Inc. Professor of International Economic Policy Princeton University Fom~er Chaimwn of the Board of Governors Federal Reserve System Anne Wexler Chaim~an Wexler, Reynolds, Harrison & Schule, Inc. Assistant to President Carter for Public Liaison Fonner Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce Andrew Young Mayor The City of Atlanta Fom1er Ambassador to the United Nations former Member ofth e U.S. !louse of Representatives ~------~; 27 ;~------~ ( Consultation on Competitiveness I ABOUT TilE CARTER CENTER The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution founded in 1982 to encourage the exchange of informed ideas leading to action-oriented po licy recommendations. rts primary objectives are to facilitate constructive dialogue among statesmen, scholars, business leaders and other decision makers, promote educa tion based on scholarly research and to implement outreach programs that impact on a set of carefully selected public policy issues both at home and around the world. The Center focuses on a number of key foreign and domestic areas - conflict resolution, international affairs, arms control, human rights, and health policy- through ongoing study and research by resident and visiting scholars, conferences, public forums, and special publications. The construction of The Carter Center facilities was funded entirely by $25 million in private donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. Dedicated on October 1, 1986, the complex of four interconnected buildings on 30 acres houses the jimmy Carter library and Museum, deeded to and operated by the Federal Government, and The Carter Center of Emory University (CCEU). It is also home to Global 2000, The Task Force for Child Survival, and the Carter-Menil Human Rights Foundation, a consortium of independently funded and administered organizations whose goals and ideals complement and enhance The Carter Center a a whole. --I 28 1-1 ----