Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:00:22.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Technology Policy in Global Markets: Developing Next-Generation Lithography in the Semiconductor Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Greg Linden ,
David C. Mowery  and
Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis
Greg Linden*
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
David C. Mowery*
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the late 1980s, the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) has been a prominent vehicle used to support collaboration between US federal laboratories and private firms. This paper examines the structure and goals of one of the most ambitious CRADAs conducted to date, the EUV CRADA, which involves three Department of Energy laboratories and leading US firms in the semiconductor industry and is aimed at the development of next-generation lithographic technologies. This large project is an important case study in ‘post-Cold-War’ technology policy and government-industry collaboration. Although the EUV project represents significant improvements in the design and management of CRADAs, it also illustrates the inherent difficulties of balancing political and economic goals in complex technology development programs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , August 2000 , pp. 93 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2000 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bloomstein, T. M., Horn, M. W., Rothschild, M., Kunz, R. R., Palmacci, S. T. and Goodman, R. B. 1997. Lithography with 157 nm Lasers. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B 15(6): 2112–2116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Marie L. and Bray, Olin H. 1997. Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping. Report SAND 9797-0665, accessed on-line at http://www.sandia.gov/Roadmap/. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grindley, Peter, Mowery, David C. and Silverman, Brian. 1994. SEMATECH and Collaborative Research: Lessons in the Design of High-Technology Consortia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(4): 723–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwynne, Peter. 1999. Unusual Energy Dept.-Industry Partnership To Build 21st Century Computer Chip May Be Co-Op Model. Research-Technology Management 42(2): 2–4.Google Scholar
Ham, Rose Marie, Linden, Greg and Appleyard, Melissa. 1998. The Evolving Role of Semiconductor Consortia in the U.S. and Japan. California Management Review 41(1): 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, Rose Marie and Mowery, David C. 1995. Improving Industry-Government Cooperative R&D. Issues in Science and Technology 11(4): 67–73.Google Scholar
Ham, Rose Marie and Mowery, David C. 1998. Improving the Effectiveness of Public-Private R&D Collaboration: Case Studies at a US Weapons Laboratory. Research Policy 26(6): 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Rebecca. 1995. Of Life Cycles Real and Imaginary: The Unexpectedly Long Old Age of Optical Lithography. Research Policy 24(4): 631–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Rebecca M. and Clark, Kim B. 1990. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, David C. 1999. America's Industrial Resurgence (?): An Overview. In U.S. Industry in 2000, edited by Mowery, David C. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Mowery, David C. 2000. Using Cooperative Research and Development Agreements as S&T Indicators: What do We Have and What Would We Like?” Paper presented at the National Science Foundation Workshop on ‘Strategic Research Partnerships ’, October.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. 1999. Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1997, 1998, and 1999. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R. 1961. Uncertainty, Learning, and the Economics of Parallel Research and Development Efforts. Review of Economics & Statistics 43(4): 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randazzese, Lucien P. 1996. Semiconductor Subsidies. Scientific American 274(6): 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacht, Wendy H. and McLoughlin, Glenn J. 1998. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements and Semiconductor Technology: Issues Involving the ‘DOE-Intel CRADA’ Report 98–81 STM. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Semiconductor Industry Association. 1998. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors: 1998 Update. San Jose, CA: Semiconductor Industry Association.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry I. and Cerrina, Franco. 1997. X-Ray Lithography for ULSI Manufacturing. Microlithography World Winter: 10–15.Google Scholar
Stix, Gary. 1995. Lithography Becomes Political Pork. Scientific American 272(5): 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Commerce. 2000. Tech Transfer 2000: Making Partnerships Work. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy.Google Scholar
US General Accounting Office. 1994. Technology Transfer: Improving the Use of Cooperative R&D Agreements at DoE's Contractor-Operated Laboratories. Report RCED-94-91.Google Scholar
Warshofsky, Fred. 1989. The Chip War: The Battle for the World of Tomorrow. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Young, Ross. 1994. Silicon Sumo: U.S.-Japan Competition and Industrial Policy in the Semiconductor Equipment Industry. Austin, TX: Japan Industry and Management of Technology Program, University of Texas.Google Scholar