Impact of Unfair Foreign Trade Practices: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economic Goals and Intergovernmental Policy of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session, March 20, 1985

Front Cover

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 34 - US firms' sales fell dramatically, sometimes to zero. Given the buy-Japan policies and the increasing ability of Japanese companies to replicate foreign chips, the US share began declining in 1980 and, in 1982, was lower than the US share in 1974, the last year the market was protected by quotas. High Technology Working Group...
Page 26 - Prior to the 1970s, the Japanese semiconductor market was protected by a wide range of formal and informal barriers. Imports were restricted by prior approval requirements and quotas. Investment in semiconductors was restricted by placing the industry on the so-called "negative list." This meant that foreign majority ownership in such industries was not permitted without prior government approval, which was almost never granted. Those US firms which were allowed to establish subsidiaries in Japan...
Page 13 - US semiconductor producers' role in the Japanese market is not much different than it was when the market was formally protected a decade ago - they are residual suppliers to whom Japanese customers turn when no Japanese source of supply is available or when Japanese firms do not produce a comparable product". It is further added that "the 1983-84 import promoting effort appears to have produced, temporarily, a slight increase in US share, but this is proving a transient gain".
Page 57 - In order to make technology a continuing competitive advantage for the United States, we need to do three basic things: 1) create a solid foundation of science and technology that is relevant to commercial uses; 2) apply advances in knowledge to commercial products and processes; and 3} protect intellectual property by strengthening patent , copyright, trademark, and trade secret protections.
Page 31 - In short, unless there is some foundation, some backing, no one will have courage to do so. It would be so risky. This is the number one point. And if ICs for microcomputers were not placed on the negative list, capital investment would not have been possible by Japanese makers. This meant that since MITI put up the negative list and gave administrative guidance, it was possible for us for the first time to stand on our own feet.
Page 112 - Thank you very much. The subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:15 am, the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair...
Page 10 - They are the most formidable that US industry faces in any major world market.
Page 35 - In the 12 months between the second quarter of 1980 and the second quarter of 1981, quarterly sales dropped from just under SI.
Page 50 - Commission which are: 1. Create, apply and protect technology; 2. Reduce the cost of capital to American industry; 3.
Page 26 - Foreign Trade and Industrial Policies: A Review of Japanese Experience," in Benjamin and Kudrle, eds. (n. 56 above), pp. 81-101. 65 Competition may have been encouraged to promote efficiency in protected, oligopolistic markets, while the "indirect subsidy...

Bibliographic information