Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Management article
-
Reference no. 88304
Published by: Harvard Business Publishing
Published in: "Harvard Business Review", 1988

Abstract

George Gilder, in the March-April 1988 HBR, attacked MIT''s Charles Ferguson for believing that many, small, entrepreneurial companies will do more for U.S. competitiveness than a few, large, integrated ones. Gilder claimed that advanced computer technology (engendering the "law of the microcosm") lowers barriers to market entry and promises to make talk of a national industrial policy obsolete. Here Charles Ferguson joins the debate and refutes Gilder''s claims with an analysis of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Ferguson shows that U.S. companies lose out, not to nimble, small companies but to huge, protected Japanese complexes that are embedded in stable, concentrated, coordinated alliances.

About

Abstract

George Gilder, in the March-April 1988 HBR, attacked MIT''s Charles Ferguson for believing that many, small, entrepreneurial companies will do more for U.S. competitiveness than a few, large, integrated ones. Gilder claimed that advanced computer technology (engendering the "law of the microcosm") lowers barriers to market entry and promises to make talk of a national industrial policy obsolete. Here Charles Ferguson joins the debate and refutes Gilder''s claims with an analysis of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Ferguson shows that U.S. companies lose out, not to nimble, small companies but to huge, protected Japanese complexes that are embedded in stable, concentrated, coordinated alliances.

Related