ever, it accepts the necessity of limited governmental intervention to assure economic and social stability (Wilson, 1985). In the FRG, specific industries are targeted to receive special governmental assistance, and a strong centralization of both economic and financial power is encouraged (wilson, 1985).
In Japan, the entire society is based in large part on the concept of consensus, and the development and implementation of industrial policy is no exception. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) makes effective use of inducements to industry to reinforce consensus behavior (Wilson, 1985). As is true in the FRG, industrial targeting plays a major role in Japan's industrial policy (Wilson, 1985). Where the FRG provides dir ect monetary grants to targeted industries, Japan relies pri marily on tax incentives (Wilson, 1985).
Japanese industrial policy seeks to provide assistance to industry at two critical stages of the life cycle. First, in the introductory stage, when the industry is new and growing, and second, in the mature stage, when the industry faces increased foreign competition, and risks losing its competitive advantage (Wilson, 1985).
In contrast to the FRG and Japan, most American economic writers, business leaders, and politicians, as apologists for one perception of the American economy, contend that the United States does not have an industrial policy (Webber, 1987). The words of Alan Webber (1987, 21), managing editor of the Harvard Business Review reflect this perspective of an industrial pol icy as one that "smacked of Government directed economic plan ning . . . a not too subtle device that would allow a bunch of over educated do good liberals to gather in a room in Washing ton and decide which companies to support and which to jettison . . ." This head in the sand approach conveniently over looked the fact that the United States does, indeed, either (1) have specific policies, or (2) has ta...