CLINTON’S INDUSTRIAL POLICY : NEWS ANALYSIS : Plan Is in Line With Actions in Past, Many Say : Strategy: By avoiding protectionism, the President is likely to gain a gridlock-busting victory on Capitol Hill.

For true-blue free marketeers, the technology policy unveiled by President Clinton this week may look like a typical Democratic scheme to get the government involved in decisions best left to the private sector.

Having pledged to spend $17 billion over four years on everything from “information superhighways” to pollution-free automobiles, Clinton already is drawing fire for engaging in some of the prime bugaboos of the last 12 years: “picking winners and losers” among various industries, for instance, and launching the nation on a dangerous foray into “industrial policy.”

To a remarkable degree, however, the Clinton technology program is less a bold departure into uncharted territory than an implementation of well-known proposals that have gained broad bipartisan support over the last several years.

The consensus--though it left out Presidents Bush and Reagan--developed amid growing concern over America’s status in the global economy and the American workers’ jobs at stake in worldwide competition.

With key rivals such as Germany and Japan giving support to industries they view as crucial, aides to those Republican presidents--as well as Republican-leaning business organizations and mainstream academics--came around to the Democrats’ idea that more government investment in commercial technology was appropriate.

Indeed, much of the Clinton plan simply expands on programs put in place during the latter years of the Bush Administration. And it avoids--so far, at least--a key component of the strategies labeled “industrial policy” by their opponents: an aggressive, protectionist approach on trade.

The strategy may pay off politically for the new President.

By defusing the ideological trench warfare over technology policy, Clinton is likely to gain a gridlock-busting victory on Capitol Hill on an issue that dovetails perfectly with his commitment to investing in the nation’s future.

“At the strategic and philosophical level, they are responding to what has become the consensus,” said Roland W. Schmitt, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a former head of research for General Electric. “Now the proof will be in the details--and that’s a good place to be.”

The details won’t necessarily be easy, however.

Clinton’s plan, which draws heavily on proposals long championed by congressional Democrats--including then-Sen. Al Gore--attempts to walk a fine line: It would support commercial technology development without indiscriminately funneling money to favored companies or industries.

The idea is to find ways of supporting technologies that have moved beyond the basic science stage but are not yet ready for the commercial market.

In part, the plan encourages industry to fill that gap by providing a permanent tax break for corporate research and development. But it also relies on government spending. For example, the Commerce Department will have an additional $1.3 billion to fund promising new technologies and build a network of “manufacturing technology centers.”

Several billion dollars will be spent on technologies needed to develop a high-capacity “information highway” that can carry voice, data and video information. Funds are also set aside for a range of more specific projects, including “clean cars,” new environmental technologies, energy efficiency projects and commercial research programs at the national laboratories.

Opponents of the program say it’s little more than tax-and-spend all over again.

“Bill Clinton is taking the big government approach, but there are other policies that would accomplish the same thing,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Rohrabacher and like-minded conservatives advocate more tax relief to encourage business investment and regulatory reforms, such as a relaxation of antitrust rules.

Even supporters of the program say there are risks in the specifics.

“I’m not sure I would have focused on the clean car thing,” said Erich Bloch, an influential technology policy advocate who once headed the National Science Foundation. Bloch also faults Clinton and Gore for not cutting back on the controversial space station and superconducting super collider projects, which many regard as wasteful.

And despite the Administration’s attempt to focus on what are sometimes called “generic technologies” rather than specific products, some industries are clearly more attuned to Clinton’s approach then others.

The chemical industry, for example, spent $13.3 billion on research and development in 1991--on plastics, composite materials and insecticides. Of that money, $75 million came from the government--and for now there appears to be little call for a greatly expanded federal role.

“I’m not aware of any area where we have this kind of need,” said Allen J. Lenz, director of trade and economics at the Chemical Manufacturers Assn. in Washington. “I’ve never heard anyone in the industry arguing for this.”

*

Many free-market champions still view the Administration’s approach as a combination of misguided economics and raw politics.

“They entice entire industries--like Silicon Valley, like the auto industry--to say, ‘Cut a deal with the government and you’ll get these goodies,’ ” worries Lawrence A. Hunter, former chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “There’s no evidence that the market needs the government’s help. But there’s a lot of evidence that every time the government tries, it makes things worse.”

Defenders of the Administration’s approach point out that Washington in fact has a long history of involvement in industrial research. It’s just that most of the direction historically has come from the Pentagon.

A key aspect of the Clinton plan, by contrast, is to redirect money away from military research and toward the civilian sector--even as it mimics the success of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, widely credited with spurring a host of critical innovations.

The Democrats’ program, meanwhile, steers well clear of the kind of industrial policy long practiced in Japan and Europe--the kind that became popular with many Democratic policy analysts in the 1980s.

In Japan, the government took the lead in establishing industrial consortia to pursue national goals, such as advanced computer and television systems. It assured access to low-cost capital and blocked foreign competition with a variety of trade barriers.

In Europe, governments have funneled billions of dollars to computer companies, car manufacturers and other firms that were having trouble keeping up with foreign competition. Britain, France, Germany and Spain have also provided more than $25 billion to the Airbus Industrie consortium--a source of considerable tension now that Airbus is taking orders away from U.S. competitors Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

On the same day he announced his technology policy, in fact, Clinton visited Boeing’s headquarters to denounce unfair competition from Airbus.

Ken Flamm, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, notes that the Clinton proposals deliberately avoid the capital subsidies and trade protections that traditionally characterize an industrial policy. And they retain the principle that industry should have a prominent role in determining the projects that deserve support.

Indeed, a 1990 Bush Administration policy statement--issued after much infighting--was in some ways a precursor to Clinton’s plan.

“You can trace the lineage of what Clinton proposed directly to it,” said William G. Morin, director of technology policy for the National Assn. of Manufacturers. “There’s much more continuity in what Clinton said yesterday than a radical departure from the past.”

That should help the program get an easy ride on Capital Hill. Predicted one congressional staffer: “It’s going to be a love-in.”