210 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE dark side of MIT’s competitive environment. In a parallel essay Eve Odiorne Sullivan (Laboratory for Nuclear Science) suggested that when taken to extremes the pursuit of excellence becomes yet another form of addictive behavior that MIT is called on to treat. A final set of essays argued for the social utility of MIT “inventions” ranging from transformational generative grammar to system dy namics to techniques for cleaner utilization of fossil fuel. Two essays addressed the perennial issue of how such institutions as MIT foster industrial growth. Edward B. Roberts (management of technology) chronicled the culture of high-tech entrepreneurship and MIT’s support for commercialization of research that spawned the hightechnology boom along Route 128 and served as a model for Silicon Valley. Thomas R. Moebus (Industrial Liaison Program) traced MIT’s interaction with technology-based firms from its association with Alexander Graham Bell to the liaison program to a global computer network that will link MIT and a host of industrial partners. Similar to faculty conversations elsewhere, these essays lay claim to their institution’s historical sense of itself (most appropriate, for their own ends, MIT’s motto, Mens et Manus), while at the same time articulating a sense of what that institution should be and do in the years ahead. If at times the authors seem to be talking past rather than to each other, that is the way of many faculty conversations. The essays on curriculum and student life offer a healthy dose of institutional self-criticism. That spirit does not extend to the essays on MIT’s interaction with the world of commerce and industry. One would hardly expect to find a David Noble-like essay in such a volume, but some critical reflection would have been useful, particu larly since the MIT model of technology-based economic develop ment has at last found a champion in the White House. Robert C. McMath, Jr. Dr. McMath teaches in the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs at Georgia Institute of Technology. Arms and the State: Patterns of Military Production and Trade. By Keith Krause. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xviii + 299; tables, notes, appendixes, bibliography, index. $49.95. In Arms and the State, Keith Krause takes on a valuable task. A political scientist at York University, Toronto, Krause observes that the literature on the international arms trade has tended to regard the 20th century as unique, and he argues quite reasonably that the study of the military technology market would be better informed by situating the structure of the market in a broad historical context. In order to outline that context, Krause proposes an “ideal type” arms transfer and production system (p. 26). He argues that this ideal TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 211 system consists of three tiers of suppliers and consumers, and that the engine that distributes nations among the tiers is technological innovation. According to Krause, first-tier suppliers innovate at the technological frontier and do not rely on exports to maintain their production capacity; second-tier suppliers produce weapons at the technological frontier and adapt them to specific market needs, devoting their production system largely to exports; third-tier pro ducers only copy and reproduce existing technologies and depend almost completely on the export market. After introducing this ideal transfer system, Krause devotes the first half of the book to comparing his three-tiered structure with the history of arms-trading nations from the Renaissance to the present. These chapters sketch, in the broadest strokes, the evolution of the global arms transfer and production system since the 16th century; those familiar with the work of William McNeill and Paul Kennedy will recognize the periodization, punctuated by the introduction of gunpowder and cannon, the development of steel and steam power, and the world wars. Most of Krause’s analysis here consists of explaining which nations fell into which tier for each time period. For example, he argues that the first tier was occupied by Italian city-states in the 15th century, by England and the Low Countries during the 16th and 17th, by England, France, and Germany during the 18th and 19th...