SSTI Digest

Some of the 200-plus ballot measures decided in the 2002 General Election held Tuesday were dedicated to promoting tech-based economic development (TBED). The results were generally mixed, however. Promoters of Michigan's Life Sciences Corridor were pleased with the failure of an initiative that would have dictated the allocation of the state's tobacco settlement funds, including a smaller amount than the state is currently spending on life sciences research. However, the stock  market's decline over the last two years may have played a role in voters' rejection of several investment-related measures. Below, SSTI highlights some of the TBED- and university-related measures and initiatives that were addressed by voters in a dozen states.

Those that passed include the following:

Biotechnology has enormous potential for North Carolina's future, but the state's economic development strategy must be broader than any single industry and must include growth-from-within strategies, concludes a report published by the Institute for Emerging Issues at North Carolina State University.

The institute, a public policy initiative of NC State, is an outgrowth of the college's annual Emerging Issues Forum. Biotechnology and Humanity at the Crossroads of a New Era stems from the 2002 Forum, a panel discussion that resulted in five policy recommendations for North Carolina:

An increase in a city's share of college educated workers results in an increase in manufacturing output in that city, according to a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Human Capital Spillovers in Manufacturing: Evidence from Plant-Level Production Functions, authored by Enrico Moretti, bolsters the notion that spillover of knowledge through human capital is important to tech-based economic development (TBED) and that knowledge spillovers play a critical role in many theories of regional growth (i.e. endogenous growth theory, clusters).

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has released a statistical report on Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2001. The data show trends in science and engineering (S&E) doctorate awards by S&E field and recipient characteristics, institutions awarding doctorates, and postgraduation plans of recipients.

The new NSF report includes an 18-page Table 6, which presents the distribution of doctorates awarded in 2001 by institution, by state and by major field. SSTI has prepared an abbreviated table providing a state-by-state ranking for doctorates awarded by major field. The SSTI table also includes the values and state rankings for the total S&E doctorates awarded per 100,000 residents within each state, using the 2001 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

We appreciated hearing from so many of our readers that last week's special Digest issue on innovation indices was particularly timely or useful. As an additional resource on the topic, SSTI has prepared three matrices presenting the common indicators included in the national, state and local indicator reports referenced in the issue. These guides may help those working to develop their own S&T report cards or innovation studies to identify more easily how particular indicators are used in the reports.

Each matrix is provided on its own webpage, links are provided below. They also will be incorporated in the archived edition of the November 1, 2002 special issue of the SSTI Weekly Digest, which is available at: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/2002/110102.htm

The Washington Technology Center (WTC), the state's science and technology organization that stimulates growth in the state, is seeking someone to become Federal Program Development Manager. WTC helps Washington companies develop commercially viable technology through statewide programs and services. The purpose of the position is to ensure that appropriate federal programs and funding opportunities are identified and funding secured for WTC programs. The position provides the necessary program development activity to ensure strong and sustainable support of WTC business areas.

One of the more common topics in the information requests SSTI receives regards how to do or what are good examples of innovation indices or S&T report cards — compilations of statistics and data presenting a geographic area's standing against similar areas across several metrics thought to be useful guides in assessing economic health or potential for growth.

Why is that? Can it simply be dismissed as another example of how America's fascination with superlatives and comparatives pervades nearly every aspect of society? Claims for the biggest, the fastest, the richest, the first, the strongest, the top 100, etc., and the counter arguments against the claims can be found throughout our culture. Are indices the muscle-flexing machismo element of tech-based economic development?

Probably not.

An important aspect of all indices, regardless of their geographic orientation, is that each is created with a different purpose or goal in mind. As a result, each index has an inherent or implicit bias toward the data collected, the manner in which the data is manipulated and presented, and the conclusions drawn or policy recommendations made.

When considering the various indices that have been prepared, it is important to be aware that differences do exist and not to think all the indices are interchangeable. Indices will have some common elements and measurements to them; however, subtle and substantial differences may also exist.

An important aspect of all indices, regardless of their geographic orientation, is that each is created with a different purpose or goal in mind. As a result, each index has an inherent or implicit bias toward the data collected, the manner in which the data is manipulated and presented, and the conclusions drawn or policy recommendations made.

When considering the various indices that have been prepared, it is important to be aware that differences do exist and not to think all the indices are interchangeable. Indices will have some common elements and measurements to them; however, subtle and substantial differences may also exist.

Seven indices introduced below are followed by a sample of the similarities and differences that exist among them.

Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)

The Progressive Policy Institute provides one of the most widely used barometers of states' relative positions in technology-based economies. State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States offers an innovation-oriented public policy framework for the states to foster success in the New Economy. PPI contends states that overhaul traditional approaches to economic development and replace them with a new approach focused on boosting skills, entrepreneurship, technology and quality of life are best prepared to prosper in the New Economy.

Even when indices are trying to measure the same activity or characteristic this may be done utilizing different measures and some indices may include indicators not used in others. A matrix presenting the common indicators among the national indices is available here. Examples of these differences and similarities follow: (Please note that not all indicators for all indices are mentioned.)

Led by Massachusetts, which released its first innovation index in 1997, states have been creating indices in an attempt to track changes and transformations in their own economies. Many of these indices look at some of the same characteristics such as investment capital, industrial productivity, technology workforce development, business development and many others.

The following outlines some of the similarities and differences in state indices. For the purpose of this comparison, indices from (Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi and Washington) are used. A matrix presenting the common indicators among the state indices is available here.