Like the broader metric of R&D intensity, the prominence of R&D value added in a state’s economic output has shifted within several states over the past decade. Does it matter? For sustaining a state’s innovation competitiveness, it may, and subsequently it is important to know for many state and regional TBED initiatives. Proximity to the conduct of R&D has been well documented in empirical research to support strong regional innovation economies.
Like the broader metric of R&D intensity, the prominence of R&D value added in a state’s economic output has shifted within several states over the past decade. Does it matter? For sustaining a state’s innovation competitiveness, it may, and subsequently it is important to know for many state and regional TBED initiatives. Proximity to the conduct of R&D has been well documented in empirical research to support strong regional innovation economies. Subsequently many TBED policies are designed to increase and maintain R&D activity within those boundaries as well as ensure the localized spillover effects are maximized. Determining where R&D activity is thriving and the size of its value added to the state’s GDP, particularly manufacturing-related R&D, may help inform those policy decisions. SSTI explores the latest data on state R&D value added in this Useful Stats article.
As the end of the fiscal year approaches, Congress is again at a critical juncture in reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR programs.
As attention-grabbing as AI might be for the media and large investors (see previous SSTI analysis of AI investment), economic growth through innovation in life sciences and biotechnology is a priority for many state and regional TBED initiatives. The venture capital market recognizes that as well.
Conventional TBED wisdom for decades has been that small businesses generate more innovation in the United States. All big tech companies started as scrappy little companies in their respective eras of IT’s rapid growth. But there remains a long-running debate about whether large firms with financial resources and R&D capacity have an innovation advantage over smaller but more agile firms.
Conventional TBED wisdom for decades has been that small businesses generate more innovation in the United States. All big tech companies started as scrappy little companies in their respective eras of IT’s rapid growth. But there remains a long-running debate about whether large firms with financial resources and R&D capacity have an innovation advantage over smaller but more agile firms. Understanding the arguments for each side is important for policymakers and business leaders as they seek ways to support small and medium-sized enterprises and leverage the innovative capacity of larger corporations. In their paper, Firm Size and Innovative Performance: A Meta-Analysis Across 25 Years of Evidence, Federico Bachmann and Rodrigo Ezequiel Kataishi provide a comprehensive meta-analysis that synthesizes 25 years of research to clarify this relationship.
As federal funding for science research decreases, it may be tempting to think that philanthropy might be able to fill the gap. However, a recent study from the Science Philanthropy Alliance illustrates that it cannot replace the robust funds that government allocation once contributed.
Understanding the composition of local economies requires looking beyond broad statewide or national trends. County-level data reveals the unique mix, or lack thereof, of industries and businesses in each area. Policy makers, by identifying which sectors drive employment and business activity within a locality, can influence the impact and design of regional innovation strategies to reflect local realities and potential.
Understanding the composition of local economies requires looking beyond broad statewide or national trends. County-level data reveals the unique mix, or lack thereof, of industries and businesses in each area. Policy makers, by identifying which sectors drive employment and business activity within a locality, can influence the impact and design of regional innovation strategies to reflect local realities and potential.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) allows examination of county-level employment and establishment counts across all private sectors at the 2-digit NAICS level. In this article, SSTI uses annualized private sector data for all provided 2-digit NAICS sectors at the county level for 2015 and 2024.
The White House Fiscal Year 2026 discretionary budget proposal outlines a significant shift in federal spending priorities, proposing substantial reductions in non-defense discretionary funding, which, if enacted by Congress, would impact scientific research and regional economic development support across numerous federal agencies.
To grow their local populations and STEM workforce, communities across the country are experimenting with resident/worker attraction programs, as we have previously covered. But how effective are these programs? A recent study from the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research offers new insights by analyzing Tulsa Remote’s track record from its inception in 2018 to 2023.
The Angel Capital Association (ACA) reports seed stage investments accounted for almost 60% of the total angel deals in 2021, up from 50% in 2020. These seed stage angel investments represented more than half of the $950 million invested by 180 ACA member groups in 2021. ACA estimates that portfolio companies raised more than $5 billion, suggesting leverage of more than 5X their initial angel investments. Based on member-submitted direct investment data, the 2022 Angel Funders Report provides an overview of early stage investment trends.
The White House Fiscal Year 2026 discretionary budget proposal outlines a significant shift in federal spending priorities, proposing substantial reductions in innovation and non-defense discretionary funding, which, if enacted by Congress, would impact scientific research and regional economic development support across numerous federal agencies.
The nearly status quo nature of the FY 2026 budget of $9.0 billion for the National Science Foundation advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee stands in striking contrast to the Administration’s $3.9 billion request. House appropriations, meanwhile, appropriated $7.0 billion for NSF, a reduction of $2.06 billion or 23% from the FY 2025 enacted level.
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) subcommittee of House Appropriations has turned against the Federal and State Technology (FAST) Partnership in its budget recommendations for the Small Business Administration, zeroing out the only program that provides funds to help states level the competitive field of applicants for the SBIR/STTR program. While the FAST funds were decreased from the $9 million enacted in FY2024, the SBDC line item received a $10 million increase in the FSGG appropriations proposal.
House and Senate subcommittees with oversight for Commerce, State and Justice appropriations differ on funding recommendations for the EDA Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs program, commonly referred to as Tech Hubs. While any funding in a tight budget environment is good, the $50 million in the House version of the CJS bill or the Senate subcommittee’s $60 million is far short of Congress’s original vision for the Tech Hubs, authorized at $10 billion over ten years.