A handful of competitiveness reports have been released in the past two weeks, each comparing various geographic locations and incorporating a range of innovation metrics. Perhaps the publication garnering the most international press has been The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008 by the World Economic Forum.

The theory of spatial clustering has been very popular in the TBED field for many years, as researchers attempt to explain the transformation of places like Silicon Valley and the reasons various locales are economically competitive. Practitioners have utilized the theory as a method to describe their own state and regional economies and to support the development of specific industries. As an industry cluster grows, additional benefits of agglomeration are realized.

 

Three major announcements were made in Singapore last month focusing on R&D of new technologies and educating the workforce to produce specialized graduates in upcoming fields.

 

Recognizing the economic benefits of engaging young people in science and technology, Ontario's McGuinty government recently launched the Youth Science and Technology Outreach Program. The new program links high school students with researchers to support in-depth mentorship experience and postsecondary career advice.

Do tax credits pave the way for more investment in R&D and equity investments in new enterprises? Or, do they reward companies and venture capitalists for investments they would have made anyway?

Discussions on these questions can become quite heated and fueled by data supportive of both sides, as two new academic analyses demonstrate.

There are several factors that go into location decisions for biomedical firms. Proximity to strong university research capacity, other biotech businesses, and technically competent workers are all important considerations. With the financial investments many states and localities are making toward the life sciences, however, the field of prospective locations for successfully launching a biotech firm has grown considerably larger than the "usual suspects."

To spur job creation in Ontario, the provincial government recently announced two initiatives focusing on innovation and regional economic growth -- the new Fuel Cell Innovation Program and the newly refocused Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (NOHFC).

If the innovation powerhouse that represents the U.S. economy for the past century were a cinder block foundation of a house, then China and India would present two of the more significant cracks. These two great nations may grab the headlines, but the improved innovation and research capacities of any country provide new challenges for continued U.S. domination of the world's economy. As this week's article on the Czech Republic and Singapore reveals, these are just two more blocks in the U.S.

While the U.S. commitment to science is threatened by flattening federal R&D investments, two more countries demonstrate their shared belief that the way to economic prosperity is through science and innovation.

Should policymakers focus on urban core centers as keys to economic growth or seek greater economic equity in the less developed periphery? A new study on regional policy and economic geography suggest policies should be directed toward core growth.

A study suggests policies enacted in 1999 to encourage cooperative research, establish tech transfer structures and provide venture capital contributed to a dramatic shift in the biotech topography in France.

While many regions, states and countries are lamenting a drain of talent from their area, the Pakistan Higher Education Commission is taking an opposite strategy to strengthen the nation's science and research capacity: sending up to 15,000 of its brightest students to study selected disciplines abroad through its Foreign Ph.D. Scholarship Program.

In the opening ceremony of the 2005 FORTUNE Global Forum, held in Beijing on May 16, Chinese President Hu Jintao broadly outlined the course his country is taking to reach a goal of quadrupling its 2000 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the year 2020. Science, technology and innovation figure prominently in the strategy.

The U.S. can watch as another country significantly expands its investments in innovation. This time it's France, as newly appointed Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin last month announced that the national government will double its funding from €500 million to €1 billion for the Industrial Innovation Agency (IIA), and give €350 million to the National Research Agency (ANR).

In the face of the spiraling unemployment in Greece and Spain, the European Union (EU) received encouraging news regarding the economic recovery of firms across its 27-member states.

Even through the enduring global economic downturn, nations across the world have targeted technology-based economic development initiatives to build their respective country's science and technology (S&T) sectors. The governments contend that building their respective country's Next Economy is necessary to compete in a globalizing world and increase quality of living for their citizens. Canada, India and the European Union have announced initiatives that could help grow their respective countries S&T sectors.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has released the 10th edition of its annual Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Each year, OECD examines major trends in the global innovation economy and uses 180 indicators to evaluate the high-tech economies of OECD countries, as well as select non-OECD countries. The overarching theme of this year's release is the increased importance of the non-OECD countries, including Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China and South Africa, together dubbed the BRIICS countries.