innovation

Uncommon innovation is more likely to be found in high density areas, according to recent research. An article by Enrico Berkes of The Ohio State University and Ruben Gaetani of the University of Toronto, found that high-density areas boast more unusual combinations of prior knowledge, often across technologically distant fields. Their results indicate that geography affects innovation, as high-density areas produce more diverse, original research (i.e. unconventionality) while low-density areas are more likely to produce research within specific clusters.

North Carolina is gaining ground nationally in its innovation capacity and the number of innovation-oriented establishments in the state has increased by twice the national rate, according to a new report from the North Carolina Board of Science, Technology and Innovation. The 2019 report, the seventh in a series first published in 2000, evaluates the state’s standing against six other key comparison states (California, Massachusetts, Georgia, Virginia, Colorado and Washington) and the U.S. overall on 40 measures of innovation capacity, and outlines ways to advance the state’s economy by encouraging and harnessing innovation. Some of the other gains the state saw included its academic R&D intensity (grown at a rate of 25.4 percent since 2003) and percentage of workforce in science and engineering occupations (increased by 34.8 percent from 2003 to 2017).

Turning good intentions into actions is part of the motivation behind a recent report from the Community Strategies Group (CSG) of the Aspen Institute. The report, Rural Development Hubs: Strengthening America’s Rural Innovation Infrastructure, focuses on actions that could build capacity to advance rural community and economic development to improve equity, health and prosperity for future generations. Identifying those that are working to “do development differently” in rural America, the report draws on the wisdom of leaders from 43 rural intermediaries, and includes recommendations on creating stronger rural development systems.

While Virginia has worked over the past 30 years to build their innovation economy, this past year it changed up the game. SSTI recently talked with Robby Demeria, Virginia’s deputy secretary of commerce and trade for technology, about the planning underway in Virginia and how the commonwealth is proceeding with a new initiative to grow their economy.

Two recent reports highlight the importance of funding innovation in the U.S., and give a glimpse into the perils of ignoring it. The reports, from The Aspen Institute and Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), independently corroborate the role of the public sector in ensuring a more prosperous future through innovation. The Aspen report, An Innovation Challenge for the United States, warns that the innovation culture forged in this country following World War II is now at risk, while the ITIF report focuses on the dwindling support for higher education from both the state and federal levels and details how such changes could negatively impact the research and development efforts that help build the innovation economy.

An early national leader in technology-based economic development (TBED), Pennsylvania now faces several challenges in order to keep up with other states and regions, according to Ideas for Pennsylvania Innovation: Examining Efforts by Competitor States and National Leaders, a new report from the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. It cites the Ben Franklin Technology Partnership as an important early-stage investor and national TBED model and notes that the state “has historically been an innovation leader and Pennsylvania retains a stable of effective, scalable innovation assets.            

Innovation districts show promise as an economic development tool, but there are a range of questions policymakers, practitioners and planners should consider prior to and while pursuing the strategy, according to new research from RTI International’s Center for Applied Economics and Strategy. In Planning for an Innovation District: Questions for Practitioners to Consider, authors Sara Lawrence, Michael Hogan and Elizabeth Brown describe the innovation district phenomenon, define key-terms and concepts, and highlight empirical evidence that offers reasons for why they might find success as an economic development tool. For example, research shows that networks matter for fostering innovation, and that these types of networks can be more impactful when they are in close proximity. The authors also propose 20 questions across economic, physical and social dimensions that are worthy of attention.

While the U.S. continues to lead the world in science, technology and innovation, other nations are on track to catch and surpass the lead the country currently holds, according to a new report from the Task Force on American Innovation (TFIA). In Second Place America? Increasing Challenges to U.S. Scientific Leadership, TFIA, a non-partisan alliance of leading American companies and business associations, research university associations, and scientific societies, benchmarks the U.S. against other nations in R&D investment, knowledge production, education, workforce and high-tech sectors of the economy. The report holds that to maintain a global leadership status, which it calls critical to national security and future economic growth and prosperity, a renewed national commitment to invest in key federal science agencies such as NSF, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology is necessary.

As a bedrock of American innovation, universities and federal laboratories research and develop new products that help drive economic growth. A new study from the Economic Growth Institute at the University of Michigan aims to improve national competitiveness in this arena by providing a roadmap for universities that includes best practices on translating research from the lab to the marketplace.

A recent report by Breakthrough Energy, co-chaired by former Energy secretary Ernest Moniz, calls for a better policy approach to supporting clean energy. Their premise is that America has led the way in this industry, but that the way forward requires innovation on a greater scale than we have achieved before, and that this, in turn, requires better coordination of systems. The report makes recommendations for industry and all levels of government, and their proposals regarding regions should be particularly welcomed by the SSTI community.