r&d

As noted in our separate overview, the 25-page American Jobs Plan provides goals, highlights and proposals, but also raises questions about how proposals would be implemented and even exactly how much money would be spent. Those details presumably will come in the near future when legislative language is submitted. The document and much of the news covering it is organized around six goals. For our readership, we have taken a slightly different approach. Major themes and key aspects of the proposal are below. All quoted text is from the AJP summary released by the White House on the morning of March 31, 2021.

While President Biden’s infrastructure proposal with heavy investments in science, technology and innovation garnered most of the press attention in the last week, a number of other developments occurred in or impacting federal policy, including:

Metropolitan areas in the U.S. with fewer than 370,000 residents are more likely to be more economically reliant on R&D performed by colleges and universities than larger metros, according to new SSTI analysis. Three data points are used to consider how R&D at institutions of higher education is impacting a region’s economy: NSF’s Higher Education R&D (HERD) data on expenditures at individual institutions; metro area Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis; and population estimates from the Census Bureau. The resulting analysis shows that despite larger metro areas producing a greater total amount of HERD, they are typically less reliant on these expenditures directly powering their economies.

Given higher education’s role in generating the knowledge that catalyzes innovative new technologies developed by high-growth startups, R&D conducted at institutions of higher education is one of the most important metrics for evaluating an area’s innovation economy. This edition of Useful Stats examines NSF’s recently updated Higher Education R&D (HERD) survey, finding that most states, although not all, experienced growth in HERD expenditures from 2018 to 2019. This analysis also examines 2019 state HERD expenditures by R&D field, finding that life sciences accounted for the lion’s share of HERD spending in every state except Alaska, typically followed by either engineering; the physical sciences; or the geological, atmospheric, and ocean sciences.

Industry investment in research and development (R&D) indicates, literally, how invested each state’s businesses are in creating new products and processes. To better-understand industry’s commitment to innovation, business R&D can be viewed as a percentage of each state’s private sector gross domestic product (GDP), providing a measure of research intensity. This measure highlights substantial differences in the orientation of states’ businesses toward research, with some states seeing an investment rate of less than 1 percent while others are above 5 percent. The metric further reveals a broad trend that businesses in many states have stagnated their investments in R&D relative to the overall performance of the economy.

In the wake of the Great Recession, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 to curb federal discretionary spending as the nation approached the statutory debt limit. Originally intended to reduce spending by nearly $2 trillion over the period from FY 2012 through FY 2021, the BCA spending caps were periodically raised by Congress. While these negotiations reduced the overall impact of the BCA, new analysis from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that more than $200 billion in federal R&D spending were nonetheless “lost” to these spending cuts, impacting several key elements of innovation economies — higher education R&D, private R&D investment, and STEM workforce development.

A thriving innovation economy requires a robust R&D enterprise — with participation by academia, government, and the private sector. As a substantial performer and funder of R&D in the United States, the strength of private industry’s R&D activity in a region can provide an indication of the region’s capacity for bringing innovative technologies to market. Using data from the recent release of the National Science Foundation’s 2018 Business Enterprise R&D Survey, this SSTI analysis shows that while total R&D performed domestically by private companies in 2018 increased over 2017, as did the share of the R&D that was paid for by companies, this was not the case for all states.

Stemming from a collaboration between the Census Bureau and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF), a new data set aims to untangle the dynamics of research and development (R&D) performed by private companies. Specifically, the new Annual Business Survey incorporates previously experimental data on the R&D performance by microenterprises — businesses which employ between one and nine people. SSTI’s analysis of this new data shows the total R&D performed by microenterprises in each state, and the portion of that R&D which the companies paid for themselves.

The United States is currently ranked tenth in research and development intensity (a measure of R&D investment as a percent of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product) but has continued to lead the pack in total research and development spending, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently published A Snapshot of U.S. R&D Competitiveness: 2020 Update. The report analyzes the role R&D investment plays within the U.S. while also examining research and development trends globally. It notes that while U.S. spending remains high, China’s R&D spending has “seen staggering increases over the past two decades, and remains an undeniable leadership rival to the U.S.” When measuring R&D intensity, AAAS found that the U.S. ranked tenth when combining public and private R&D investment, but is ranked 14th when only factoring in public spending towards R&D.

With the general election less than one month away, SSTI has reviewed the 120 state ballot initiatives throughout the country for innovation-related issues. Education, gig workers, redistricting and issues surrounding elections and state budgets are scattered across the country and can affect the future of innovation through funding, talent and political will. Read below for coverage on the initiatives that could have an impact on different segments of the economy and the future of innovation.