recent research

The conclusion from the working paper, The Effects of Scientists and Engineers on Productivity and Earnings at the Establishment Where They Work, by Erling Barth, James C. Davis, Richard B. Freeman, and Andrew J. Wang, is pretty clear for manufacturers and policy advocates for improving U.S. manufacturing: firms should hire as many scientists and engineers as possible.  The research finds, Morgan Foy explains in an NBER Digest article, that occupational statistics reveal approximately 80 percent of people trained as scientists and engineers do not work in R&D jobs.  Filling a company’s payroll with as many of these people, regardless of their position, seems to pay off. The authors’ research concluded a 10 percent increase in the proportion of scientist and engineer employment within a manufacturing establishment was associated with a 4 percent increase in total factor productivity for the firm.

Congress so far has ignored administration budget requests that call for reducing U.S. investment in research and development.  Science and innovation advocates interpret the legislative branch’s decision as good for many reasons. Authors Nicholas Bloom, Charles I. Jones, John Van Reenen, and Michael Webb add another reason in their NBER working paper Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? They find U.S. productivity, measured as cost per meaningful innovation across a number of key sectors, is decreasing at an average rate of 5.3 percent annually. Prevailing economic growth projections may be optimistic, they conclude, because the projections do not incorporate ever-increasing prices for R&D outcomes.

Several recent articles covered in the National Bureau of Economic Researchers (NBER) Digest suggest that current understanding of policies surrounding wages, clusters and labor concentration may warrant revisiting. In one piece of academic research, a historical argument of shared productivity gains with employees is challenged, while another article shows a loss of bargaining power for employees in concentrated labor markets.

While the increasing gaps between the coasts and the heartland continues to capture the media’s attention, a collection of recent research suggests that inequality within regions may be the greatest factor hampering economic growth. Five recent articles tell a nuanced story of how economic and racial inequities may impede regional economic development efforts. The research presented here from a variety of outlets examines the role of inequality in the overall economy of regions.

One of this year’s most important books on economic development tells a story that those involved in the field need to know and might not necessarily want to hear. In Coping with Adversity: Regional Economic Resilience and Public Policy, authors Harold Wolman, Howard Wial, Travis St. Clair, and Ned Hill seek to understand why some metropolitan areas are resilient in the face of economic hardship, while others are not. This commentary will summarize the authors’ findings and provide insight into what their findings might mean for the broader economic development community.

Last year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) considered multiple strategies to address the implicit bias toward researchers with ‘proven track records’ during its existing grant making process. While previous research studies have found similar concerns about the current grant making process, two recent studies from the University of Cambridge propose that grant-making organizations consider implementing a lottery system to allocate grant awards to alleviate bias and improve outcomes.  

While conventional wisdom suggests that university entrepreneurship efforts should focus on faculty spinoffs or student inventions, recent research highlights the importance of student talent in entrepreneurial ecosystems. In an effort to create employment opportunities in the startup space, several universities throughout the country are implementing programs that embed students into their local startup communities.  

An earlier SSTI analysis detailed the Bureau of Labor Statistics labor force participation projections, revealing a continuing downward trend in the number of workers despite a growing population. Additional research papers released in February from economists at the University of Maryland as well as the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank explores the reasons behind the trend, finding that trade and robots have had a significant impact, and suggests that some prime-age workers may not be coming back.

Mentoring programs may be celebrated across the nation as January marks National Mentoring Month, a movement started in 2002 to raise awareness of mentoring in all its forms. But more could be done to make programs more effective in both university and non-university settings, according to a recent working paper from the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. Mentoring in Startup Ecosystems, by Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, et al, found that mentoring is fundamental to founder education, but that such programs could be improved, especially at universities.

The final part of this series explores the tactics and strategies associated with increasing exposure to innovation and broadening economic opportunity.

Last week, The Digest explored recent research examining the role that exposure to innovation plays in determining future inventiveness. The study’s authors, led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty, find that a child’s characteristics at birth – their neighborhood, socioeconomic class, race, and gender – are highly predictive of their propensity to file a patent later on in life. Based on their results, the authors recommend strategies that focus on increasing exposure to innovation and broadening intergenerational economic mobility. This article explores these types of policies in depth, as well as additional tactics that may help reconnect America’s communities with greater economic opportunity.