Abstract
This paper investigates factors that lead state governments in the United States to spend on research and development and research and development plant. Data come from a national survey of such spending. Regression analysis is used. Findings include the following: the relative wealth of a state, as measured by its tax capacity, predicts some of such spending; the level of a state's taxation, as measured by its tax effort, predicts some of such spending; and the political party composition of a state predicts some of such spending. By contrast, a state's economic difficulty, as measured by its unemployment rate, has almost no relationship to such spending.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and references
P. Eisinger, The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State, Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
L. M. Branscomb, Toward a U. S. Technology Policy,Issues in Science and Technology, 7 (1991) 50–56.
D. Osborne,Laboratories of Democracy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 1990a. This describes the programs of six states and offers in addition analytic chapters on the process of state government action to develop state economies.R. S. Fosler,The New Economic Role of American States, New York, Oxford University Press, 1988. This edited collection of articles on seven states includes Fosler's own overview of state government programs in this area. Additional works which analyze the process of building high-technology industry in the states includeR. W. Smilor, G. Kozmetsky, D. V. Gibson,Creating the Technopolis, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1988 as well asJ. Schmandt, R. Wilson,Promoting High-Technology Industry, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 1987 andJ. Schmandt, R. Wilson,Growth Policy in the Age of High Technology: The Role of Regions and States, Boston, Unwin Hyman, 1990.
Treatment of the first question can be found in:D. C. Mowery, N. Rosenberg,Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1989, and in:P. Dasgupta, P. Stoneman,Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1987. Treatment of the second question is available in:R. Barke,Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Washington, D. C., Congressional Quarterly Press, 1986, a book on federal policy towards science and technology in the United States; in:B. L. R. Smith,American Science Policy Since World War II, Washington, D. C., The Brookings Institution, 1990, a history of recent American national policy towards science and technology; and in:H. Averch,A Strategic Analysis of Science and Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD, The John Hopkins University Press, 1985. This last book, written from a policy studies perspective, is on how American national policy-making for science and technology could be improved.J. Ronayne,Science in Government, London, Edwin Arnold, 1984, also deals with the second question, but the emphasis is on five of the OECD nations. And a descriptive, but very detailed, statement on what national governments in six different nations actually spend on research is available in:J. Irvine, B. Martin, P. Isard,Investing in the Future, Brookfield, VT, Edward Elgar, 1990. Related to the second question, but central to answering the first question, is the work of Mansfield, an economist who has tried to determine what the rates of return from investment in research actually are. SeeE. Mansfield,Technology Transfer, Productivity, and Economic Policy, New York, Norton, 1982. A recent book dealing with both questions and oriented to a general readership isL. Thurow,Head to Head, New York, William Morrow and Co., 1992.
Such contributions include the work ofI. Feller, Political and administrative aspects of state high technology programs,Policy Studies Review, 3(3–4) (1984) 460–466;A. Ahmad, The Making of Science and Technology Policy in the Southern States, Southern Technology Council, Southern Growth Policies Board Research Triangle Park, NC (1989);L. Burton, Indicators for state science and technology programs,Policy Studies Journal, 18 (Fall) (1989) 164–175;W. H. Lambright, A. H. Teich, Science, technology and state economic development,Policy Studies Journal, 18 (Fall) (1989) 135–147;M. Crow, M. Emmert, C. Jacobson, Government-supported industrial research institutes in the United States,Policy Studies Journal, 19 (Fall) (1990) 59–74;R. Hanson, Political cultural variations in state economic development policy,Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 21 (Spring) (1991) 63–81. Additional works focusing on the connections between spending on research and development and the achievement of economic development includeJ. D. Frame,International Business and Global Technology, Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1983;K. Pavitt,Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance, London, Macmillan, 1980;P. Hanson, K. Pavitt,Comparative Economics of Research Development in East and West: A Survey, New York, Harwood, 1987. Valuable comparative data on these questions have been gathered by the ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT,OECD Science and Technology Indicators: Resources Devoted to Research and Development, Paris, OECD, 1984. Other contributions includeR. D. Atkinson, Some states take the lead: Explaining the formation of state technology policies,Economic Development Quarterly, 5 (1991) 33–44 andL. A. Reese, Local economic development in Michigan: A reliance on the supply side,Economic Development Quarterly, 6 (1992) 383–393.
B. Fleisher,Research and Development Expenditures of State Government Agencies: Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988, Washington, D. C., National Science Foundation, 1990.
D. Osborne,.
R. S. Fosler,.
P. Dasgupta, P. Stoneman,.
H. Averch,. pp. 35–42.
R. Alford, R. Friedland,Powers of Theory, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1985; their chapter “The Pluralist Perspective on the Capitalist State,” pp. 136–158, supports such a model.
R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science,Science, 159 (1968) 56–63.
R. Alford, R. Friedland,, pp. 223–249.
B. Fleisher,. p. 54.
Bureau of Labor Statistics,Employment and Earnings, 33, Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Labor, May 1986.
H. W. Stanley, R. G. Niemi,Statistics on American Politics (first edition), Washington, D. C., Congressional Quarterly Press, 1986.
H. W. Stanley, R. G. Niemi,.
H. W. Stanley, R. G. Niemi,.
D. Osborne, Refining state technology programs,Issues in Science and Technology, 6 (1990b) 55–61.
This conclusion for the American states is paralleled by the relationship for entire nations between economic strength and investment in science and technology or investment in research and development; often, percent of Gross Domestic Product or percent of Gross National Product spent on research and development is used as a measure of investment. It seems to be generally the case that the wealthier the nation, the higher its percent of GDP spent on such investment. However, more fine-grained analyses show that this association is not perfect (just as the association shown for the American states is not perfect). See, for example, OECD, op. cit.OECD Science and Technology Indicators: Resources Devoted to Research and Development, Paris, OECD, 1984 as well as National Science Board,Science and Engineering Indicators — 1989, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1989.
W. W. Falk, T. A. Lyson,High Tech, Low Tech, No Tech, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1988.
P. Eisinger,,D. Osborne, 1990 b, 55–61,D. Osborne, T. Gaebler,Reinventing Government, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, Inc., 1992,L. Thurow,op. cit.,Head to Head, New York, William Morrow and Co., 1992.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Senter, R. Factors in American State Government spending on research and development. Scientometrics 28, 313–327 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02026513
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02026513