State Tech-based Economic Development: A National Perspective
description
Transcript of State Tech-based Economic Development: A National Perspective
State Tech-based State Tech-based Economic Development: Economic Development:
A National Perspective A National Perspective
Presentation by:
Dan Berglund
March 19, 2009
State Science and State Science and Technology InstituteTechnology Institute
Mission
• Leads, supports, and strengthens efforts to improve state and regional economies through science, technology, and innovation
Funders
• Carnegie Corporation
• Kauffman Foundation
• MEP
• More than 180 state, local, and university TBED organizations
What is TBED?What is TBED?Approach used to help create a climate where firms that
constantly innovate and maximize the use of technology can thrive
Emphasis: “grow your own”
Can be powerful partner with conventional economic development’s recruitment of companies
Why do This?Why do This? Global competition
Lesser-skilled, lower wage jobs outsourced, or done more competitively, overseas
Quality jobs Technology industries’ wages average 84 percent more than U.S.
average
$69,000 vs. $37,500 (2003)
Changing demands of industry
Because of the growing technology-intensity of all industry, citizens’ success is increasingly dependent on their ability to learn, adapt, and contribute to innovation
Kentucky vs. North CarolinaKentucky vs. North Carolina
State Average Personal Per Capita Income as a
Percentage of US Average Personal Per Capita Income
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Sta
te A
vg
Inc
om
e/ U
S A
ve
rag
e In
co
me
NC
KY
Major New InitiativesMajor New Initiatives Legislatures approved
• AZ-- $25M/year for four years for 21st Century Fund
• AR– up to $140M for various TBED initiatives
• CA-- $70M for two energy research centers
• FL-- $29.5M for Opportunity Fund; $180M for research
• IN-- $20M Life Sciences Fund
• IA-- $25M for Iowa Power Fund; $25M for next 3 years
• MO-- $15M for several new TBED initiatives
• WA-- $70M over biennium for Life Sciences Discovery Fund; 10 year commitment of $35M/year
Energy in 2007Energy in 2007 Heavy emphasis on research
• Specific centers or demonstration plants
• CA ($70M), FL ($20M), NC ($5M), OK ($40M), OR ($6.7M), TN ($51.6M)
• Pool of funds to compete for
• IA-- $25M w’ $75M to come
• MN-- $5.65M
• NM-- $2M
• ND-- $14.9M
• TN– $13M
Focus on Energy Continues Legislature appropriated funding in 2008
• AK-- $50M for Renewable Energy Grant Fund; up to $250M
• CO-- $7.65M for Clean Energy Fund; $2M for Colorado Renewable Energy Authority
• FL-- $50M for the Florida Energy Consortium for R&D
• HI-- $8.7M for Hawaii Renewable Hydrogen Program
• KY-- $7M for Energy R&D Fund
• MI-- $45M for Centers of Energy Excellence
• NM-- $1M for solar energy research park
• OH-- $150M for advanced and renewable energy distribution
• PA-- $40M for alternative energy development program
Elements for Elements for Tech-based EconomyTech-based Economy
Intellectual infrastructure Spillovers of knowledge
• from universities
• from informal networks Physical infrastructure Technically skilled workforce Capital Entrepreneurial culture Quality of life
Intellectual Intellectual infrastructure activitiesinfrastructure activities
Strengthen state’s higher education system R&D capacity
• Example: Kentucky’s Bucks for Brains
Invest in basic research in hopes of seeding economic development and new industries
• Example: California’s Embryonic Stem Cell Institute
Invest in higher ed in areas of industrial relevance
• Example: Georgia Research Alliance
Invest in areas to diversify economy
• Example: Michigan’s Life Sciences Corridor, Prop 301
Encourage greater university-industry interaction
• Example: Maryland Industrial Partnerships Program
Improving Higher Ed Infrastructure Improving Higher Ed Infrastructure EmbracedEmbraced
Legislature appropriated funding
• AZ-- $25M for 21st Century Fund
• CA-- $70M for two energy research centers
• FL-- $80M for genomic res inst; $100M for Ctrs of Excellence
• ID-- $1.5M for Higher Education Research Council
• IN-- $20M Life Sciences Fund
• MO-- $13.4M for animal health & nutrition, renewable energy & plant sci
• NC– $25M to UNC-Chapel Hill for cancer research
• ND-- $20M for Centers of Excellence
• OH-- $100M for Ohio Research Scholars
• OK-- $75M for endowed chairs
• OR-- $11.5M for signature research centers
• WA-- $70M for Life Sciences Discovery Fund
Higher Ed 2008-- Scholars Legislature appropriated funding in 2008
• KY-- $60M for Bucks for Brains
• LA-- $8M one-time funding for endowed chairs and professorships
• SC-- $30M for Endowed Chairs Program
• UT-- $32.2M for USTAR
• WV-- $50M for Bucks for Brains
Spillovers of KnowledgeSpillovers of Knowledge Identify and remove barriers to commercialization of university-
developed technology
• Example: Oklahoma and Oregon
Encourage commercialization of university-developed technology
• Example: Utah’s Centers of Excellence
Encourage commercialization of federal lab technology
• Example: Technology Ventures Corporation
Provide seed funding to industry associations and technology councils
• Examples: MD, VA, and WA; more than 200 groups
Spillovers of KnowledgeSpillovers of Knowledge Improve competitiveness of existing manufacturers
• Example: Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Physical InfrastructurePhysical Infrastructure Research parks
• Example: Centennial Campus
Examine quality of infrastructure
• Example: e-Com Ohio, ConnectKentucky
Improve it through public or private action
• Example: Berkshire Connect, e-NC
Technically Skilled WorkforceTechnically Skilled Workforce Increase exposure to math & science in K-12
• Example: Maine’s Laptops for 7th graders
Encourage more students to enter S&E fields
• Examples: SciTech Scholars and GI Bill for the New Economy in Pennsylvania
Create internships to link students with jobs in-state
• Example: North Dakota “Operation Intern”
Subsidize tuition for undergraduate education
• Example: Hope Scholarships
Training for workers in technology-based companies
• Example: Maryland’s Partnership for Workforce Quality
CapitalCapital Use state funds to invest in technology companies
• Example: Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation
Use state funds to leverage private funds to invest in technology companies
• Example: Maryland Venture Capital Trust
Encourage angel investing
• Example: Arizona angel investor tax credit
Provide assistance to companies to access financing sources
• Examples: Oklahoma Tech Comm Center, Venture capital conferences, SBIR assistance
Entrepreneurial CultureEntrepreneurial Culture Improve survival rate of start-up companies
• Example: Ohio’s Edison Incubators
Work intensively with entrepreneurs to develop their businesses
• Example: Oklahoma Technology Commercialization Corp.
Recruiting management talent
• Examples: Kentucky, BFTP/Central
One-stop resource directory
• Example: CREC Program Finder
Kansas Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp.
• Investment Program
• Angel Investor Tax Credit Program
• Tech-based incubators
• Five small Centers of Excellence
• KTEC Pipeline
• MEP Center
• Annual budget $12.5M Kansas BioScience Authority
• Funded by TIF-like mechanism; sunset at $581.8M
• Lead agency pursuing National Bio and Agro Defense Facility
• Recruit eminent scholars and support rising stars
• Matching federal funds
• Pre-venture financing to early-stage bioscience firms
• R&D voucher program to support university-industry partnerships
• Awarded $86.7M as of Sept 2008
Kentucky Council on Post-Secondary Education
• Research Challenge Trust Fund; $410M since 1998 Department of Commercialization and Innovation
• Coordinating and strategy organization
• Match SBIR Phase I and II awards
• High-Tech Investment Pool
• $16.9M in FY2008 (some of which flows to KSTC) Kentucky Science and Technology Corp.
• Kentucky Enterprise Fund• Kentucky R&D Voucher Program
• Kentucky Rural Innovation Program
• Kentucky New Energy Ventures
• Innovation and Commercialization Centers
• Kentucky Science and Engineering Foundation• Kentucky Commercialization Fund
• R&D Excellence Program
• SBIR/STTR Phase 0 and Phase 00 Program
Maine Maine Office of Innovation
• Coordinating body and strategy
• $10M annual budget (most directed to MTI)
Maine Technology Institute
• Business Innovation Programs
• Seed Grant Program
• Development Awards
• Accelerated Commercialization Fund
• SBIR/STTR Phase 0
• Cluster Initiative Program
• Maine Technology Asset Fund
Maine StrategyThree phases
1. Invest in R&D capacity, building up universities and non-profits such as Jackson Laboratory, Bigelow Labs using EPSCoR and R&D bond funds. Also Maine Technology Institute funds for private sector R&D. (1999- present)
2. Invest in research infrastructure competitively with focus on collaboration (FY08-09 $50 million bond).
3. Going forward – focus on commercialization – next steps increased support for technology transfer, proof of concept, entrepreneurship, venture capital
State of Maine R&D Funding – FY1999/00-2008/09
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-2008 2008-2009
Fiscal Year
To
tal R
&D
Fu
nd
ing
TOTAL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDAPPROPRIATIONS
Maine State Funding for R&D by Program FY1996/97-FY2008/09
University of Maine System 49.9%
Maine Biomedical Research Fund 17.7%
Maine Technology Institute 14.2%
Maine Science and Technology Foundation 6.3%
Applied Technology Development Centers 3.2%
Small Enterprise Growth Fund 2.7%
Maine Marine Research Fund 2.0%
Gulf of Maine Research Laboratory 1.7%
All Other 2.4%
Total State Funding for R&D = $397,126,970
$397,126,970
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned Committed high-level leadership is required that
understands:
• Economic impact further down the road than other approaches
• Research does not always succeed
• Significant cultural differences between actors
Action should be based on:
• Understanding of needs, capabilities, and gaps
• Filling gaps to encourage change in private sector behavior
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned Characteristics of successful TBED programs
• Three hallmarks for long-term sustainability
• Do good work
• Measure whether they’re doing good work
• Telling people they’re doing good work
• Champions from more than one sector (ideally all three)
• Private sector, university, government (gov or legislature)
• Effective management and staff
• Entrepreneurial in approach/responding to change
Contact Contact InformationInformation
For more information, contact:
Dan Berglund
614.901.1690
To sign up for SSTI Weekly Digest go to:
http://www.ssti.org