Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, Fall, 1989

INDICATORS FOR STATE SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

Lawrence Burton

New state agencies and programs to encourage economic growthbased on knowledge-intensive technobgies have attracted the attentionof policy analysts for several reasons. The national perspective isdominated by the need to understand the new agencies and new pro-grams as part of on-going efforts to describe and track trends in thenation's science and technology (S&T) resource base. Do the new pro-grams matter? For what? How do they matter? Do they complementor supplemerrt federal programs?

On the state level, two perspectives are apparent. One of these isdriven by the need for new programs and agencies to establish them-selves, survive, arid devebp their programmatic agendas. To providethe leverage needed to influence established programs, especially thosein the research universities and departments of commerce, the newagencies have needed to maintain high visibility and the appearance ofrTK)vement and activity. They are closely identified with a considerablerhetoric about expectattons for economic growth. As Feller noted, "statehigh technology programs are quintessential gubernatorial projects, pro-viding a high visibility image as a shaker and mover, while requiringlimited political or fiscal commitments" (1984:462).

A second, newer perspective has grown out of pressures on thestate programs to show that they are benefitting the state especially intemis of providing new jobs (Charles, 1989; Hall, 1989). This is a prac-tical and understandable political requirement: that programs show theyare accompiishir^ what they are designed to do is the essence ofpublic accountability. In response to this need, it is clear that severalstates are beginning seriously to devebp new types of information toguide S&T for economic development.

This article is concemed generally with the relatbnships arnongpublic data, public policy, and program implementatbn. More specifically,it discusses the emerging informatbn for understanding the new stateS&T programs. What information is available? Are decisbn-orientedanalytical functions and capabilities emerging on the state level? Theauthor assumes that if a new policy functbn (state support for S&T-based economic development) is to survive, systerriatic informationabout the different programs, their objectives, and their results will berequired for both political and administrative reasons. The followingsections discuss the growth of informatbn about the new state pro-grams. The artble concludes with suggestbns for using existing dataand analyses, properly adapted, to irrprove understanding of the newprograms.

Technology and Anmrican Competitiveness 165

THE NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Bradley and Rees (1987) found that a main reason for federalinterest in the new state programs is that, in the absence of a coordi-nated natbnal industrial policy, state-level programs appear as so many"grassroots" or beat industrial polbies, or sets of industrial polbies.While the state programs have taken differerrt forrns and have differentorganizational settings, it is possible to kientify common programemphases:

1. An overarching goal of economic growth based on newknowledge and new technologies;

2. A reliance on research universities as the main source of newknowledge, and industry as the main source of new tech-nology;

3. Varbus programs which fall under the rubrb of "technologytransfer," that is, bringing together industries and theuniversities to encourage application of new knowledge anddevelopment of new technobgies, often with requirements orvarbus incentives for private-sector program support;

4. The establishment or continued support of "centers"specializing in broad areas of knowledge applbatbn.

The National Science Foundation's Division of Science ResourcesStudies (SRS), which conducts surveys of science and engineeringresources and prepares the Science and Engineering Indicators seriesfor the Natbnai Science Board, has a natural interest in these newstate-level devebpments. The Foundatbn's main group of clients-theresearch universities-have been targeted as key institutions in the newstate programs. Thus in conjunction with its mission to maintain databases on the nation's research and devebpment resources, SRS hasbeen eager to leam about these new state-level programs, especiallyabout their implbations for basb research, applied research, anddevelopment, as defined by the federal government.

SRS collects data on state expenditures for R&D in two of itssurveys. One of these is an annual survey of expenditures for R&D byacademb institutions.^ In this survey, university offbes of researchadministratbn report the source and amount of support for separately-budgeted R&D performed on their campuses. In 1987, academb institu-tions reported about one billion dollars of support for separately-budgeted R&D from state and bcal sources^ (see Table 1). Data fromthis survey are particularly useful for observing changes in the struc-tures of relationships as reflected in shifts in the mix of funding sourcesfor academb R&D (National Scierice Board, 1989). They show, in theaggregate, an increasing proportion of institutbns' R&D funded by

166 Policy Studies Joumal

private industry; for some institutions, the shifts have been quite largeover the past decade.

Table 1

Surveys of State S&T-Related Expenditures

Unit of Analysis

Estimates of StateExpenditures

($1,000) FY Survey

State expenditures for R&D 764.677 88 SRS, NSF,State R&D Survey

Academic R&D funded by stateand local governments 1,003,000 87 SRS. NSF,

State R&D Survey

State S&T initiatives; "totai statetechnology budget."

State technoiogy developmentprograms; "annual state

550,000 88 Minnesota OfTice of S&T

government expenditures."

State S&T agency programexpenditures

State research grant andcontract programs

400.000

203.000

143.000

87

87

88

Atkinson

National Governors'Association

Forrer

Sources: National Science Foundation, unpublished tabulations (1d89a); Minnesota Officeof Science and Technoiogy (1988); Atkinson (1988); National Govemors' Association(1987); Forrer (1989).

SRS has also recently sponsored a study which produced esti-mates of state AGENCY R&D expenditures based on state appropria-tions in FY 1987 and 1988. Though the two SRS sun/eys use differentmethodobgies and have different purposes, they provide benchmarksfor discussions of state efforts to support R&D-at least as indicated byexpenditures. The estimates from the two SRS surveys show that totalstate expenditures for R&D are small compared to the 1988 totainational R&D expenditure estimate of $126 biiiion (National ScienceBoard, 1989)/

Differences in survey methodologies and purposes ied to the widerange of estimates in Table 1, and thus they are not strictiy compar-able. But these estimates highlight issues that are important in under-standing state S&T efforts. For example, the two SRS estimates diverge

Technobgy and American CompetHiveness 167

by some $250 million. The contrast between the two SRS estimates ofstate-funded research and devebpment and estimates of the new stateagency expenditures listed in Table 1, suggests that, in general, thelion's share of state-funded R&D continues to be distributed through thernore traditional channel: largely separately-budgeted state appropria-tions to research universities.

in a study which focused on the mechanism of support rather thanthe type of activity supported by the new state agencies Forrer (1989)found that in 1988 the new agencies spent approximately $143 miiiionthrough grants and contracts. This figure is probably too high to serveas an estimate of the new agencies' support of R&D since it includessupport for business development. Further, use of the review processin the context of the new state agencies does riot seem to refer to peerreview as normally understood; according to Forrer, "most programs useexternal experts to review the merits of proposals but not in a formai orsystematic way" (1989:5). Parker has found use of peer review pro-grams for tx)th basic research and advanced technology devebpmentprograms (1989). These findings alert analysts to the the differencesbetween conventions widely accepted by federal agencies and thosedeveloping on the state level. Differences among the estimates of stateagency expenditures by National Governors' Association (1988), Minne-sota Office of S&T (1988), and Atkinson (1988) underline the need forcaution coricerning definitional issues from state to state and fromsurvey to survey.

The national data and estimates from the surveys listed in Table 1,even though they were designed for different purposes and used differ-ent methodologies, iead to the conclusions that, for the nation as awhole:

1. States continue to support most R&D through traditbnalchannels, rK>t through their new agencies.

2. States support reiativeiy littie R&D compared to the natbnaitotal (though differences among the states are iarge).

3. If -peer-reviewed grants" are used as an indicator of theamount of R&D supported by the new state agencies, thisamount may be as bw as $143 million.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL STUDIES

Several attempts have been made to compile data profiles, or setsof indicators, of regionai and bcai S&T capabilities and activities.Southern Growth Poiicies Board (SGPB) (1989), Institute for Illinois(1989), Peters and Wheeler (1988), Schmandt and Wilson (1987), andSmibr et al. (1988) are among these. SGPB contains a variety of indi-cators for each of its member states. Its emphasis on per capitameasures, in the author's opinbn, obscures institutbnal resources inthe region, which will be discussed below. The Peters and Wheeler

168 Policy Studies Joumal

conrpilatbn is usefui for its treatment of "high-tech" empbyment data inthe Flint, Mbhigan, area and for its lists of poiby options available tostates to support S&T-intensive economic growth.

Smibr et ai. (1988) focus on the concept of the lechnopoiis" andsuggest ways to describe these, using exampies from around the world.Schmandt and Wilson (1987) contains overviews of eight states' pro-grams to encourage high-technology devebpment, and concludes withintriguing speculatbns on the future of these programs.

Two studies stand out-for different reasons-as exemplary sets ofanalysis and data on bcai and state S&T resources. One is a voiumeedited by Williams (1988) on the new "informatbn society" in Texas. Achapter in Williams (1988) by Hudson and Leung builds on eariier wori<by Porat (1977) to compare empbyment growth in "informatbn" jobsacross the Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Thevolume aiso provides qualitative accounts of recent past S&T poiicyactivities in Texas, inciuding the effort to attract the Microelectronbs andComputer Technology Corporation (MCC). It contains the oniy state-level data on citizen attitudes toward S&T this writer has ever seen. Inshort, the Frederbk voiume is unique in the broad range of informationit brings to understanding Texas's recent attempts to encourage S&T-intensive economb growth.

By far the nrwst thorough and anaiytbal study of a regbn's S&Tresources is Sternberg's (1989) description of the Rochester, New Yori"technopoiis." Partially supported by the New Yoric State Science andTechnobgy Foundatbn, whbh is one of the oidest state S&T agencies,the report presents a multifaceted view of the S&T resources of MonroeCounty arid Rochester. Sternberg provides baseline measures for arange of variabies important to decision makers concerned with promot-ing S&T-intensive economic growth. These inciude innovative measuresof science and engineering empbyment and empbyment in certain in-dustries; regbnai high-tech product-lines; patenting trends among bcaiindustries and bcai and other universities; corporate-sponsored contin-uing education; and R&D activities at bcai universities and in iocalindustries. The report appropriately emphasizes the unique mix of indus-tries in Monroe County (e.g. Xerox, Eastman Kodak, Bausch and Lomb)and uses these and other industrial and academic iaboratories to iden-tify "technobgy compiexes", or "clusters of complementary technologicalspecializations crossing institutionai lines," such as optics and imaging(Sternberg, 1989:55).

IMPROVING THE DATA

The growing iiterature and sustained interest in state S&T policyanaiytbal work are clear signals that teaming is occurring; a poiicyguidance furKition is emerging in some states (Atkinson, 1988).

How usefui are the data now avaiiable for understanding, guiding,arKi assessing the new state programs? The answer can oniy be: Notvery usefui. There are severai reasons for these shortcomings, and the

Technology and American Competitiveness 169

folbwing sectbns describing data problems and proposing solutions tothese probiems are necessarily suggestive, not complete.

The Current Data Over-Emphasize Aggregate State-Level DataMuch of the data from the natbnal surveys and some of the

regbnal studies discussed above is of two types: nominal measures ofthe type "in state X a Council or Board or Program exists," and ordinaimeasures with actual or inferred state rankings on selected variables.The first type results in bng lists of programs and activities and agen-cies. These lists have limited vaiue. There are now hundreds of thesenew programs, nestled in fifty different poiiticai cuitures. Are theprograms truiy new, or are they okJ programs/functbns with a newname? How much difference do they make? Naming a phenomenon isoniy the first step in understanding what it truly is, of what it consists,and how it fits in with the rest of the environment.

Data of the second type (ordinai) are seductive, and have greatpoliticai usefuiness. But they are aiso treacherous. A glance at Table 1and a review of the survey reports lead to the conciusion that, at thisstage in the emergence of a state-ievei S&T function, there is tittleagreement on basic terminology and the important units of anaiysis."Technology," "science," "economic growth," "research," and other tennsare bandied about indiscriminateiy. An umbreiia term like "technobgytransfer" seems to stand for anything. Yet politbally these rankings havegreat power. Armed with these statistbs governors can appeai to iegis-iators for increases in budgets, for establishment of "high-tech" pro-grams, and to appear to be aiiied with the "future" (Lambright et al.,1989; Feller, 1984).

The annual reports produced by new state agencies to describetheir programs tend to be giossy pubibatbns packed with boosterismand suspbbus charts and graphs, in stark contrast to these are a fewcareful descriptbns of state S&T resources and programs (New YorkS&T Foundatbn, 1989; North Carolina Board of S&T, 1985). (Both ofthese are anfx>ng the oidest state programs.) it is fair to point out thattwo distinct types of infornnation are t>eing devebped by the new stateagencies: the first primarily serves politicai purposes, and the second ismore usefui for actually understanding the issues invoived.

Bradiey and Rees have made astute arKJ provocative observationsof the differences between state and federai approaches to S&T polbymatters. Describing the "almost furtive aspects" of state activities, theynote that Ihe abiiities to monitor science polby efforts and assess theirconsequences have singuiar importance for science policy throughoutthe federal system" (1987:3). They observe an improvement in states'abiiities to perform these functions with increased "effbiency, irKlepen-dence, responsiveness, and vigor* over the past 15 years (1987:4).However, they caution that state S&T policies are devebped indirectiy,and budgetary documents provide only a "clue" to actual state efforts.State budgetary practices are different; many states try to hide the realpurposes of appropriations; and state programs must be analyzed and