Organizational Unit:
School of Public Policy
School of Public Policy
Permanent Link
Research Organization Registry ID
Description
Previous Names
Parent Organization
Parent Organization
Organizational Unit
Includes Organization(s)
Organizational Unit
ArchiveSpace Name Record
Publication Search Results
Now showing
1 - 10 of 176
-
ItemEmerging Industry-University Trends in Latin America(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Isaza, Juan Pablo
-
ItemThe Globalization of Innovation in Nanotechnology: Some Empirical Evidence for U.S., Japanese and European Firms(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Fernández-Ribas, Andrea ; Shapira, PhilipGlobalization of science and technology has long been a topic of interest to academics and policy makers. Despite extensive research, we know little about how and what firms globalize. Some recent studies suggest that the geographic distribution of inventive activities remain highly concentrated in industrialized countries. Arora and Yoon (2007) find that inventive activity in software remains concentrated in locations within the United States and among U.S. firms. MacHer, Mowery and Di Minin (2007) find similar results for the semiconductor industry. In a previous study, Fernandez-Ribas and Shapira (2009) show that the most technologically active U.S. corporations in nanotechnology develop an increasing number of inventions abroad. However, our results also indicate that the surge of new inventive locations outside the U.S. has not substituted the inventive activities developed at home. In fact, we find that nanotechnology inventions developed at home more than doubles the number of inventions developed abroad. By contrast, other studies suggest that R&D and innovation are moving to emerging markets. For example, Wadhwa et al. (2008) find that western pharmaceutical companies are shifting substantial preclinical and clinical-trial work to India and China. Several field studies show that indeed the globalization of knowledge, technology and capital is rapidly changing the way companies compete in the market. Increasingly companies appear to develop competitive advantages through intellectual property (Rivette and Kline 2000), open innovation approaches (Chesbrough 2003), global exploitation of technology (Archibugi and Iammarino 2002), and complex global value-chain relationships. These parallel processes suggests that globalization of innovation takes different forms, ranging from international research cooperation, international exploitation of technologies or global markets of technology, and has encouraged the emergence of new business relations. In this paper, we seek to contribute to this area by better understanding strategies of innovation by large businesses in new domains of technology characterized by rapid globalization. We focus on the emerging field of nanotechnology and study innovation strategies of the most active U.S., European and Japanese companies. We expand our previous work about the geographic distribution of inventive activities of U.S. firms (Fernandez-Ribas and Shapira, 2009), and investigate similarities and differences across companies. In addition, we investigate other characteristics of the inventive and innovation processes of nanotechnologies, including university-industry linkages, and the international exploitation of technologies. Our database is the nanotechnology publication and patent database developed by the Program in Research and Innovation Systems Assessment (CNS-ASU Center for Nanotechnology in Society) at Georgia Tech, complemented with WIPO PCT national phase reports and companies' profiles. Overall our sample consists of 60+ large multinational corporations and their subsidiaries. References Archibugi, D. and Iammarino, S. (2002) The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence, Review of International Political Economy. Arora, Ashish, Chris Forman, and Jiwoong Yoon (2007) Globalization of Software Innovation, Sloan Industry Studies Working Papers, 2007 Number WP-2007-2. Fernandez-Ribas, Andrea and Shapira, Philip (2009) Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: the case of nanotechnology, The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 34/3, pp. 286-303. Jeffrey T. MacHer, David C. Mowery, Alberto Di Minin (2007) "Non-Globalization" of Innovation in the Semiconductor Industry, California Management Review, Vol. 50 (1) Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Rivette, K.G and Kline, D. (2000) Discovering new value in Intellectual Property, Harvard Business Review January-February 2000: 54-66. Wadhwa, Vivek, Rissing, Ben, Gereffi, Gary, Trumpbour , John and Engardio, Pete (2008) The Globalization of Innovation: Pharmaceuticals: Can India and China Cure the Global Pharmaceutical Market.
-
ItemDistributional Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Summary(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Cozzens, Susan E. ; Knell, MarkEmerging technologies are new, science-based, and potentially high-impact. Emerging technologies are particularly likely to increase inequalities because of initial high prices and high skill requirements. They are good targets for policy changes to reduce inequalities, however, because they are at an early enough stage to be shaped by public interventions. The project reported here studied the distributional consequences of five technologies in eight countries. The central question was "How do public interventions affect distributional outcomes for the same technology under different national conditions?" We studied the distribution of business opportunities, employment, benefits, and costs. The team chose "emerged" technologies for study - those that were introduced some time ago - so that they could track actual effects rather than projecting them. The cases were information and telecommunications technologies and biotechnologies. Examples from the past were used to develop a framework for thinking about the future for new areas such as nanotechnology or synthetic biology. The five cases studied are: genetically modified (GM) maize, mobile phones, open source software, plant tissue culture, and recombinant insulin. They represent both proprietary and public ownership models, and range from simple to highly complex. The eight countries included are: Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Jamaica, Malta, Mozambique, and the United States. Half are high-income and half are low or middle income countries. With regard to the distribution of business opportunities, two factors were clearly significant. One was intellectual property protection. In some of our cases, multinational corporations held tight control of intellectual property around a new technology, limiting the opportunity for other firms to enter the market. In GM maize, corporate control limited business opportunities even in related industries in countries far from headquarters. In recombinant insulin, the control is so tight that generic manufacturers had a hard time entering the market even after the original patents expired. In contrast, plant tissue culture, a public sphere technology, has created business opportunities in both developed and developing countries in our study. A second constraint on business opportunity, however, is skill. If an environment does not have enough people at a high enough skill level to support or extend the technology, the ownership question is moot. Open source software illustrates. Open source software is more likely to be used in large firms or universities than small ones. The reason appears to be that in order to benefit from the open source code, the organization must have sufficient programming skill to be able to make some adjustments in the software itself. For the same reason, open source software businesses appear to develop only in places where there is already a software industry; we did not find any evidence of open source-based businesses in the developing countries in our study. Direct employment effects of the emerging technologies in our study were small, with the exception of the mobile phone service industry. In mobile phones, new jobs were created directly with the new form of service, but as land line subscriptions begin to drop, jobs will be lost in that part of the telephone business. For the other technologies, high-technology manufacturing jobs tended to stay in affluent countries (e.g., in recombinant insulin), and there was a modest shift from lower-skilled, more dangerous jobs to somewhat higher-skilled, less dangerous ones. For example, GM maize allows for less pesticide use, a benefit to farm workers. By raising and stabilizing yields, the agricultural technologies we studied also stabilize incomes for family farms and their employees. Our study did not include any of the countries that experienced rapid growth in employment through electronics manufacturing - indicating that those experiences may be the exception rather than the rule. Considering the distribution of benefits and costs from the five technologies, we found a number of effects of public interventions (policies). Environmental regulation in Europe raises production costs for farmers who grow GM maize to fend off European corn borers. Deregulation in the mobile phone industry in several of our example countries brought competition, and competition brought the invention of pre-paid plans to reach broader sets of consumers. Pre-paid plans have in turn been the major marketing mechanism allowing very high rates of access in most countries. But the cost per call unit is higher, and the share of family income consumed is also disproportionate for low income families. Even the pre-paid plans, however, cannot reach the poorest consumers in areas where electricity is not dependable and the wireless equipment not installed. Thus we found that in Mozambique, mobile phone use is largely confined to the capital city, and men are much more likely to use them than women. Public procurement makes recombinant insulin available through public health services in most of the countries of our study. But in the United States, the spotty insurance system leaves significant gaps in coverage. And in Mozambique, doctors are hesitant to prescribe an insulin regimen for use in very poor households, which are unlikely to be able to sustain its complicated requirements. Public procurement also made tissue culture for banana plants available to poor farmers in Jamaica, but when the public subsidy disappeared, these farmers could not afford to import the material, as more affluent farmers did. These examples show that the distributional boundary for the technology is drawn in part by public action and in part by family conditions. The study cannot produce a one size fits all set of policy recommendations, because it shows that national conditions matter a great deal in crafting policy options to spread the benefits of new technologies broadly. It does, however, suggest that * Intellectual property protection should be moderated so that it is not used to suppress business opportunities or limit the availability of essential goods. * Pockets of highly-skilled workers can be critical in giving developing countries local access to new technologies. * Basic infrastructure and education are important investments in increasing the capacity of highly unequal countries to absorb and diffuse new technologies widely.
-
ItemInstitutional and Methodological Challenges in the Use of Experimental Method for the Evaluation of Business Incubators: Lessons from the US, EU and China(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Nijkamp, Peter ; Yu, JunboDespite their worldwide adoption by policy makers as the Holy Grail for entrepreneurship and business development, the effectiveness of business incubation programs remain elusive, primarily plagued by untenable evaluation methods. This paper develops an in-depth analysis on those methodological and institutional factors that prohibit the use of theoretically sound solutions such as the Experimental Method in evaluation practice.
-
ItemKnowledge Matters: The Long-Run Determinants of State Income Growth(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Bauer, Paul W. ; Schweitzer, Mark E. ; Shane, Scott A.
-
ItemHow Important is U.S. Location for Research in Science?(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Kahn, Shulamit ; MacGarvie, Megan J.The United States has the largest concentration of cutting-edge research scientists in the world, attracts more foreign graduate students than any other country, and is home to a disproportionate share of top scientists (Zucker and Darby 2007, Bound, Turner and Walsh 2006). If, as many papers suggest, knowledge diffusion and collaboration are enhanced by geographic proximity, then these facts alone will mean that the productivity of U.S.-based scientists will be elevated relative to those in other countries. Adding to this advantage is the ability of well-funded American universities and research institutes to devote considerable financial resources to increasingly expensive research laboratories and equipment. There are several countervailing forces that might erase the advantages enjoyed by U.S. researchers. Other countries are attracting more star scientists. Other governments are making the development of stronger research capabilities a national priority, while the U.S. government has made some controversial policy choices that may have deterred some scientific explorations. At the same time, advances in communications technology and reductions in the cost of international travel have reduced geographic barriers to knowledge diffusion and to long-distance collaboration in science. This paper asks whether scientists who received U.S. doctorates but located outside the U.S. have in recent years been at a disadvantage when it comes to research productivity, collaboration, and knowledge diffusion. A first look at the data from our sample of 446 foreigners who received U.S. science Ph.D.'s during the 1990's and early 2000's summarized in Figures 1 and 2 suggests the answer to this question is a resounding yes. Compared to those located outside the U.S., the U.S.-located U.S.-educated foreign Ph.D. scientists in our sample produce more knowledge each year, as measured by their average journal publications, and this knowledge is diffused more broadly, as measured by forward (i.e. later) citations to these articles. Furthermore, U.S.-educated Ph.D. scientists located abroad conduct research that is less likely to draw on the most recent scientific advances. However, comparisons of scientists inside the U.S. with those outside are plagued by unobserved heterogeneity among scientists and endogeneity of their location choices. Those scientists located in the U.S. and those outside are likely to differ widely in their inherent research ability and proclivity. Better researchers may be more likely to receive U.S. job offer. and/or those most interested in research may be more likely to remain in the U.S. This paper makes use of a new dataset that follows the post-Ph.D. careers of foreign scientists who came to the U.S. for their doctorate. It is unique in being the only data set of which we are aware that tracks the career progression of individual U.S.-trained Ph.D. scientists, whether they leave the U.S. or not.[2] Our sample has been carefully crafted to exploit exogenous variation in post-Ph.D. location induced by visa status. It does this by comparing foreign-born Ph.D. recipients who were required by law to leave the U.S. upon the completion of their studies with similar Ph.D. recipients who were allowed to remain in the U.S. We examine their research output in terms of the number and prestige of publications and the individuals' contribution to these publications as measured by first and last authorship. We measure these publications' impact on science by their number of forward citations, the scientists' connection to cutting-edge science by the median lag of publications' backward citations (i.e. articles cited in the publication), and their links to the American scientific community by co-authorship with Ph.D. advisors and others in the U.S. In all regressions, we control for scientists' pre-graduation research output, which we believe to be a good proxy for inherent research potential. Instrumenting for location using visa status and allowing richer and poorer countries to have different impacts, we find that the negative relationship between non-U.S. location and research output is present and large for poorer countries but completely eliminated when the researcher is located in a richer country, with two exceptions. Even for those located in the richest countries, foreign location negatively impacts both last authorship and collaboration with Americans. Further, allowing for heterogeneity in the treatment effect of foreign location on research output on these same countries, we find that the negative effect on publications of being abroad is largest for those with the lowest estimated propensity of being abroad, those who -- given their observable characteristics -- would be expected to remain in the US. [1] This research is supported by the National Science Foundation. [2] One can obtain information on foreign-born scienstists who remain in the U.S. from the NSF's SESTAT database. Also, Michael G. Finn's research provides valuable information on the stay rates of Ph.D.s. of foreign origin.
-
ItemResearch Misconduct: Does Self-Policing Work?(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Martin, Ben R.
-
ItemCommunity-Based Research and Development (R&D) Patterns in the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Sector(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Catalan, Pablo ; Cozzens, Susan E.I explore patterns in regard to community based Research and Development in the Water Supply and Sanitation sector. I set a bibliometric analysis, covering the 1998-2008 period, by means of applying a framework based on three factors: productivity, collaboration, and research topics, which are analyzed at global and country level. Results show: a) Northern countries are the most productive ones; b) though not significant as it should, North-South collaboration is increasing; and c) Southern concerns do not represent a major share of Northern R&D, though an upward is noted.
-
ItemInternationalisation of Public Sector Research, A Typology and Global Overview of International Joint Laboratories(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Cruz Castro, Laura ; Jonkers, KoenThis paper analyses the emergence of public sector international joint laboratories as an increasingly important new phenomenon in the internationalisation of public sector research. Based on secondary sources analysis and qualitative survey data, it explores the trends in the establishment of such units, the aims for which they are established and the extent to which these aims are being met.
-
ItemThe Fragile Foundations of Regional Scientific Advantage? The Impact of the US Administration Stem Cell Policy on the Geography of Scientific Discovery(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Furman, Jeffrey L. ; Murray, Fiona ; Stern, ScottIn this paper we investigate the impact of the August 2001 U.S. administration stem cell research policy on the rate and composition of stem cell research in the United States in comparison to other countries. Although the policy enabled the first federal funding for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research; it precluded federal funding for all but a select set of pre-existing stem cell lines. We evaluate the specific impact of this policy on (a) the scientific advantage of U.S. stem cell researchers relative to the international community and (b) the consequences of this policy for the composition of follow-on research in the United States. Our research approach employs a differences-in-differences approach; comparing citations to seminal human embryonic stem cell articles with sets of associated controls; controlling for article age and calendar year effects and article-specific fixed effects. Our preliminary results suggest that hESC research output grew at a somewhat slower pace in the United States than the rest of the world in the post-shock period. Subtle issues associated with the timing of this shift make it difficult to draw unambiguous conclusions about the factors driving this result. A few facts are unambiguous. First; the policy shift did not lead to a wholesale erosion of U.S. scientific competitiveness in human stem cell research. Second; researchers at the highest status institutions were affected to a lesser degree by the policy shift and; third; US scientists demonstrate effective adaptation to the changes in their policy environment; particularly with respect to their collaborative behaviors. Each of these findings suggests that regional scientific advantage is robust to specific changes in the institutional environment.