Organizational Unit:

School of Public Policy

Permanent Link

https://hdl.handle.net/1853/70716

Parent Organization

Organizational Unit

Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts

Includes Organization(s)

Organizational Unit

Technology Policy and Assessment Center

ArchiveSpace Name Record

https://finding-aids.library.gatech.edu/agents/corporate_entities/1033

Full item page

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 15

Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis – Travelex Ransomware Attack

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2021-12) Caras, Constantine J.

Through the application of the Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis, this paper identifies and intricately examines all core features of the incident, highlighting the hacker’s modus operandi and defining causal relationships between every phase of the attack. Furthermore, a policy assessment is conducted to illustrate which societal layer could best address this variant of intrusion to support stronger proactive security defense in the future.
Analysis of American Passenger Rail: Expansion into Rural Georgia

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2020) Cohen, Sophia A.

This paper analyzes the historical and social impacts of American passenger rail to highlight a solution to lacking connectivity and transportation options for rural Georgians. Rural Georgians need a lasting and adequate solution to the issue of lacking access to jobs, healthcare, and neighboring areas. Supplemented by Van services that ineffectively address the core issue of an inexistent reliable transportation system, the creation of a passenger rail line utilizing existing freight tracks along the Atlanta, Macon, Savannah route would encompass and serve the surrounding rural communities. Analyzing the specific actions for federal, state, and municipal governments to take, there is data supporting the substantial benefits passenger rail can have on the rural areas as well as urban areas by decreasing commuting traffic in urban centers.
Supplemental Materials to “Emergence Scoring to Identify Frontier R&D Topics and Key Players”

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2018) Porter, Alan L. ; Garner, Jon ; Carley, Stephen ; Newman, Nils

Supplemental Materials to the article on "Emergence Scoring to Identify Frontier R&D Topics and Key Players"
Innovation in Manufacturing: Needs, Practices, and Performance in Georgia 2016-2018

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016) Youtie, Jan ; Shapira, Philip ; Li, Yin

2016 report of the Georgia Manufacturing Survey (GMS) - a statewide study conducted every 2-3 years by Georgia Tech's Enterprise Innovation Institute and the School of Public Policy to assess the business and technological conditions of Georgia’s manufacturers. The theme of GMS 2016 is smart manufacturing.
Knowledge Kills Action: Why Principles Should Play a Limited Role in Policy-making

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2014-03-06) Holbrook, J. Britt ; Briggle, Adam

This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy-making. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policy-making process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that allowing principles to determine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.
Peer Review of Team Science Research

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2013-10) Holbrook, J. Britt

This paper explores how peer review mechanisms and processes currently affect team science and how they could be designed to offer better support for team science. This immediately raises the question of how to define teams. While recognizing that this question remains open, this paper addresses the issue of the peer review of team science research in terms of the peer review of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Although the paper touches on other uses of peer review, for instance, in promotion and tenure decisions and in program evaluation, the main issue addressed here is the peer review of team science research in the context of the review of grant proposals.
Technological Change and the challenges for Regional Development:building "social capital" in less-favoured region

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Nunes, Richard J. ; Heitor, Manuel V. ; Conceição, Pedro

The relevance of regional policy for less favoured regions (LFRs) reveals itself when policy-makers must reconcile competitiveness with social cohesion through the adaptation of competition or innovation policies. The vast literature in this area generally builds on an overarching concept of “social capital” as the necessary relational infrastructure for collective action diversification and policy integration, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of industrial change and a necessary balance between the creation and diffusion of knowledge through learning. This relational infrastructure or “social capital” is centred on people’s willingness to cooperate and envision futures as a result of social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1993: 35). Advocates of this interpretation of “social capital” have adopted the “new growth” thinking behind “systems of innovation” and “competence building”, arguing that networks have the potential to make both public administration and markets more effective as well as learning trajectories more inclusive of the development of society as a whole. This essay aims to better understand the role of “social capital” in the production and reproduction of uneven regional development patterns, and to critically assess the limits of a “systems concept” and an institution-centred approach to comparative studies of regional innovation. These aims are discussed in light of the following two assertions: i) learning behaviour, from an economic point of view, has its determinants, and ii) the positive economic outcomes of “social capital” cannot be taken as a given. It is suggested that an agent-centred approach to comparative research best addresses the learning determinants and the consequences of social networks on regional development patterns. A brief discussion of the current debate on innovation surveys has been provided to illustrate this point.
From digital cities to mobile regions: a policy learning process fostering local systems of innovation and competence building

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Conceição, Pedro ; Ferreira, P. ; Heitor, Manuel V. ; Moutinho, J. L.

Given the current socio-economic context, in which innovation is a key driver of sustainable development, what are the challenges facing information-based development and cooperation, in a way that contributes to regional policies that stimulate localized learning and indigenous development? This broad question has motivated the work behind the present paper, which considered the development of case studies in selected Portuguese cities and regions and the emerging urbanization trends of increasing urban population, but reduced urban density. It is argued that the progressive integration of mobile ICT´s with sustainable mobility equipments and concepts will facilitate improving well being in urban regions if adequate incentives, infrastructures and institutions are adaptively implemented through a policy learning process. The analysis builds on the concept of local system of innovation and competence building, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of change and a necessary balance between the diffusion of mobile technologies and the social and cultural shaping of information technologies
The “Swing of the Pendulum” from Public to Market Support for Science and Technology: Is the US Leading the Way?

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Conceição, Pedro ; Heitor, Manuel V. ; Sirilli, Giorgio ; Wilson, Robert

The structure and financing of science and technology activities are undergoing a slow, but profound, change. This change can be briefly characterized as a shift from relying and supporting public science to a stronger emphasis on “market-based” incentives for science and technology. In this paper we analyze this shift in a historical perspective, discussing both the theoretical explanations and the empirical trends of the ongoing change. While we do not claim to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive identification of the causes of this shift, we argue that it is largely driven by the perception of a shift of the US policy towards market-based, rather than publicly support, incentives for science and technology. This, in turn – given the strong economic performance of the US over the 1990s – has influenced policies in most OECD countries, and especially in Europe. We conclude by analyzing the evolution of research in US higher education and find two major trends: an increasing diversity in the number of institutions of different types other than universities and a steady and continuous public funding of the leading US universities. This has allowed the construction of an infrastructure now used largely by the private sector, but it also noted that the US has not compromised public support for core areas or in those fields in which there is a clear perception that market incentives are not sufficient for meeting the strategic targets of the US policy. The implication is that there is a considerable “policy diversity” in the US practice and that all aspects of this diversity should be considered when using the US as a reference.
No Exit: A voice for Globelics? Reflections on research on global governance

(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Soete, Luc ; Weehuizen, Rifka

This paper addresses the issue of global governance. At first sight this is a topic which appears to fall beyond the “village borders” of the Globelics initiative. The analytical focus for the Globelics network proposed last year (Lundvall and Soete, 2002) was upon national innovation and competence building systems, paying in particular attention to international comparative analyses with respect to the “south”. The geographical emphasis on low(er) income countries appeared justified by the impression of an increasing tendency towards research diversion in this area in favor of international, high income countries’, comparative analyses, providing policy advice and support to various countries’ attempts at becoming the most competitive or knowledge intensive regions in the world. At the same time, the definition of innovation system was kept broad: “rooted in the production and human resource development system” to quote Lundvall (2002) rather than just limited to the R&D system. There were several reasons which justified such an approach. Thus as Lundvall noted: “Several OECD-countries that are characterised by a low-tech specialisation in production and exports are among the countries in the world with the highest GNP per capita. To focus on the rather small part of the economy engaged in formal R&D-activities would give very limited insights regarding the growth potential for these countries and the same would be true for low income countries. A second reason has to do with the fact that empirical studies only partially support the original hypothesis in Lundvall (1985) about innovations systems as primarily constituted by inter-firm, user-producer relationships. It is an obvious alternative to broaden the perspective on regional and national systems and to see them as constituted also by a common knowledge base embedded in local institutions and embodied in people living and working in the region. The final and perhaps the most important reason for taking the broader view has to do with the developments toward a ‘learning economy’. This hypothesis points to the need to give stronger emphasis to the analysis of the development of human and organisational capabilities. In the national education systems people learn specific ways to learn. In labour markets they experience nation specific incentive systems and norms will have an impact on how and what they learn.” (Lundvall, 2002). But such insights will of course also have to fit the rather radically changing external, international environment. As we already indicated last year, we side on this issue with Ulrich Beck: “a fundamental change is occurring in the nature of the social and political – an erosion of anthropological certitudes which compels the social sciences to modify their theoretical tools… the crucial question is how, beyond the mere assertion of an epochal break, sociology can strengthen its theoretical, methodological and organizational foundations by making them more concrete or focused and in this was ultimately renew its claim to another enlightenment. The keyword in this international controversy is globalisation. The consequences of this for society (and sociology) have been spelt out most clearly in the English-speaking countries… where it has been forcefully argued that conventional social and political science remains caught up in a national-territorial concept of society. Critics of ‘methodological nationalism’ processes and that the national framework is still the one best suited to measure and analyse major social, economic and political changes. The social sciences are thus found guilty of ‘embedded statism’ and thought is given to a reorganization of the interdisciplinary field…”(Beck, 2002) The focus on “national” systems of innovations is from this perspective invaluable in bringing to the forefront the importance of such “state” institutions in inducing or hindering processes of national competence building in a variety of different countries. The attempts at comparative learning through such detailed studies have actually formed the basis for the hype of innovation policy benchmarking exercises carried out within the EU and across the EU, the US and Japan. Following Beck though, there is in our view, here too a need to broaden this framework in line with the rapid rise in globalisation pressures and the existing lack of global governance. It is to the latter issue that this paper hopes to make a small contribution. After all, our network is named Globelics.