Doctoral Education and Economic Development: The Flow of New Ph.D.s to Industry

Abstract

Doctoral education in science and engineering is critical to the university’s role in fostering economic development. One aspect of this is the placement of recent graduates with firms. Despite the role Ph.D.s play in this process, little work has documented and analyzed these firm placements. This article takes a first step at rectifying this deficiency, using data from the 1997-1999 Survey of Earned Doctorates administered by the National Science Foundation to all doctoral recipients in the United States. The authors show that knowledge sources, as measured by the training location of new Ph.D.s going to industry, are concentrated in different geographic centers from those that university R&Dexpenditure data would suggest. The authors also find significant outflows from the Midwest of Ph.D.s and significant inflows to the Pacific and northeast regions of the country. The authors’work suggests that many states fail to capture the economic development advantages that come from training a skilled work force.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44-60.

Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996a). Innovation clusters and the industry life cycle. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(2), 253-273.

Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996b). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 63(3), 630-640.

Black, G. (2003). The geography of small firm innovation. New York: Kluwer.

Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.

Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 67-73.

Goldin, C.,& Katz, L. F. (1998). The origin of state-level differences in the public provision of higher education: 1890-1940. American Economic Review, 88, 303-308.

Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (1999). The shaping of higher education: The formative years in the United States, 1890 to 1940. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 37-62.

Groen, J., & White, M. J. (2001). In-state versus out-of-state students: The divergence of interest between public universities and state governments. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego.

10.

Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.

11.

Jones, B. D.,& Vedlitz, A. (1993). Higher education, business creation, and economic growth in the American states. In W. Becker& D. Lewis (Eds.), Higher education and economic growth(pp. 163-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

12.

Luger, M. I., & Goldstein, H. A. (1997). What is the role of public universities in regional economic development? In R. Bingham & R. Mier (Eds.), Dilemmas of urban economic development: Issues in theory and practice(pp. 104-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55-65.

14.

National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indicators—2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

15.

National Science Foundation, Science Resources Statistics. (1973-1999). Survey of doctorate recipients[CD-ROM]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (License for use required by NSF).

16.

National Science Foundation, Science Resources Statistics. (1997-1999). Survey of earned doctorates[CD-ROM]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (License for use required by NSF).

17.

Powell, W., Koput, K., Smith-Doerr, L.,& Owen-Smith, J. (1999). Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. In S. B. Andrews& D. Knocke (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations(Vol. 16, pp. 129-159). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

18.

Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. A. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.

19.

Sanderson, A., Dugoni, A., Hoffer, T., & Myers, S. (2000). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 1999. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

20.

Stephan, P. (2002). Using human resource data to illuminate innovation and research utilization. In S. Merrill & M. McGreary (Eds.), Using human resource data to track innovation: Summary of a workshop(pp. 43-68). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

21.

Zucker, L.,& Darby, M. (1997). The economists’case for biomedical research: Academic scientist-entrepreneurs and commercial success in biotechnology. In C. Barfield & B. Smith (Eds.), The future of biomedical research(pp. 42-72). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

22.

Zucker, L., Darby, M.,& Armstrong, J. (1998). Intellectual capital and the firm: The technology of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. Economic Inquiry, 36, 65-86.

23.

Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual capital and the birth of the U.S. biotechnology enterprise. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290-306.