This article examines the impact of the emerging model of open innovation on state public policy, particularly the practice of technology-based economic development in weak research and development (R&D) states. Open innovation describes the nascent practice of firms using knowledge created outside their boundaries and also marketing ideas they would not commercialize themselves. Firms engaging in open innovation thrive on knowledge spillovers, and weak R&D regions could benefit from this model through the creation of Marshallian externalities. It is therefore interesting to ask whether weak R&D states take advantage of this model. This case study analysis shows that states involved in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research partially support the emerging open innovation paradigm. All states have science and technology strategies and actively support and invest in their higher education infrastructure. They show variation in their support for university—industry partnerships, entrepreneurship, capital access, commercialization, and technology transfer. None of the states, however, uses the open innovation framework explicitly.
Amin, A., & Thrift, N. ( 1992). Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16, 571-587.
2.
Benneworth, P. ( 2004). In what sense "regional development?" Entrepreneurship, underdevelopment and strong tradition in the periphery. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16, 439-458.
3.
Braczyk, H.-J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (1998). Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalized world. London, England: UCL Press.
4.
Chesbrough, H. ( 2003a). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41.
5.
Chesbrough, H. ( 2003b). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
6.
Crevoisier, O., & Maillat, D. ( 1991). Milieu, industrial organization and territorial production system: Towards a new theory of spatial development. In R. Camagni (Ed.), Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives (pp.13-34). London, England: Belhaven Press.
7.
de Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W., Kalvet, T., & Chesbrough, H. (2008). Policies for open innovation: Theory, framework and cases. Retrieved from http://www.visioneranet.org/files/408/OIPAF_final_report.pdf
8.
Feldman, M.P., Kelley, M., Schaff, J., & Farkas, G. ( 2000). Reinforcing interactions between the Advanced Technology Program and the states. Volume 2: Case studies of technology pioneering start-up companies and their use of state and federal programs. Retrieved from http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/ir-6523.pdf
9.
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. ( 1999). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
10.
Google. (2008). Project 10100 . Retrieved from http://www.project10tothe100.com/why.html
11.
Lemola, T., & Lievonen, J. ( 2008). The role of innovation policy in fostering open innovation activities among companies. Retrieved from http://www.visioneranet.org/files/369/SEMOIPI_Advansis_final_report.pdf
12.
Lichtenstein, G., & Lyons, T. ( 2001). The entrepreneurial development system: Transforming business talent and community economies. Economic Development Quarterly, 15, 3-20.
13.
Longhi, C. ( 1999). Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: The case of Sophia-Antipolis. Regional Studies, 33, 333-342.
14.
Lowe, N. ( 2007). Job creation and the knowledge economy: Lessons from North Carolina’s life science manufacturing initiative. Economic Development Quarterly, 21, 339-353.
Marshall, A. ( 1920). Principles of economics. London, England: Macmillan.
17.
Mayer, H. ( 2005a). Planting high technology seeds: Tektronix’s role in the creation of Portland’s Silicon Forest. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 106, 568-593.
18.
Mayer, H. ( 2005b). The homeland security industry and its impact on the Arlington, Virginia, economy. Retrieved from http://www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com/docs/homeland_security_short.pdf
19.
Mayer, H. ( 2006). Completing the puzzle: Creating a high tech and life science economy in Kansas City. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20061101_kansasmayer.pdf
20.
Melkers, J. ( 2004). Assessing the outcomes of state science and technology organizations. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 186-201.
21.
National Governors Association, & Pew Center on the States. (2007). Investing in innovation. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0707INNOVATIONINVEST.PDF
22.
Netflix. (2008). Netflix prize . Retrieved from http://www.netflixprize.com/
23.
North Dakota Department of Commerce. (2008 ). Report on North Dakota’s Centers of Excellence program . Retrieved from http://www.commerce.nd.gov/uploads/resources/51/coe-preliminary-annual-report-031808.pdf
24.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. ( 2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 259-280.
25.
Piore, M., & Sabel, C. ( 1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity . New York, NY: Basic Books.
26.
Plosila, W. ( 2004). State science- and technology-based economic development policy: History, trends and developments, and future directions. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 113-126.
27.
Porter, M. ( 2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly , 14, 15-34.
28.
Small Business Administration. (2006). The small business economy: 2006. Retrieved from http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sb_econ2006.pdf
29.
State Science and Technology Institute. (2006 ). A resource guide for technology-based economic development . Retrieved from http://www.ssti.org/Publications/Onlinepubs/resource_guide.pdf
30.
Tekes. (2009). About Tekes. Retrieved from http://www.tekes.fi/en/community/About%20Tekes/339/About%20Tekes/1279
31.
von Hippel, E. ( 1988). The sources of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
The Washington Advisory Group. (2008). South Carolina Centers of Economic Excellence (CoEE): Comprehensive program evaluation 2003-2008. Retrieved from http://www.theadvisorygroup.com/uploads/file/CoEE%20Eval%20Rpt%20FINAL%2012-30-08%20v3.pdf
33.
West Virginia EPSCoR Advisory Council. (2005 ). Vision 2015: The West Virginia Science and Technology strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.wvresearch.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=10&&Itemid=26
34.
Wu, Y. ( 2009). NSF’s experimental program to stimulate competitive research (EPSCoR): Subsidizing academic research or state budgets?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 479-495.
