Public-private partnerships involving state and federal government are increasingly used to catalyze private investments in research and innovation. The two levels of government must consult more broadly in forming national science and technology policy. The State-Federal Technology Partnership, an ad hoc initiative of present and former governors, university presidents, corporate chief executives, and former federal research and development leaders, has studied these possibilities in several reports. Its recommendations underlie an unprecedented agreement between the White House and the National Governors' Association to launch a new U.S. Innovation Partnership for joint use of science and technology to generate economic growth, improve education and health care, and protect the environment. This article reviews the basis of state and federal science and technology cooperation and demonstrates the problems inherent in Professor Feller's critique in this issue of Economic Development Quarterly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In M. Feldstein (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609-625) (National Bureau of Economic Research). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Atkinson, R. (1993). The next wave in economic development. Economic Development Commentary, 17(1), 12-18.
3.
Bush, V. (1945). Science—the endless frontier: Report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research by Vannevar Bush, director of OSRD. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government . (1992). Science, technology, and the states in America's third century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
5.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government States Task Force . (1996). Final report: History, outcomes, future. Available from Christopher Coburn, 25000 Great Northern Corporate Center, Cleveland, OH 44070.
6.
Clinton, W. J. (1993, October 29). Technology for economic growth: President's progress report. Washington, DC: The White House.
7.
Clinton, W. J. (1997, February 3). Letter to the Hon. Bob Miller, Chair, National Governor's Association. Unpublished letter.
8.
Coburn, C. (Ed.), & Berglund, D. (with R. Dunbar, M. Filner, D. Brown, & M. Skinner). (1995). Partnerships: A compendium of state and federal cooperative technology programs. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute.
9.
Coburn, C. , Berglund, D., & Usher, R. (1997). U.S. state and federal governments: Enhancing economic competitiveness through collaboration. In C. Corsi, S. V. Kudrya, & C. Cardone (Eds.), Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop (pp. 69-82). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
10.
Cohen, W. , Florida, R., & Goe, W. R. (1994). University-industry research centers in the United States. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
11.
Eisinger, P. (1995). State economic development in the 1990s: Politics and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 146-158.
12.
Feller, I. (1997). Federal and state government roles in science and technology. Economic Development Quarterly, 11, 283-295.
13.
Gage, S. J. (1991, August). Science and technology policy and the states. Background paper prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Task Force on Science, Technology, and the States.
14.
Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92-116.
15.
Jones, M. , Guston, D. H., & Branscomb, L. M. (1996). Informed legislatures: Coping with science in a democracy. Lanham, MD: Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, and University Press of America.
16.
Kevles, D. J. (1977). The physicists: The history of a scientific community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
Mansfield, E. (1980). Technology and productivity in the United States. In M. Feldstein (Ed.), The American economy in transition. National Bureau of Economic Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Marshall, E. (1992). Industrial R&D wins political favor. Science, 255, 1500-1502.
19.
Osborne, D. (1988). Laboratories of democracy: A new breed of governor creates models for national growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
20.
Plosila, W. (1992, September 30). Testimony of Dr Walter H. Plosila, president, suburban Maryland/Montgomery County Technology Councils: Hearing of the Joint Economic Committee on Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government's report on Science Technology and the States in America's Third Century.
21.
Press, F. (1989a, October 10). Research and innovation in a new era. Remarks presented at a public meeting of the Ohio Science and Technology Commission, Columbus, Ohio.
22.
Press, F. (1989b). Research priorities and national goals. Edison Entrepreneur, 5(1), 1-24.
23.
Price, D. (1965). The scientific estate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
State-Federal Technology Partnership Task Force . (1995). The State-Federal Technology Partnership Task Force, final report. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
State Science and Technology Institute . (1996). State funding for cooperative technology programs. Columbus, OH: Author.
