IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/uncgec/2011_016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Theory and Practice of Public-Sector R&D Economic Impact Analysis: The Case of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Link, Albert N.

    (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)

  • Scott, John T.

    (Dartmouth College)

Abstract

This paper summarizes National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) previous economic impact analyses and provides guidelines for NIST’s management for planning, conducting, and interpreting NIST’s future economic impact analyses that (1) document the economic contribution of NIST’s investments in infrastructure technology (infratechnology) and (2) inform management about the effectiveness of past projects and guide strategic planning. Motivating this agency-specific case study is the general expectation and challenge for public institutions to be accountable for their use of public resources. Economic impact analysis is one way that public institutions can quantify the social contribution of their activity. Impact analysis can also provide important lessons to management about the effectiveness of previous resource allocation decisions, and it can provide guidelines for future strategic planning. This paper discusses each of the 17 NIST economic impact analyses in the context of the stages of economic activity—R&D, production, or commercialization—benefiting from the infrastructure technology research studied in each analysis. The analyses find that there are typically benefits for private-sector conduct of R&D because R&D is more difficult without state-of-the-art infratechnologies, such as measurement and test methods and critically evaluated scientific data. There are benefits for production because data, measurement methods, process control models, etc. contribute to better process control. Also, there are benefits for commercialization because products are of higher quality (yielding more value to consumers) and the infratechnologies lower transaction costs through product acceptance testing standards (lower overall acquisition costs for consumers and accelerate market penetration). In addition to discussing the findings in the 17 analyses about the benefits for the three stages of activity, the paper explains how the benefits of NIST’s infratechnology investments occur throughout the supply chains in industry, from the producers of materials through the producers of intermediate products to the final consumers of the product or service. The 17 analyses are also discussed in the context of where in the relevant supply chains the benefits were realized and the extent to which those benefits could be estimated quantitatively and incorporated into the evaluation metrics presented in each analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "The Theory and Practice of Public-Sector R&D Economic Impact Analysis: The Case of the National Institute of Standards and Technology," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-16, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2011_016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bryan.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/11-16.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2001. "Public/private partnerships: stimulating competition in a dynamic market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 763-794, April.
    2. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    3. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199729685.
    4. Edwin Mansfield & John Rapoport & Anthony Romeo & Samuel Wagner & George Beardsley, 1977. "Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(2), pages 221-240.
    5. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    6. Arvanitis, Spyros & Hollenstein, Heinz & Lenz, Stephan, 2002. "The Effectiveness of Government Promotion of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT): An Economic Analysis Based on Swiss Micro Data," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 321-340, December.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1958. "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66, pages 419-419.
    8. David Leech & John Scott, 2008. "Intelligent Machine Technology And Productivity Growth," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 677-687.
    9. Doris Schartinger, 2001. "Benchmarking industry—science relations: the role of framework conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 247-258, August.
    10. Albert Link & John Scott, 2002. "Explaining Observed Licensing Agreements: Toward a Broader Understanding of Technology Flows," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 211-231.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    2. Gregory Tassey, 2014. "Competing in Advanced Manufacturing: The Need for Improved Growth Models and Policies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(1), pages 27-48, Winter.
    3. David Bruce Audretsch & Maksim Belitski & Rosa Caiazza, 2021. "Start-ups, Innovation and Knowledge Spillovers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1995-2016, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 2, pages 15-55, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. John Scott, 2009. "Cost-benefit analysis for global public–private partnerships: an evaluation of the desirability of intergovernmental organizations entering into public–private partnerships," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 525-559, December.
    3. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2019. "The economic benefits of technology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1416-1426, October.
    4. John Scott, 2000. "The Directions for Technological Change: Alternative Economic Majorities and Opportunity Costs," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Stuart D. Allen & Stephen K. Layson & Albert N. Link, 2013. "Public gains from entrepreneurial research: Inferences about the economic value of public support of the Small Business Innovation Research program," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 6, pages 105-112, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2012. "On the social value of quality: An economic evaluation of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(5), pages 680-689, July.
    7. Del Bo, Chiara F., 2016. "The rate of return to investment in R&D: The case of research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 26-37.
    8. Chiara F. DEL BO, 2014. "The rate of return to investment in R&D infrastructure: an overview," Departmental Working Papers 2014-11, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    9. Michael P. Gallaher & Albert N. Link & Alan C. O’Connor, 2012. "Public Investments in Energy Technology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14348.
    10. Link, Albert, 2018. "The Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," UNCG Economics Working Papers 18-3, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    11. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Research, Science, and Technology Parks: Vehicles for Technology Transfer," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-22, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    12. Albert Link & John Scott, 2006. "An economic evaluation of the Baldrige National Quality Program," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 83-100.
    13. Wang, Shanchao & Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2023. "R&D Lags in Economic Models," Staff Papers 330085, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    14. Thomas Ã…stebro, 1998. "Basic Statistics on the Success Rate and Profits for Independent Inventors," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 23(2), pages 41-48, December.
    15. Kancs, d’Artis & Siliverstovs, Boriss, 2016. "R&D and non-linear productivity growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 634-646.
    16. Fox, Glenn, 1985. "Social Rates Of Return To Public Investment In Agricultural Research And The Underinvestment Hypothesis: An Agnostic View," Staff Papers 14054, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    17. Katherine Wynn & Mingji Liu & Jasmine Cohen, 2022. "Quantifying the economy‐wide returns to innovation for Australia," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 591-614, September.
    18. Feng, Ping & Ke, Shanzi, 2016. "Self-selection and performance of R&D input of heterogeneous firms: Evidence from China's manufacturing industries," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 181-195.
    19. Pedro Andres Garzon Delvaux & Heinrich Hockmann & Peter Voigt & Pavel Ciaian & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2018. "The impact of private R&D on the performance of food-processing firms: Evidence from Europe, Japan and North America," JRC Research Reports JRC104144, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic impact analysis; NIST; social rate of return;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2011_016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Albert Link (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edncgus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.