IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/uncgec/2017_013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

U.S. Federal Laboratories and their Research Partners: A Quantitative Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, ChuChu

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

  • Link, Albert

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

  • Oliver, Zachary

    (RTI International, Innovation Economics Program)

Abstract

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 made explicit the technology transfer responsibilities of U.S. Federal laboratories. The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 further enhanced the technology transfer activities of laboratories by permitting Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). However, very little is known about the characteristics of CRADA activity in Federal laboratories. Using a new, robust dataset of CRADA activity at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), we describe research partnerships over the years 1978 through 2014, and we explore several research questions. When did the Federal Technology Transfer Act have an impact on CRADA activity at NIST? Is CRADA activity at NIST a cyclical phenomenon? At what frequency do private sector establishments engage in CRADA activity with NIST? We find suggestive evidence that the Federal Technology Transfer Act began to influence NIST’s CRADA activity within two to three years after its passage, and we find that CRADA activity moves with the business cycle. We also find that most establishments that were engaged in CRADA activity were engaged only once over this time period; it was only the larger establishments that continued to engage in CRADAs with NIST. We speculate about the implications of these findings, and we suggest a broader research agenda into CRADA activity in Federal laboratories.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, ChuChu & Link, Albert & Oliver, Zachary, 2018. "U.S. Federal Laboratories and their Research Partners: A Quantitative Case Study," UNCG Economics Working Papers 17-13, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2017_013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bryan.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/17-13-US-Federal-Laboratories-and-their-Research-Partners.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty & Bruce A. Banks, 1998. "Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 183-205, June.
    2. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity and R&D at the Firm Level," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 100-133, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Link, Albert N, 1980. "Firm Size and Efficient Entrepreneurial Activity: A Reformulation of the Schumpeter Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(4), pages 771-782, August.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, March.
    5. Ham, Rose Marie & Mowery, David C., 1998. "Improving the effectiveness of public-private R&D collaboration: case studies at a US weapons laboratory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 661-675, February.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
    7. Acs, Zoltan J & Audretsch, David B, 1987. "Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(4), pages 567-574, November.
    8. Richard Franza & Kevin Grant & W. Spivey, 2012. "Technology transfer contracts between R&D labs and commercial partners: choose your words wisely," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 577-587, August.
    9. Jeremy W. Bray & Albert N. Link, 2017. "Dynamic entrepreneurship: On the performance of U.S. research joint ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 785-797, December.
    10. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    11. James D. Adams & Albert N. Link, 2018. "The structure and performance of U.S. research joint ventures: inferences and implications from the Advanced Technology Program," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5-6), pages 551-575, August.
    12. Jaffe, Adam B & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 167-198, Spring.
    13. Brand, C Dan, 2003. "Availability and Accessibility of the Nation's Research Infrastructure: The Transfer of Assistive Technologies by Federal Laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(3-4), pages 197-205, August.
    14. Cohen, Wesley M & Levin, Richard C & Mowery, David C, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 543-565, June.
    15. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    16. Nelson, Richard R, 1986. "Institutions Supporting Technical Advance in Industry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 186-189, May.
    17. Ariel Pakes & Zvi Griliches, 1984. "Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Look," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 55-72, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
    19. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Albert N. Link, 2021. "Technology Transfer at U.S. Federal Laboratories: R&D Disclosures Patent Applications," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: Maribel Guerrero & David Urbano (ed.), Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurial Innovations, chapter 0, pages 45-58, Springer.
    2. María García-Vega & Óscar Vicente-Chirivella, 2020. "The effect of technology transfers from public research institutes and universities on firm innovativeness," Discussion Papers 2020-10, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    3. Vidita Choudhry & Todd A. Ponzio, 2020. "Modernizing federal technology transfer metrics," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 544-559, April.
    4. David B. Audretsch & Albert N. Link, 2019. "Entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers from the public sector," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 195-208, March.
    5. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2021. "Scientific publications at U.S. federal research laboratories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2227-2248, March.
    6. Cristina I. Fernandes & Pedro Mota Veiga & João J.M. Ferreira & Mathew Hughes, 2021. "Green growth versus economic growth: Do sustainable technology transfer and innovations lead to an imperfect choice?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 2021-2037, May.
    7. Joao J. M. Ferreira & Cristina Fernandes & Vanessa Ratten, 2019. "The effects of technology transfers and institutional factors on economic growth: evidence from Europe and Oceania," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1505-1528, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Audretsch, David B. & Belitski, Maksim, 2020. "The role of R&D and knowledge spillovers in innovation and productivity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    10. Michael J. Hall, 2022. "New technology transfer metrics for the National Institute of Standards and Technology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1573-1583, October.

    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. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    2. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. Raquel Ortega-Argilés & Rosina Moreno & Jordi Caralt, 2005. "Ownership structure and innovation: is there a real link?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 39(4), pages 637-662, December.
    4. Lee, Chang-Yang & Sung, Taeyoon, 2005. "Schumpeter's legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 914-931, August.
    5. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 2005. "Entrepreneurship and Innovation," Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2005-21, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group.
    6. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2018. "Propensity to Patent and Firm Size for Small R&D-Intensive Firms," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(4), pages 561-587, June.
    7. Konstantinos Konstantakis & Panayotis G. Michaelides & Theofanis Papageorgiou, 2014. "Sector size, technical change and stability in the USA (1957-2006): a Schumpeterian approach," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 956-974, October.
    8. Audretsch, David & Hafenstein, Marian & Kritikos, Alexander S. & Schiersch, Alexander, 2018. "Firm Size and Innovation in the Service Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 12035, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Hai Wu & Anne-Maree Thomas & Sue Wright, 2020. "Using the R&D capitalisation choice to explain the scale benefits of R&D investment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(4), pages 579-606, November.
    10. Sumit Majumdar, 2011. "Scalability versus flexibility: firm size and R&D in Indian industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 101-116, February.
    11. Henry Nieuwenhuijsen & Peter Brouwer, 2000. "Modelling returns to R&D: an application on size effects," Scales Research Reports H199908, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    12. Sabourin, David & Baldwin, John R. & Hanel, Peter, 2000. "Determinants of Innovative Activity in Canadian Manufacturing Firms: The Role of Intellectual Property Rights," Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series 2000122e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    13. Huang, Yanghua & Salike, Nimesh & Yin, Zhifeng & Zeng, Douglas Zhihua, 2017. "Enterprise innovation in China: Does ownership or size matter?," RIEI Working Papers 2017-06, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Research Institute for Economic Integration.
    14. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2018. "Innovation and firm performance in developing countries: The case of Pakistani textile and apparel manufacturers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1283-1294.
    15. Diégo Legros & Fabrice Galia, 2012. "Are innovation and R&D the only sources of firms’ knowledge that increase productivity? An empirical investigation of French manufacturing firms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 167-181, October.
    16. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    17. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    18. E. Cefis & M. Ghita, 2008. "Post Merger Innovative Patterns in Small and Medium Firms," Working Papers 08-09, Utrecht School of Economics.
    19. Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2015. "The production function of top R&D investors: Accounting for size and sector heterogeneity with quantile estimations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-393.
    20. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CRADA; Program management; Federal laboratory; NIST; technology; Schumpeterian hypothesis; evaluation; assessment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:2017_013. 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.