IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v77y2019ics0149718919300345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geographically-related outcomes of U.S. funding for small business research and development: Results of the research grant programs of a component of the National Institutes of Health

Author

Listed:
  • Onken, James
  • Aragon, Richard
  • Calcagno, Anna Maria

Abstract

This article examines the geographic distribution of funding for the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs sponsored by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). Despite a significant investment in SBIR/STTR and an interest in increasing geographic diversity in the institute’s research portfolio, there has not been an assessment of the distribution of NIGMS’s SBIR/STTR funding, outcomes associated with that investment, and relationships between the two. The geographic distribution of NIGMS’ SBIR/STTR funding was highly concentrated in a small number of states, with a high correlation between each state’s funding and its number of small scientific research and development businesses. Affiliation with a major research university was correlated with several measures of innovation and firm success. Our findings are consistent with earlier research showing that economic activity in research and development and research output tend to cluster in geographic regions where knowledge can be generated and shared more efficiently. These findings lend support to an investment strategy for small business research and development that creates networks between major research universities and small businesses.

Suggested Citation

  • Onken, James & Aragon, Richard & Calcagno, Anna Maria, 2019. "Geographically-related outcomes of U.S. funding for small business research and development: Results of the research grant programs of a component of the National Institutes of Health," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:77:y:2019:i:c:s0149718919300345
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718919300345
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101696?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Marilynn B. Brewer, 1994. "Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," NBER Working Papers 4653, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1999. "The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," NBER Working Papers 7345, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    7. Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2013. "Geographic scope of proximity effects among small life sciences firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 1059-1086, May.
    8. Lanahan, Lauren & Feldman, Maryann P., 2015. "Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1387-1402.
    9. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 171-180, August.
    10. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    11. Zoltan J. Acs & Luc Anselin & Attila Varga, 2008. "Patents and Innovation Counts as Measures of Regional Production of New Knowledge," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 11, pages 135-151, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. 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.
    13. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents' Innovative Activity," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 373-376, Oct-Dec.
    14. Audretsch, David B & Stephan, Paula E, 1996. "Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 641-652, June.
    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. Onken, James & Miklos, Andrew C. & Dorsey, Travis F. & Aragon, Richard & Calcagno, Anna Maria, 2019. "Using database linkages to measure innovation, commercialization, and survival of small businesses," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    2. Sandro Mendonca & Hugo Confraria & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2021. "Appropriating the returns of patent statistics: Take-up and development in the wake of Zvi Griliches," SPRU Working Paper Series 2021-07, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Burhan, Muqbil & Singh, Anil K. & Jain, Sudhir K., 2017. "Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 181-190.
    4. Onken, James & Miklos, Andrew C. & Dorsey, Travis F. & Aragon, Richard & Calcagno, Anna Maria, 2019. "Using database linkages to measure innovation, commercialization, and survival of small businesses," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Motoyama, Yasuyuki & Cao, Cong & Appelbaum, Richard, 2014. "Observing regional divergence of Chinese nanotechnology centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 11-21.
    6. Jianghua Zhou & Rui Wu & Jizhen Li, 2019. "More ties the merrier? Different social ties and firm innovation performance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 445-471, June.
    7. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    8. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    9. Hagedoorn, John & Wang, Ning, 2012. "Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1072-1083.
    10. Hoenen, Sebastian & Kolympiris, Christos & Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas, 2014. "The diminishing signaling value of patents between early rounds of venture capital financing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 956-989.
    11. Ying Zhou & Sukanlaya Sawang & Xiaohua Yang, 2016. "Understanding The Regional Innovation Capacity In China After Economic Reforms," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 1-36, August.
    12. Maria Cipollina & Giorgia Giovannetti & Filomena Pietrovito & Alberto F. Pozzolo, 2012. "FDI and Growth: What Cross-country Industry Data Say," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1599-1629, November.
    13. Jörn Block & Christian Fisch & Kenta Ikeuchi & Masatoshi Kato, 2022. "Trademarks as an indicator of regional innovation: evidence from Japanese prefectures," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 190-209, February.
    14. Noailly, Joëlle, 2012. "Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 795-806.
    15. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.
    16. Lobo, José & Strumsky, Deborah, 2008. "Metropolitan patenting, inventor agglomeration and social networks: A tale of two effects," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 871-884, May.
    17. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.
    18. Landon Kleis & Paul Chwelos & Ronald V. Ramirez & Iain Cockburn, 2012. "Information Technology and Intangible Output: The Impact of IT Investment on Innovation Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 42-59, March.
    19. Bettencourt, Luis M.A. & Lobo, Jose & Strumsky, Deborah, 2007. "Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 107-120, February.
    20. Jaimin Goh & Jaehong Lee & Wonchang Hur & Yunchang Ju, 2019. "Do Analysts Fully Reflect Information in Patents about Future Earnings?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.

    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:eee:epplan:v:77:y:2019:i:c:s0149718919300345. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    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.