IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v43y2018i1d10.1007_s10961-017-9580-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sub-national technology policy and commerce: evaluating the impacts of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Kenney

    (University of California)

  • Donald Patton

    (University of California)

Abstract

In the last 20 years, state governments have funded a large number of science-based economic development programs. Remarkably, there have been few evaluations of either their economic impact or their prospects for economic impact. The 2004 decision by California voters to issue bonds to fund $3 billion of research on human pluripotent stem cells is an ideal case study for introducing an evaluation methodology for the progress by state programs in developing and transferring research results. In the process of evaluating the California stem cell initiative, we make three methodological contributions to the study of the impacts of sub-national science-based economic development programs. First, the following data sources are introduced as indicators of the prospective economic benefits of these programs: changes in targeted federal research funding, patenting, small business investment research grants, venture capital investment, new firm formations, and clinical trials. Second, the use of regional or industrial controls is introduced. In the case study of the California stem cell initiative the regional control is the comparison of the two dominant California stem cell research and firm clusters, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area, to the other dominant cluster, Boston. The biotechnology industry, as a whole, is used to control for exogenous shocks such as changes in the overall interest in new life science technologies. Third, because technology transfer is predicated upon commercialization, a value chain perspective can visualize commercialization obstacles. In this study, a stylized human stem cell therapy value chain is compared to the existing biotechnology value chain and the differences suggest areas where human stem cell therapies are likely to face difficulties. The discussion and conclusion evaluates the progress of the California stem cell initiative and suggests that the evaluation methodology developed can improve the evaluation and guidance of science-based economic development programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Kenney & Donald Patton, 2018. "Sub-national technology policy and commerce: evaluating the impacts of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 47-68, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:43:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10961-017-9580-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-017-9580-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-017-9580-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-017-9580-1?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. Sanjay Jain & Gerard George, 2007. "Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 535-567, August.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. David B. Audretsch & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "Public/private technology partnerships: evaluating SBIR-supported research," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 5, pages 91-104, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Mansfield, Edwin, 1980. "Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 863-873, December.
    6. Walter Powell & Kenneth Koput & James Bowie & Laurel Smith-Doerr, 2002. "The Spatial Clustering of Science and Capital: Accounting for Biotech Firm-Venture Capital Relationships," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 291-305.
    7. Andrew Toole & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2007. "Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurship through the SBIR Program," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Gilbert, Richard J, 2006. "Dollars for Genes: Revenue Generation by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt5dt9h0p3, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    9. Joshua L. Rosenbloom, 2007. "The Geography of Innovation Commercialization in the United States During the 1990s," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 21(1), pages 3-16, February.
    10. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring the Social Return to R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135.
    11. Roger Noll, 2006. "Designing an Effective Program of State-Sponsored Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research," Discussion Papers 06-046, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    12. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Martin Buxton, 2011. "The payback of ‘Payback’: challenges in assessing research impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 259-260, September.
    14. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    15. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Performance measures as forms of evidence for science and technology policy decisions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 565-576, October.
    16. Deepak Hegde & Bhaven Sampat, 2015. "Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2281-2298, October.
    17. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Thursby, Jerry G & Jensen, Richard & Thursby, Marie C, 2001. "Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 59-72, January.
    19. Lerner, Josh, 1999. "The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(3), pages 285-318, July.
    20. Philip Cooke, 2004. "Life Sciences Clusters and Regional Science Policy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(5-6), pages 1113-1131, May.
    21. Lichtenberg, Frank R & Siegel, Donald, 1991. "The Impact of R&D Investment on Productivity--New Evidence Using Linked R&D-LRD Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(2), pages 203-229, April.
    22. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lauren Lanahan, 2016. "Multilevel public funding for small business innovation: a review of US state SBIR match programs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 220-249, April.
    2. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," 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 275-314, Elsevier.
    4. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio, 2013. "Knowledge spillover effects at the sub-regional level. Theory and estimation," DIAG Technical Reports 2013-13, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    5. Andrea Setti, 2020. "Linking science-based firms with performance factors: An integrative systematic review of literature," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 9(2), pages 09-42, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    8. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Nasirov, Shukhrat & Joshi, Amol M., 2023. "Minding the communications gap: How can universities signal the availability and value of their scientific knowledge to commercial organizations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    11. Albino, Vito & Ardito, Lorenzo & Dangelico, Rosa Maria & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2014. "Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 836-854.
    12. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2012. "Productivity effects of basic research in low-tech and high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1555-1564.
    13. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    14. Tassey, Gregory, 2005. "The disaggregated technology production function: A new model of university and corporate research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 287-303, April.
    15. Daniel Gama e Colombo & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2018. "Fiscal Decentralization and Public R&D Policy: A Country Panel Analysis," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1820, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    16. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," 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 217-273, Elsevier.
    17. Kafouros, Mario I., 2008. "Economic returns to industrial research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 868-876, August.
    18. Reynold V. Galope, 2016. "A Different Certification Effect of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 30(4), pages 371-383, November.
    19. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2004. "Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 709-733, July.
    20. Guerzoni, Marco & Taylor Aldridge, T. & Audretsch, David B. & Desai, Sameeksha, 2014. "A new industry creation and originality: Insight from the funding sources of university patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1697-1706.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stem cells; Regenerative medicine; California Institute for Regenerative Medicine; Evaluation; Commercialization; Research goal setting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • H75 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Government: Health, Education, and Welfare
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:kap:jtecht:v:43:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10961-017-9580-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.