IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ipolec/doi10.1086-668241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The America COMPETES Acts: The Future of US Physical Science and Engineering Research?

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey L. Furman

Abstract

Executive SummaryThe America COMPETES legislation, including the initial America COMPETES Act of 2007 (ACA 2007) and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (ACA 2010), was one of the most prominent bipartisan legislative achievements of the past decade and was seen as having the potential to be the most notable science and innovation policy initiative of the new millennium. The aims of the COMPETES acts were to substantially increase the extent of federal funding for physical science and engineering research in the United States and to improve the country's research infrastructure and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education capabilities in these areas. This paper contributes to early evaluation of the ACA by providing an overview of the history and goals of these acts and by tracking the subsequent federal funding and implementation of the associated ACA programs. The analysis documents that the tangible outputs of the acts are modest relative to the expectations expressed at the time of each act's signing. Indeed, a substantial fraction of the funds authorized by the 2007 and 2010 acts was not appropriated by Congress, and many of the programs specified by the acts either have failed to materialize or have done so at funding levels much lower than those initially authorized by Congress. That said, the legislation demonstrates a clear federal commitment to support physical science and engineering and evidences a number of key achievements. A number of notable programs and initiatives have been created with the support of the ACA (including the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy and the federal prize authority), and some of the agencies affected have been able to implement programs consistent with the spirit of the acts, even in the face of funding limitations. In addition, a tenuous but consistent bipartisan consensus that may have been energized by the COMPETES legislation has enabled such programs to avoid the spending cuts experienced by many non-defense-related federal programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey L. Furman, 2013. "The America COMPETES Acts: The Future of US Physical Science and Engineering Research?," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 101-149.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:ipolec:doi:10.1086/668241
    DOI: 10.1086/668241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668241
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668241
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/668241?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. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Richard Freeman & John Van Reenen, 2009. "What If Congress Doubled R&D Spending on the Physical Sciences?," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-38.
    3. Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2003. "When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit?: Evidence from the SBIR program," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 361-384.
    4. Yao Amber Li & John Whalley & Shunming Zhang & Xiliang Zhao, 2012. "The Higher Educational Transformation of China and Its Global Implications," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Christine T. Ennew & David Greenaway (ed.), The Globalization of Higher Education, chapter 10, pages 135-162, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    6. 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.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    8. Edward L. Glaeser & Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2010. "Did the Death of Distance Hurt Detroit and Help New York?," NBER Chapters, in: Agglomeration Economics, pages 303-337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Hall, Bronwyn H & Link, Albert N & Scott, John T, 2001. "Barriers Inhibiting Industry from Partnering with Universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 87-98, January.
    10. Kevin J. Boudreau & Nicola Lacetera & Karim R. Lakhani, 2011. "Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 843-863, May.
    11. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. Patrick Gaulé & Mario Piacentini, 2013. "Chinese Graduate Students and U.S. Scientific Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 698-701, May.
    13. Feldman, Maryann P & Kelley, Maryellen R, 2003. "Leveraging Research and Development: Assessing the Impact of the U.S. Advanced Technology Program," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 153-165, March.
    14. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    15. Moses Abramovitz, 1956. "Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number abra56-1, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Moses Abramovitz, 1956. "Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870," NBER Chapters, in: Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870, pages 1-23, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Wright, Brian Davern, 1983. "The Economics of Invention Incentives: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 691-707, September.
    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. Jeffrey L. Furman, 2012. "The America COMPETES Acts: The Future of US Physical Science and Engineering Research?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 13, pages 101-149, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung - welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert des Wachstum?," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 144, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    3. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissensintensive Unternehmensdienste, Wissens-Spillovers und regionales Wachstum. Teilprojekt 1: Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung – Welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert das Wach," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58342, Juni.
    4. Laranja, Manuel & Uyarra, Elvira & Flanagan, Kieron, 2008. "Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 823-835, June.
    5. Hugo Erken & Piet Donselaar & Roy Thurik, 2018. "Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1493-1521, December.
    6. repec:bdi:workqs:qse_7 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Johanna Vogel, 2015. "The two faces of R&D and human capital: Evidence from Western European regions," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 525-551, August.
    8. Federico Barbiellini Amidei & John Cantwell & Anna Spadavecchia, 2011. "Innovation and Foreign Technology in Italy, 1861-2011," Quaderni di storia economica (Economic History Working Papers) 07, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    9. Mohammad Imdadul Haque, 2019. "Growth Accounting for Saudi Arabia," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(6), pages 691-701, June.
    10. Jan Fagerberg, 1999. "Technology, Policy, Growth - Theory, Evidence and Interpretation," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 25, pages 5-14.
    11. Johannes W. Fedderke & Yang Liu, 2017. "Schumpeterian and semi-endogenous productivity growth explanations," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 25(1), pages 111-137, January.
    12. Toole, Andrew A. & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2007. "Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 716-738, August.
    13. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. William Easterly & Ross Levine, 2002. "It´s Not Factor Accumulation: Stylized Facts and Growth Models," Central Banking, Analysis, and Economic Policies Book Series, in: Norman Loayza & Raimundo Soto & Norman Loayza (Series Editor) & Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel (Series Editor) (ed.),Economic Growth: Sources, Trends, and Cycles, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 3, pages 061-114, Central Bank of Chile.
    15. Jones, C.I., 2016. "The Facts of Economic Growth," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 3-69, Elsevier.
    16. Milenko Popovic, 2006. "Capital Augmenting And Labor Augmenting Approach In Measuring Contribution Of Human Capital And Education To Economic Growth," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 2(4), pages 71-108.
    17. Krüger Jens J. & Cantner Uwe & Hanusch Horst, 2003. "Explaining International Productivity Differences / Erklärung internationaler Produktivitätsunterschiede," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 223(6), pages 659-679, December.
    18. Alhusen, Harm & Bennat, Tatjana & Bizer, Kilian & Cantner, Uwe & Horstmann, Elaine & Kalthaus, Martin & Proeger, Till & Sternberg, Rolf & Töpfer, Stefan, 2021. "A New Measurement Conception for the ‘Doing-Using-Interacting’ Mode of Innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    19. 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.
    20. Mark Roberts & Mark Setterfield, 2010. "Endogenous Regional Growth: A Critical Survey," Chapters, in: Mark Setterfield (ed.), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, chapter 21, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Jens Krueger & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch, 1998. "Explaining International Productivity Differences," Discussion Paper Series 179, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:ipolec:doi:10.1086/668241. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/IPE .

    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.