News from the IPL
INTRODUCTION
This newsletter is published by The Innovation Policy Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and sponsored by the Ministry of Research and Innovation. The views and ideas expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ontario Government.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
EDA and Partners Commit $33M (USD) to Grow Regional Innovation Clusters
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) in partnership with 15 other federal agencies and bureaus intends to commit $33 million in direct federal funding and provide technical assistance resources for the Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge — a new public-private initiative focused on supporting and accelerating the growth of regional innovation clusters that exhibit high-growth development potential. Approximately 20 industry clusters will be selected through a nationwide competitive process that includes all industry sectors. Three agencies will provide direct funding with the additional 13 agencies and bureaus providing technical assistance resources to support customized solutions for each awardee. Challenge investments also are intended to serve as a catalyst for leveraging private capital in the regions from sources including foundations, financial institutions, corporations and other private sector partners. Sometime in May 2011, EDA will announce the competitive solicitation for this challenge.
OCRI Investment, Commercialization Success Draws $2.25M (CAD) for a New Regional Innovation Center
Knowledge-based entrepreneurs across Eastern Ontario can now take advantage of a new Regional Innovation Centre backed by The Ministry of Research and Innovation (MRI) with a minimum of $2.25 million of funding over the next three years. The new centre is an outgrowth of the success established by OCRI’s Investment and Commercialization program. Staffed by a five-person team of experienced advisors and mentors, it offers a comprehensive suite of innovation and commercialization programs and services focused on guiding entrepreneurs, building companies, generating investment, and bringing new products and/or services to the global marketplace.
Editor's Pick
Civic Engagement and Economic Development in Canadian Cities, RBC Conference, University of Toronto, April 27th, 2011
Keynote Address:
Gord Nixon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Royal Bank of Canada, Reflections on Civic Leadership
Session Topics:
- Doug Henton, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Collaborative Economics, Inc., San Mateo, California, Civic Entrepreneurs and Economic Innovation
- Neil Bradford, Associate Professor, Political Science, Huron University College, University of Western Ontario, The Social Dynamics of Economic Governance in Canadian City-Regions: Theory and Practice
- Caroline Andrew, Professor, School of Political Studies and the Director of the Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa,Civic Governance and Social Inclusion in Ottawa
- David Wolfe, Professor, Political Science, and RBC Chair in Public and Economic Policy, University of Toronto, Civic Engagement and Civic Governance in Toronto�s Future
David Wolfe on CBC Metro Morning
Matt Galloway spoke about Toronto’s economic prospects with David Wolfe. He is the RBC Chair in Public and Economic Policy at the Munk School of Global Affairs, about the one-day conference held on April 27th on civic engagement and leadership in metropolitan regions.
Innovation Policy
State of Uncertainty: Innovation Through Policy Experimentation
Hasan Bakhshi, Alan Freeman and Jason Potts, NESTA
This paper proposes a new model for innovation policy that clearly distinguishes it from industrial policy. The authors challenge the idea, implicit in much existing practice, that governments operate levers that affect innovation in predictable ways, and argue that innovation policy should instead be conceived as a process of discovery, required because the creation and exploitation of new ideas by entrepreneurs is by nature radically uncertain.
Attractiveness for Innovation: Location Factors for International Investment
OECD
Attractiveness for investment in innovation is high on the policy agenda in many countries as innovation is a key factor of growth and competitiveness in OECD countries. Virtually all governments are keen to attract international investment by multinational enterprises (MNEs) as a means to promote growth and employment, create new jobs and bring in new technologies. While all countries and regions have some policy measures in place that are aimed at increasing their attractiveness for innovation, it is less clear if these policies are effective. This report analyses the current trends in international investment in innovation and the attractiveness policies already implemented. These are often based on the more traditional instruments for attracting international investment. The book also explores in more detail the role of investment incentives that governments tend to give to international investors: their rationale, their impact and their usefulness. The evidence presented in this report raises clear policy issues and questions existing policies. A number of policy principles are formulated to guide policy makers.
The Creation of Value: The Broadband Value Circle and Evolving Market Structures
Jonathan Sallet, University of Southern California Annenberg Innovation Lab
The traditional value chain is a hierarchical ordering of inputs that results in the ability of one firm—a manufacturer of automobiles, for example—to offer a finished product directly to consumers. The market is characterized by two distinct lines of business relationships: the vertical relationship between input suppliers and product manufacturers, and the horizontal relationship across the market in which the manufacturers compete against one another. The traditional value chain is a hierarchical ordering of inputs that results in the ability of one firm—a manufacturer of automobiles, for example—to offer a finished product directly to consumers. The market is characterized by two distinct lines of business relationships: the vertical relationship between input suppliers and product manufacturers, and the horizontal relationship across the market in which the manufacturers compete against one another. This paper focuses on two markets: wireless broadband services, where the transformation from the value chain to the value circle is complete and video entertainment programming, where indications of the value circle are apparent.
Ready, Steady, Grow? How the Government Can Support the Development of More High Growth Firms
Charles Levy, Neil Lee and Annie Peate, Joint Cities 2020
The UK urgently needs to create new private sector jobs. In the context of large cuts in public spending, these jobs will need to be created in the private sector. Evidence suggests that the majority of new jobs will be created by a small number of rapidly growing firms: high growth firms. Unfortunately, despite a high level of interest, the desire to support potential high growth firms has been poorly translated into an actionable policy agenda. To help firms become high growth firms and so drive the national economy requires the government to address two goals. Firstly, the government needs to ensure that existing high growth firms face no
obstacles to their success. Alongside this, they need to address a second goal – to ensure that those firms which have the potential to become high growth firms, but which currently face barriers to doing so, can reach their potential. This report argues that enterprise policy needs to be refocused on this small group of high growth firms.
Cities, Clusters & Regions
Technology Commercialization and Innovation in Greater Philadelphia
Amber van Niekerk
Osage Partners recently raised $100 million for a new fund, Osage University Partners. Through this fund, the family of venture capital and private equity funds has partnered with eight universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, to co-invest in start-ups created from technology licensed from these universities. This is only one of many examples in the Philadelphia region of how investors, universities, research institutions, and other stakeholders are taking new approaches and a sharper focus to the 30-plus year tradition of formally transferring technologies out of universities. This article tracks these and other noticeable shifts occurring in technology commercialization in Greater Philadelphia.
DEBATED: The Significance of Clusters
The Economist
Is globalization fraying the ties that bind? This article suggests that links between companies in several of Italy’s revered industry clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected companies—are weakening as the companies shift their market strategy in the face of fierce competition from low-cost rivals in emerging markets like China.
To Compete Globally, Cluster Locally
Richard Sheaer, The New Republic
This post responds to the arguments in the article above that globalization is weakening the benefits of clustering.
Statistics & Indicators
New York City Innovation Index
New York City Economic Development Corporation
The Index, developed and administered by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, provides a detailed analysis of the drivers of innovation in the City and how they are faring. The data will be updated every year and will be used to measure the scale and pace of the City’s economic transformation, as well as inform policies and shape a regulatory environment that promotes innovation in New York City. Overall, innovation-related activity increased by 12 percent between 2003 and 2009, a trend that preliminary data suggest reached 14 percent by the end of 2010.
Policy Digest
The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy
Stephen J. Ezell and Robert D. Atkinson, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
U.S. manufacturing is in crisis, with almost 6 million jobs lost and 42,000 factories closed over the last decade. Even worse, it is losing know-how and ultimately control over its future. While the U.S. retains important strengths, U.S. manufacturing competitiveness is slipping rapidly. The U.S. possesses the tools, talent, and resources to revive manufacturing. But to do so it needs a national strategy for manufacturing renewal. This report explains the five key reasons why the U.S. needs to act quickly and boldly to revitalize its manufacturing sector.
A lack of consensus
This paper builds the intellectual case for why the United States needs a serious national manufacturing strategy. It focuses on three key questions where to date consensus has been lacking:
- Does the United States need a healthy manufacturing sector?
- How healthy is U.S. manufacturing at the moment and for the foreseeable future?
- Does the United States need a national manufacturing strategy?
Until there is a consensus that manufacturing is important, that it is not healthy, and that a national manufacturing policy is needed, it will be difficult to create a platform for reframing the conversation. Meanwhile, other nations are putting in place manufacturing strategies that include key components such as tax incentives and large investments in research, skills development, infrastructure, and technology transfer and technical assistance.
Manufacturing underpins the U.S. economy
- It will be extremely difficult for the United States to balance its trade account without a healthy manufacturing sector.
- Manufacturing is a key driver of overall job growth and an important source of middle-class jobs for individuals at many skill levels.
- Manufacturing is vital to U.S. national security.
- Manufacturing is the principal source of R&D and innovation activity.
- The manufacturing and services sectors are inseparable and complementary.
Many who argue against a national manufacturing strategy do so because they claim that U.S. manufacturing is quite healthy and that any job losses are due to superior productivity performance; or they assert that manufacturing is in decline everywhere, such that relative decline in U.S. manufacturing is not a particularly noteworthy concern. However, output growth in U.S. manufacturing sectors is overstated and, when measured properly, job loss in U.S. manufacturing is a reflection also of output decline, not just of productivity increases. Furthermore, U.S. manufacturing decline is neither “inevitable” nor “normal” as demonstrated by the fact that manufacturing is growing in many nations, including developed nations.
The case for a national strategy
Beyond the importance of a robust manufacturing sector to economic health, there are three primary reasons why the United States needs a national manufacturing strategy:
- Other countries have strategies to support their manufacturers and by lacking similar strategies we are therefore forcing our manufacturers to compete at a disadvantage.
- Systemic market failures mean that absent manufacturing policies, U.S. manufacturing will underperform in terms of innovation, productivity, job growth, and trade performance.
- If a country loses complex, high-value-added manufacturing sectors, it’s unlikely to get them back, even if the dollar were to decline dramatically.
What would a national strategy do?
The goal of a national manufacturing strategy would be to create the most competitive environment for U.S. manufacturing firms, of all sizes, to flourish. It’s critical to note that a national manufacturing strategy would not “pick winners and losers.” A national manufacturing strategy would not constitute a de facto, heavy-handed industrial policy that for example picks Duracell to be the nation’s advanced lithium-ion battery champion. Rather, it means designing the nation’s business, regulatory, and innovation policy environments to make the United States the world’s most attractive location for R&D and business investment in manufacturing (including foreign direct investment).
- 4Ts:
It would include a coherent set of policies based on the four T’s: technology, tax, trade, and talent. It would seek to make the United States the most tax-friendly environment for business investment in the world by reducing effective corporate tax rates, including by increasing R&D tax credit generosity and reducing the effective tax rate on investments in new capital equipment. With regard to trade, it would ensure that the rights of U.S. manufacturing firms are protected in international markets and in international trade agreements while forging market opening to give U.S. manufacturers access to new markets. It would contemplate the skills needs of U.S. manufacturing firms and coordinate with educational providers to ensure that the U.S. workforce has the requisite skills to support world-leading manufacturing industries. - Develop R&D capacity and infrastructure:
With regard to technology, a national manufacturing strategy would increase public investment in R&D in general and industrially relevant R&D in particular, supporting the programs designed to enhance the innovativeness and competitiveness of small and large U.S. manufacturers alike, including facilitating technology transfer from universities to industry. And it means upgrading both physical infrastructure such as bridges, roads, rails, airports, pipelines, water systems, and energy storage facilities as well as digital infrastructure such as smart electric grids, intelligent transportation systems, and fixed and mobile broadband communications networks. In short, a national manufacturing strategy would support the infrastructure necessary for U.S. manufacturing firms to remain globally competitive. - Support commercialization:
An explicit goal of a U.S. national manufacturing strategy would be to support public-private partnerships designed to help strengthen the connection between research and commercialization and to help firms “bridge the gap” between transforming technologies developed in universities and federal laboratories into commercializable products. Transitioning these technologies from universities or federal laboratories can be quite difficult, especially for smaller firms with limited resources, which often need assistance with developing early-stage prototypes and designing products for scaled manufacturing. The strategy would also help ensure that emerging technologies and best operational practices are diffused and widely adopted by SME manufacturers throughout the United States. - Align programs and increase government engagment:
An explicit goal of a U.S. national manufacturing strategy would be to support public-private partnerships designed to help strengthen the connection between research and commercialization and to help firms “bridge the gap” between transforming technologies developed in universities and federal laboratories into commercializable products. Transitioning these technologies from universities or federal laboratories can be quite difficult, especially for smaller firms with limited resources, which often need assistance with developing early-stage prototypes and designing products for scaled manufacturing. The strategy would also help ensure that emerging technologies and best operational practices are diffused and widely adopted by SME manufacturers throughout the United States. - Link programs with export assistance:
Export assistance would also be a primary goal of a U.S. national manufacturing strategy, building upon the Obama Administration’s National Export Initiative, which seeks to double U.S. exports to $3.14 trillion by 2015.100 The initiative identifies SMEs that can begin or expand exporting, prepares SMEs to export successfully by increasing training opportunities for both SMEs and SME counselors, connects SMEs to export opportunities by expanding access to programs and events that can unite U.S. sellers and foreign buyers, and improves SME awareness of export finance programs. Since its launch in 2009, the National Export Initiative has already delivered palpable results. For example, exports in the first six months of 2010 were 18 percent higher than over the comparable period in 2009.
Events
Public Administration, Technology and Innovation
Tallinn, Estonia, 6-7 May, 2011
Technological developments of the last decades have brought the co-evolutionary linkages between technology and public sector institutions into the center of both economics and public administration research. Technologies can, arguably, make public administration more effective, efficient, transparent and more accountable; but they can also cause problems with privacy, sustainability, legality, and equality, to name just a few examples. Recent public sector austerity measures (and attempts at lean government in general) may thwart socio-political efforts to foster technological innovation; but they can at the same time lead to greater willingness of governments to adopt new technologies and management principles based, directly or indirectly, on technological innovations. The challenge to public administration research is not only to trace and understand these linkages, but to find working solutions to these apparent trade-offs, and even to investigate the nature and permutations of the techno-administrative interface generally. We are inviting papers dealing with theoretical or empirical topics looking at either side of the co-evolution perspective of technological and institutional development; the role of public administration in technological progress and innovation; and the role of technology and innovation in the trajectories of public administration.
Open Spaces for Changing Science and Society – New England Workshop on Science and Social Change
Woods Hole, MA, 15-18 May, 2011
Applications are sought from teachers and researchers who are interested in moving beyond their current disciplinary and academic boundaries to explore concepts and practices that help us work in the arena bordered on one side by critical interpretation of the directions taken by scientific and technological research and application and on the other side by organizing social movements so as to influence those directions. Participants are encouraged, but not required, to submit a manuscript or sketch related to the workshop topic that would be read by others before the workshop and be subject to focused discussion during the workshop. There is also room for participants to develop–either before or during the workshop–activities or interactive presentations to engage the other participants.
Ontario Centres of Excellence: Discovery 11
Toronto, 18-19 May, 2011
Discovery is Canada’s leading innovation-to-commercialization conference. Hosted by the Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE), Discovery brings together key players from industry, academia, government, the investment community as well as entrepreneurs and students to pursue collaboration opportunities. Garnering close to 2,500 attendees and more than 325 exhibitors, Discovery is a showcase of leading-edge technologies, best practices and research from sectors such as health, manufacturing, digital media and cleantech, including energy, environment and water. Renowned keynote speakers and panels ignite discussion, knowledge-sharing and new perspectives. Networking opportunities feature key influencers from government, academia, industry and leading sectors. Discovery facilitates the exchange of ideas and encourages new ways to collaborate and push the boundaries of research and innovation through to demonstration and development. Creating a strong innovation economy is key to Ontario’s futur
ICIM 2011: International Conference on Innovation and Management
Tokyo, Japan, 25-27 May, 2011
The International Conference on Innovation and Management aims to bring together academic scientists, leading engineers, industry researchers and scholar students to exchange and share their experiences and research results about all aspects of Innovation and Management, and discuss the practical challenges encountered and the solutions adopted.
Innovation, Strategy and Structure: Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions
Copenhagen, Denmark, 15-17 June, 2011
DRUID 2011 intends to map theoretical, empirical and methodological advances, contribute with novel insights and stimulate a lively debate about how technologies, economic systems and organizations evolve and co-evolve. The conference will include targeted plenary debates where internationally merited scholars take stands on contemporary issues within the overall conference theme.
Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Region Summit 
Windsor, ON, 21-22 June, 2011
The Mowat Centre at the University of Toronto and the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program have convened this conference to discuss the future of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Region and help craft a collaborative vision for the region. This conference will identify opportunities for regional collaboration, including how governments can facilitate cross-border partnerships by improving governance, policy, or regulation. This is an opportunity for you to network with senior leaders from across the region and contribute to a vision for the region’s future prosperity and sustainability.
Regional Studies Association – Third Global Conference on Economic Geography
Seoul, Korea, 28 June – July 2, 2011
In the wake of the economic downturn of 2007-, the debate about the causes of the crisis and recession has focused upon the unbalanced nature of its economic models and geographies. Explanations have been concerned with the imbalances in international trade and currency flows, sectoral structures between especially financial and other services and manufacturing, the relative sizes and roles of the public and private sectors, the composition of demand between consumption and production as well as its domestic or external orientation, and its socially and spatially uneven geographies. Following this diagnosis of the problems, debate about recovery has focused upon the idea of ‘rebalancing’ as a means of rebuilding new economic models that somehow correct the problematic and disruptive imbalances that generated the crisis. ‘Rebalancing’ has become an international concern for high-income economies such as Australia, UK and Japan, middle-income economies such as Portugal and South Korea as well as emerging economies such as Brazil and China. Yet it is not clear what ‘rebalancing’ might mean, whether and how it can be achieved and how it relates to currently dominant ‘new economic geographical’ models promoting greater spatial agglomeration and concentration of economic activities. These sessions will engage this debate on rebalancing regional and national economies.
Experience the Creative Economy
Toronto, 21 June, 2011
Experience the Creative Economy is a unique conference which allows scholars new in their careers to experience notions of the creative economy in a small and focused setting. This conference will bring together up to 25 individuals with similar research interests to share their work, receive feedback, foster the development of effective research methods and to establish an ongoing framework of collaborative learning and mutual exchange for years to come.
CALL FOR PAPERS – Building Capacity for Scientific Innovation and Outcomes
Atlanta, GA, 15-17 September, 2011
The ability of science and innovation systems to deliver depends on continually improving capacity. Yet, capacity is multidimensional and has interrelated characteristics and related challenges. The Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 2011 will explore the research base that addresses the broad range of capacity related issues central to the structure, function, performance and outcomes of the science and innovation enterprises. The conference will include a variety of sessions: plenaries to discuss critical questions, contributed paper sessions and a young researcher poster competition.
Lund, Sweden, 13-14 October, 2011
The conference offers two days of plenaries, presentations and intense discussions on preconditions and strategies for regional innovation policy and regional development in Europe. It is organized around five key themes: (1) Preconditions for sustainable development (economically, socially and environmentally) in European regions: (2) the role of universities in the promotion of regional development; (3) sectoral specificities (resource based and cultural/creative industries) and their impacts on regional competitiveness; (4) Southern European regions and their strategies to grow out of the global economic crisis; (5) the growth of emerging economies in Asia and Latin America and consequences for European regions. Confirmed keynote speakers include Meric Gertler (University of Toronto), Claire Nauwelaers (OECD), Staffan Laestadius (Royal Institute of Technology KTH), Dominic Power (Uppsala University), Mario Rui Silva (University of Porto) and Cristina Chaminade (Lund University).
Culture, Place and Identity at the Heart of Regional Development
St, John’s, 13-15 October, 2011
This conference will examine the relationship between the arts, cultural heritage and regional development in islands and in rural and remote regions. It will bring together representatives from academia, government, the arts community, the cultural heritage community, the knowledge economy, the tourism industry, and organizations dealing with regional development. It will examine global trends in tourism, technology and demographics, and will feature global best practices in cultural tourism.
Subscriptions & Comments
Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think will find it of value. We look forward to collaborating with you on this initiative. If you would like to comment on, or contribute to, the content, subscribe or unsubscribe, please contact us at ipl.munkschool@utoronto.ca.
This newsletter is prepared by Jen Nelles.
Project manager is David A. Wolfe.