Direct and Spillover Effects of ATP-Funded Photonics Technologies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A body of research evidence demonstrates that ATP projects do indeed generate positivespillovers. However, empirical studies of privately funded industrial R&D indicate that R&Din general generates spillovers, whether funded by the government or not. It is insufficient forATP evaluation, then, as Jaffe (1996) points out, “simply to cite the existence of spillovers.The ATP must be able to show that the government policy portfolio including the ATP ismore effective at correcting the R&D market failure problem than the portfolio without theATP would be.” He adds, “If the ATP can succeed in targeting projects with better-thanaveragespillover potential, then it will generate large social returns that would not otherwisehave been achieved.”EXPANDING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIESFour questions have been central in ATP evaluation research:Question 1:Question 2:Question 3:Question 4:Has ATP advanced scientific and technological knowledge?Has ATP increased the economic and competitive performance ofU.S. companies?Has ATP generated net benefits that spillover to the broader economy?Does ATP succeed in identifying big spillover projects, relative towhat would happen without ATP?Existing evaluation methods begin by estimating the direct effects of ATP on its participants,gathering data through interviews, surveys, document reviews, and expert forecasts and usingmetrics such as revenues, productivity gains, resource savings, decreased productmaintenance costs, improved product quality, and reduced time required to launch newproducts. This value to participants is represented conceptually below as the center circle inFigure 1. Evaluating the incremental effect of ATP is a counterfactual (or counter-temporal)exercise of comparing the current (or estimated future) state to what might have been (orwas before) without ATP.Evaluating the impact on nonparticipants is more difficult. Part of the methodologicalproblem is that spillover benefits come in two main flavors: a) value or benefits to customers,competitors, and suppliers of the technology innovator (market spillovers); and b) knowledgeto others not in the same markets, perhaps even completely unrelated to the developer(knowledge spillovers). Most ATP case studies focus on the value to participants and thevalue of market spillovers, especially to customers/users. This is shown by the shaded regionsof Figure 1. The value of knowledge spillovers to other players outside the target market (thelower right quadrant in Figure 1) has not been directly or explicitly measured.4 DIRECT AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF ATP-FUNDED PHOTONICS TECHNOLOGIES
Hence, we consider two additional study questions where we hope to contribute:Question 5:Question 6:How might case study methodologies be improved to better account forboth market spillovers and knowledge spillovers?What are the principal spillover mechanisms, and what market andtechnological factors promote larger spillovers?Our methodology extends program evaluation of ATP in three ways. First, by including aquasi-control comparison case, we aim to address questions that previous ATP evaluationshave not been able to deal with. We include in our case study both an ATP awardee and anonawardee semifinalist in the same technological field and from the same proposalcompetition. Tracking the nonawardee allows us to explore the extent to which an ATPawardee generates larger spillovers than projects that do not receive ATP funding.The second and third methodological improvements extend the case study methodology ofMansfield et al. (1977) in two significant ways. Case study methods to date have implicitlyfocused on market spillovers. Knowledge spillovers, on the other hand, have generally beenthe focus of analytical studies using patent statistics, or aggregate industry statistics.FIGURE 1Value Creation and SpilloversValue toSuppliersValue toCustomers/UsersValue toATPParticipantsValue toCompetitorsValue to OthersNot in ThisMarketIntroduction and Background 5
Page 1 and 2: NIST GCR 06-893Direct and Spillover
Page 5 and 6: AbstractTo evaluate the impact of t
Page 7: AcknowledgmentsThis research would
Page 10 and 11: This report presents the findings f
Page 12 and 13: 6. This case study suggests that ke
Page 14 and 15: 3. Comparison of Displaytech and Un
Page 17 and 18: 1. Introduction and BackgroundThe A
Page 19: the Department of Defense (DOD), Na
Page 23 and 24: area because many photonics technol
Page 25 and 26: FIGURE 2Worldwide Photonics Compone
Page 27 and 28: TABLE 3.Matched Case Study Firms by
Page 29 and 30: 2. DisplaytechINTRODUCTIONIn June 1
Page 31 and 32: significant interest worldwide. The
Page 33 and 34: FIGURE 3Cross-Section of a Ferroele
Page 35 and 36: TABLE 4.Crowded Display Competition
Page 37 and 38: FIGURE 4.Competing Electronic Displ
Page 39 and 40: wafer. For FLC-on-silicon microdisp
Page 41 and 42: FIGURE 5.Within-Market Increase in
Page 43 and 44: FIGURE 6.Estimated ATP Employment E
Page 45 and 46: subtracted the opportunity value of
Page 47 and 48: FIGURE 8.Historic Display Price-Qua
Page 49 and 50: TABLE 6.Estimated Consumer Surplus
Page 51 and 52: TABLE 7.Organizations and Groups Mo
Page 53 and 54: FIGURE 12.Patent Citations to Displ
Page 55 and 56: ColorLink’s pi-cell color switche
Page 57 and 58: FIGURE 14.Geographic Distribution o
Page 59 and 60: competitors, were added by patent e
Page 61 and 62: FIGURE 16.Citations to Displaytech
Page 63 and 64: TABLE 9.Top Organizations and Indiv
Page 65 and 66: FIGURE 19.Corporate Citations to Di
Page 67 and 68: TABLE 10.Corporations Citing Post-1
Page 69 and 70: 3. Comparison ofDisplaytech and Uni
Page 71 and 72:
acklights of LCDs; and they are bri
Page 73 and 74:
which was to give DuPont access to
Page 75 and 76:
FIGURE 20.Timing of Displaytech and
Page 77 and 78:
Table 11. Organizations and Groups
Page 79 and 80:
FIGURE 23.Patent Citations to Uniax
Page 81 and 82:
In summary, together with Uniax ear
Page 83 and 84:
TABLE 12.OLS Regression Results on
Page 85 and 86:
FIGURE 26.Corporate Citations to Un
Page 87 and 88:
TABLE 13.ContinuedTop 25 Individual
Page 89 and 90:
FIGURE 28.Corporate Citations to Un
Page 91 and 92:
4. Findings and ObservationsFINDING
Page 93 and 94:
microdisplays. We cannot fully dise
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 15.Publication and Citation R
Page 97 and 98:
social ties, distance in the sense
Page 99 and 100:
FIGURE 30.Flowchart of ATP Technolo
Page 101:
government policies, which establis
Page 104 and 105:
• ATP goals inherently involve se
Page 106 and 107:
iv. Suppliers. Three or four on who
Page 108 and 109:
Business Journal of Phoenix, The (2
Page 110 and 111:
Paul, J. (2000), A Brief History of
Page 113:
ABOUT THE AUTHORSTodd A. Watkins is
show all

Direct and Spillover Effects of ATP-Funded Photonics Technologies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?