Measuring U.S. Innovative Activities

bagimpertinentUrban and Civil

Nov 16, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

207 views

1

Measuring U.S. Innovative Activities


2008 World Congress on NAEP Measures for Nations


Washington, DC

May 16, 2008


B.K. Atrostic, Senior Economist

Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau

Barbara.Kathryn.Atrostic@census.gov

2

Disclaimer


The views expressed in this presentation are
those of the author and not necessarily those
of the U.S. Census Bureau.


3

Overview


Importance of Measuring Innovative Activity


Allocating Scarce Statistical Resources


Definitions


U.S.: Data & Lessons Learned


Other Countries: Data & Lessons Learned


Critical U.S. Data Gaps


Identifying and Filling


Innovative Activities and Intangibles

4

Why Measure Innovative Activity?


Identify sources of new goods and services



Identify sources of total factor productivity,
growth, other economic outcomes





5

Measuring Innovative Activity and
Its Impact


Innovation surveys


European countries, Canada, Australia, many
other countries


Georgia, for the U.S.


Fill key gaps in core microdata needed to
analyze economic performance





6

Scarce Statistical System
Resources



Focus on U.S. Census Bureau Data
Collections


Dollars


Expertise / core competencies


Respondent burden / cooperation



7

Filling Gaps in Core Data



Longitudinal data are critical


Without longitudinal data, it is hard to rule out the
possibility that a measure of innovative activity
merely proxies for something omitted from or
measured poorly in the core data.


Similar issues in developing new measures
of effects of information technology on
economic performance


Neither innovation survey nor more
systematic data on innovative activity would
fill core data gaps



8

Innovation: Definitions


OECD “Oslo” Innovation Manual



Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data


1992 / 1997 / 2005 editions


163 pages in 2005 edition



Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation
in the 21
st

Century Economy


Established by U.S. Secretary of Commerce in 2006



Related but different idea: Research and
Development (R&D)


OECD “Frascati” R&D manual 1963 / 1993 / 2002

9

Innovation Definitions


Oslo Manual
:


The implementation of a new or significantly improved product
(good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new
organizational method in business practices, workplace
organization, or external relations
(
2005 version, p. 46).



Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21
st

Century Economy


The design, invention, development and/or implementation of
new or altered products, services, processes, systems,
organizational structures, or business models for the purpose of
creating new value for customers and financial returns for the
firm
(
January 2008, p. I)
.



10

Innovative Activity Defined


Related to but distinct from R&D and
innovation



Specific identifiable activity


Uses products of innovation process from own or other
industries or sectors


Provides environment conducive to innovation,


Serves as marker of innovative managerial or organizational
capacity



11

Innovative Activity:

Data and Research Findings

U.S. Census Bureau Data


Research Conducted at Center for Economic
Studies or Census Bureau Research Data
Centers


Diffusion of Innovation


Human and Organizational Capital


Other Topics


Findings summarized in Atrostic 2007 and
2008


12

Innovative Activity:

Data and Research Findings

Other Countries


Community Innovation Survey (CIS)



Research Findings

13

U.S. Census Bureau Data:
Diffusion of Innovation



Survey of Manufacturing Technologies:
1988
and 1993 ASM supplements


Computer Network Use Survey (CNUS):
1999
ASM supplement


Information and Communications Technology
Survey (ICTS):
2003 + Annual Capital Expenditure Survey
(ACES) Supplements

14

U.S. Census Bureau Data:


Human and Organizational
Capital



Broader capital measures would include richer
measures of a firm’s human and organizational
capital
(Corrado et al. 2005, 2006)


National Employer Surveys (NES):

1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,
2000


Entrepreneurship:


Integrated Longitudinal Business Database (ILBD),


Characteristics of Business Owners Survey (CBO)


Firm Organization

15

U.S. Census Bureau Data:


Other Topics



Dynamics of Labor Markets:


Worker and Firm Characteristics: Longitudinal Employer
-
Household Dynamics (LEHD)


International Trade:


Importing, Exporting, Outsourcing


Foreign Direct Investment


Successful BEA/NSF/Census Bureau pilot project


Matched BEA FDI and U.S. Direct Investment Abroad with
NSF/Census Survey of Industrial Research and Development
(SIRD)


Subsequent extension and expansion of pilot

16

Innovation Measurement in Other
Countries


Community Innovation Survey (CIS)


Eurostat sponsored (required of EU countries)


1992, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008


Based on Oslo manual


CIS 3 & 4 harmonized core questions


European Innovation Scorecard
publication


Similar surveys in many non
-
EU countries


Lively microdata research

17

Innovation Measurement:
Canada


Since 1993


Also survey advanced technologies and practices,
not consistent over time


Based on Oslo manual


Decade of research links innovation measures with
economic inputs, outcomes


http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11
-
623
-
XIE/2003001/innov.htm


Innovation Analysis Bulletin

publication


18

Innovation Measurement in Other
Countries


Australia:


Innovation surveys 1992
-
1993, 1996
-
1997, 2003
-
2004, 2005


2003
-
2004 not based on CIS



Integrated Business Characteristics Strategy


Core IT and innovation questions annually


Detailed IT or innovation questions alternate years


Links to longitudinal business database


IT use and Innovation, 2005
-
2006, released 2007


Selected characteristics of businesses, 2005
-
2006, released
2008.


19

Innovation Measurement in
Georgia


Georgia Manufacturing Survey


Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute &


Georgia Tech School of Public Policy


1994, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008


Many questions designed and worded to parallel CIS


Concurrent Workshop May 12


13, 2008


International microdata


Selected CIS countries


Parallel studies, collaborative research


20

International Lessons Learned
Analytical Findings


Hall and Mairesse 2006

Economics of Innovation and New
Technology


Jaumotte and Pain 2005


Parvan 2007


OECD NESTI / WPIA innovation microdata project


Internationally comparable econometric analyses


Workshops 2007


2008


Related internationally comparable microdata work


UK
-
led ICT impact analyses



21

International Lessons Learned
Not Just Innovation



Canada: Dourfour, Nakamura, Tang 2006


Advanced technology and business practices


Significant interactions


UK: Bloom, Sadum, Van Reenen 2006


IT, international trade, ownership (UK vs. not)


Significant interactions


Germany & Netherlands: Hempell, van Leeuwen, van der
Wiel 2006


Innovation significant in MFP


Significant interactions with IT

22

International Lessons Learned
“Best Practice”



Current “State of Art” Not Settled:


Australia’s indicators and structures


EU
-
like CIS: Empirical and econometric
properties of innovation data being tested


Can CIS be applied straightforwardly to U.S.?


23

Methodological Issues in
Implementing Best Practices


Committee on National Statistics 2005


Innovation, linked activities, and outcomes can be measured


Many lessons still to be learned


Applicability


Differences in structure and sizes of firms


Best reporting unit


Best respondent in reporting unit


Response Rates


Resources




24

Critical U.S. Data Gaps


Neither an innovation survey nor more
systematic data on innovative activity
would fill core data gaps




Innovative activities of interest as
potential drivers of economic outcomes
of interest, such as total factor
productivity

25

Critical U.S. Data Gaps


Do not cover all of services


No annual product data for retail & wholesale trade, or
services


Data not designed to be linked


May not be collected as panel


Links may not work as well as expected


Small business performance


Need to improve measures, e.g., current SBO vs. 1987 &
1992 CBO


Data on inputs sparse


Not comparable across sectors

26

Filling Critical Gaps


New Data


FY2008 Budget initiative


quarterly and annual
coverage of all service sectors


Off shoring & outsourcing indicators


2007
Economic Census


Corporate structure


2007 SBO


add franchising, more characteristics of
business, business owner


Report of Organization Survey asks imported services in
2007

27

Filling Critical Gaps


New Data


R&D:


NSF
-
sponsored addition of questions for selected industries,
2007 Economic Census


Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD)
being redesigned with some of these issues in mind

28

Filling Critical Gaps


Leveraging
Existing Data


More links among micro data sets:


U.S. Patent Data & R&D survey
--

NSF
-
sponsored linkage project
underway


FDI / DIA & R&D survey
--

successful 2005 NSF / BEA / Census pilot


Expand existing data linkages


Extend M&A database past 1992
--

underway


LEHD
-
based analyses


to come


Link with additional external data


Detailed IT investments


underway


Financial characteristics


foreign operations of U.S. firms


R&D tax credit data being linked


Other administrative data sources
--

potential

29

For the Future: Thinking about
Measuring Innovative Activities


Once core gaps are filled



Begin where we are


e.g. Advisory
Committee’s recommendations


Expand NSF’s R&D survey to include broader
range of innovation investment activities


Improve understanding of establishment
-
firm
relationship


NIPA’s as organizing principle, reinforcing macro
-
micro linkages

30

For the Future: Thinking about
Measuring Innovative Activities


Draw on lessons learned


e.g. collecting data on technology, organizational
and management structure: what’s hard, easy


How often?


Surveys vs. censuses



Plan for longitudinal data


Plan at least 2 rounds


Need 2, preferably 3, rounds of data to test causality


Design
-
in linkages with core data

31

For the Future: Thinking about
Measuring Innovative Activities


Plan for change


1880: Census added Transportation and Communication


steam railroads


steamboat companies


incorporated express companies


telegraph companies


1999: Information Technology


2002: Supply Chains


2005: FDI / DIA


2009?


2019?

32

Conclusion


Understanding role of innovative activity
requires


Solid data on core measures of economy


Data on innovative activity


Longitudinal measures of both


Filling these gaps would improve our
ability to understand


Entire economy


Economic performance: TFP, other measures

33

Appendix: The Census Bureau
Research Data Center Program


Purpose



Research Data Centers (RDCs) offer qualified
researchers restricted access to confidential
economic and demographic data collected by the
Census Bureau in its surveys and censuses. RDCs
are established through
partnerships

with academic
and similar organizations.

34

RDC Locations


Ann Arbor MI


Berkeley CA


Boston MA


Chicago IL


Ithaca NY


New York NY


Los Angeles CA


Research Triangle NC


Upper Marlboro MD


RDCs are Census
Bureau facilities staffed
by a Census Bureau
employee and meet all
physical and computer
security requirements
for restricted access

35

Datasets Available at RDCs


Most Economic Censuses and Surveys



Selected Demographic Surveys and Decennial
Censuses



Special Files crated for research purposes:



Longitudinal Research Database, Integrated
Longitudinal Business Database, linked files (e.g.,
LEHD), etc.

36

RDCs: Title 13 and Title 26


Our legal authority to provide access to these data
require that there be a legitimate Title 13, Chapter 5
purpose to any research.



Our legal authority to provide access to IRS (Title 26)
data in our custody requires that the Title 13 benefit
be the predominant purpose.

37

RDCs: Review and Approval
Process


1. Researcher interacts with an RDC Administrator
to gather information about the data available and
the procedures to be followed.


2. Proposals are submitted for review by Census
Bureau staff and are either approved or denied. If
denied, they can be resubmitted if they are revised
to address noted deficiencies.

38

RDCs: Review and Approval
Process, continued


3. If approved by the Census Bureau, the
proposal must also be approved by the
agency “owning” the data (e.g., IRS or the
survey sponsor).



More information:


www.ces.census.gov
.