By 2010, all but 12 U.S. states had adopted some form of research and development tax credits. The forces driving the rapid rise and spread of this policy remain unclear. This event history analysis finds adoption to be associated with higher state unemployment levels, supporting the notion of “policy-making from disadvantage.” Yet higher patenting activity is also associated with adoption, suggesting that having a strong preexisting research and development (R&D) infrastructure facilitates adoption. In the 1980s, having a Republican governor apparently propelled adoption, but partisan influences disappeared in later years. Having a governorship with constitutionally strong budgetary power and having a centralized governing board for higher education are associated with adoption, and interaction analyses indicate that the combination of a centralized board and a higher number of research universities are especially positive forces in adoption. The socioeconomic, political, and structural influences found in this article suggest several potentially fruitful directions for future analyses.
AcsZ. J.AudretschD. B.FeldmanM. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. American Economic Review, 82, 363-367.
2.
AcsZ. J.AudretschD. B.FeldmanM. P. (1994). R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 336-340.
3.
ArundhatiP. (2011, January6). Hopes are high for Minnesota’s heftier R&D tax credit [Electronic version]. Finance & Commerce, 1-3.
4.
BermanE. M. (1991). The politics of federal technology policy: 1980-1988. Policy Studies Review, 10, 28-41.
5.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-416.
6.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1992). Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 715-742.
7.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 223-260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
BeyleT. (2003). The governors. In GrayV.HansonR. L. (Eds.), Politics in the American states (8th ed., pp. 194-231). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
9.
BloomN.GriffithR.Van ReenenJ. (2002). Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979-1997. Journal of Public Economics, 85, 1-31.
10.
BoehmkeF. J.WitmerR. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 39-51.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.JonesB. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.ZornC. J. (2001). Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 972-988.
14.
BozemanB.LinkA. N. (1984). Tax incentives for R&D: A critical evaluation. Research Policy, 13, 21-31.
15.
BrettA. M.GibsonD. V.SmilorR. W. (Eds.). (1991). University spin-off companies: Economic development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
CordesJ. J. (1989). Tax incentives and R&D spending: A review of the evidence. Research Policy, 18, 119-133.
18.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
19.
DoyleW. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 28, 259-285.
EfronB. (1977). The efficiency of Cox’s likelihood function for censored data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72, 557-565.
22.
EhrenbergR. G.RizzoM. J.JakubsonG. H. (2003). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? (NBER Working Paper No. 9627). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
EisingerP. K. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state: State and local economic development policy in the United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
24.
FeldmanM. P.FrancisJ. L. (2004). Homegrown solutions: Fostering cluster formation. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 127-137.
25.
FellerI. (1992). American state governments as models for national science policy. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 11, 288-309.
26.
FellerI. (2004). S&T-based economic development and the university: Virtuous and vicious cycles in the contributions of public research universities to state economic development objectives. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 138-150.
27.
FellerI. (2008, May). Neoliberalism, performance measurement, and the governance of American academic science. Paper presented at the workshop “Governance of and Through Science: National, Categories, and Tools,”Paris, France.
28.
FellerI.AilesC. P.RoessnerJ. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31, 457-474.
29.
FinkJ. (2011, January13). Gillibrand, Higgins talk up R&D grant. Buffalo Law Journal, p. 1.
30.
GeigerR. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
GeigerR. L.SáC. M. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: U.S. state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva, 43, 1-21.
32.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
GibsonD. V.SmilorR. W. (1991). The role of the research university in creating and sustaining the U.S. technopolis. In BrettA. M.GibsonD. V.SmilorR. W. (Eds.), University spin-off companies: Economic development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer (pp. 31-70). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
34.
GoolsbeeA. (1998, April). Does government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers? (NBER Working Paper No. 6531). Chicago, IL: American Economic Association.
35.
GrambschP. M.TherneauT. M. (1994). Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika, 81, 515-526.
36.
HallB. H.Van ReneenJ. (1999). How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence (NBER Working Paper No. 7098). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
37.
HartD. M. (2008). The politics of “entrepreneurial” economic development policy in the U.S. states. Review of Policy Research, 25, 149-168.
38.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
HearnJ. C.GriswoldC. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 161-190.
41.
HearnJ. C.McLendonM. K.LacyT. A. (2013). State-funded “Eminent Scholars” programs: University faculty recruitment as an emerging policy instrument. Journal of Higher Education, 84, 601-639.
42.
HosmerD. W.Jr.LemeshowS. (1999). Applied survival analysis: Regression modeling of time-to-event data. New York, NY: Wiley.
43.
IngleW. K.Cohen-VogelL.HughesR. (2007). The public policy process among southeastern states: Elaborating theories of regional adoption and hold-out behavior. Policy Studies Journal, 35, 607-628.
44.
JaffeA. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957-970.
45.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of attention of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
JonesB. S.BrantonR. P. (2005). Beyond logit and probit: Cox duration models of single, repeating, and competing events for state policy adoption. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 5, 420-443.
47.
LevineA. D. (2005). Trends in the geographic distribution of human embryonic stem-cell research. Politics and the Life Sciences, 23, 40-45.
48.
LevineA. D.LacyT. A.HearnJ. C. (2013). The origins of human embryonic stem cell policies in the U.S. states. Science and Public Policy, 40, 544-558.
49.
LugerM. I.GoldsteinH. A. (1991). Technology in the garden: Research parks and regional economic development. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
50.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
51.
McGuinnessA. C. (1997). State postsecondary education structures handbook. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
52.
McLendonM. K. (2003). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 479-515.
53.
McLendonM. K.DeatonR.HearnJ. C. (2007). The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political instability hypothesis. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 645-675.
54.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C. (2003). Introduction: The politics of higher education. Educational Policy, 17, 3-11.
55.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C.DeatonR. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 1-24.
56.
MillerC. R.RichardB. (2010). The policy diffusion of the state R&D investment tax credit. State and Local Government Review, 42, 22-35.
57.
MintromM.VergariS. (1998). Networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60, 126-148.
MooneyC. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 103-124.
60.
MooneyC. Z.LeeM. H. (1995). Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 599-627.
61.
MumperM.GladieuxL. E.KingJ. E.CorriganM. E. (2011). The federal government and higher education. In AltbachP. G.GumportP. J.BerdahlR. O. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economics challenges (3rd ed., pp. 113-138). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
62.
NessE. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1-49). New York, NY: Springer.
PlosilaW. H. (2004). State science- and technology-based economic development policy: History, trends, and developments and future directions. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 113-126.
67.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
68.
SáC. M.GeigerR. L.HallacherP. M. (2008). Universities and state policy formation: Rationalizing a nanotechnology strategy in Pennsylvania. Review of Policy Research, 25, 3-19.
69.
SimonH. A. (1957). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: MacMillan.
70.
SimonH. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
71.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
72.
SquireP. (1993). Professionalization and public opinion of state legislatures. Journal of Politics, 55, 479-491.
73.
State Science and Technology Institute. (2006). A resource guide for technology-based economic development. Westerville, OH: Author.
74.
State Science and Technology Institute. (2013). Flurry of TBED tax incentives pervade state legislatures amid increased scrutiny. SSTI Weekly Digest, 17. Westerville, OH: Author.
75.
TandbergD. A. (2010). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24, 735-778.
76.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
77.
WilsonD. J. (2005). The rise and spread of state R&D tax credits. FRBSF Economic Letter, 2005-26, 1-4.
78.
WilsonD. J. (2009). Beggar thy neighbor? The in-state, out-of-state, and aggregate effects of R&D tax credits. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 431-436.
79.
WuY. (2008). State R&D tax credits and high-technology establishments. Economic Development Quarterly, 22, 136-148.
80.
YoutieJ.ShapiraP. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37, 1188-1204.
81.
ZumetaW. (1996). Meeting the demand for higher education without breaking the bank. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 367-425.
