Revitalizing American 

Manufacturing

The Obama Administration’s Progress in Establishing a 

Foundation for Manufacturing Leadership

National Economic Council

October 2016
1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The President’s manufacturing policy development was a White House and multi-agency effort.

It was informed by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which led the 

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership and a broad group of external stakeholders. The work of 

the following agencies was critical to the policy development: the Department of Commerce,

which co-leads the White House Office of Manufacturing Policy with the National Economic 

Council; the Department of Energy; the Department of Defense; the Department of Education;

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Small Business Administration; the 

United States Department of Agriculture; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National 

Science Foundation; and components of the Executive Office of the President including the 

National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council of Economic 

Advisors, and the Office of the Vice President.

This report was developed through the contributions of staff from the National Economic 

Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council of Economic Advisors, and

additional components of the Executive Office of the President, and the Departments of 

Commerce, Energy, Defense, and Labor.
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3

I. MANUFACTURING SECTOR PERFORMANCE AND OUTLOOK ..................................... 5

II. OBAMA MANUFACTURING POLICY AGENDA.............................................................. 15

Pillar 1: Spurring Innovation Through Next-Generation Technologies.................................... 17

Manufacturing USA .............................................................................................................. 17

Federal Investment in Manufacturing Research and Development....................................... 19

Maker Movement .................................................................................................................. 20

Pillar 2: Strengthening Skills, Communities, and Supply Chains to Attract Investment.......... 20

Manufacturing Workforce Training ...................................................................................... 20

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) ....................................................................... 22

Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) ............................................ 22

Supply Chain Innovation ....................................................................................................... 23

Manufacturing Day................................................................................................................ 24

Pillar 3: Making the United States More Competitive for Production...................................... 25

Business Tax Reform............................................................................................................. 25

U.S. Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 26

The Energy Opportunity........................................................................................................ 27

Regulatory Reform ................................................................................................................ 27

Pillar 4: Opening Markets and Leveling the Playing Field....................................................... 28

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)..................................................................................... 28

Trade Enforcement ................................................................................................................ 28

SelectUSA ............................................................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix I: List of Manufacturing USA Innovation Institutes ................................................ 31

Appendix II: Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership – 24 Designated 

Communities............................................................................................................................. 34
3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On Manufacturing Day 2016, the Administration takes stock of the progress that the U.S. 

manufacturing sector has made over the nearly eight years since President Obama took office.

When President Obama took office, the auto industry—the heartbeat of the American 

manufacturing sector—was on the brink of collapse and the economy was on the verge of the 

next Great Depression. After saving the auto industry, the Obama Administration set out to 

methodically reinvest in the capabilities that manufacturing needs to succeed.

Since early 2010, U.S. manufacturing has added over 800,000 direct jobs, and companies from 

around the world again see the United States as the best place for new investment in the most 

leading-edge manufacturing across industries. Although the manufacturing sector has faced 

challenges over the last two years, many have incorrectly argued that U.S. manufacturing 

competitiveness is weak or that manufacturing will return to a path of decline similar to what we 

faced from 2000 to 2009. Despite these bumps in the road, the reality is that the foundation for 

manufacturing expansion is as strong as it has been in decades. To take advantage of that 

underlying strength, policy choices matter to ensure the U.S. continues to reinvigorate the 

capabilities that are required for a successful and innovative manufacturing sector.

A strong manufacturing sector is vital to a growing innovative economy

 Workers employed in manufacturing earn 20 percent higher than the median income and,

even when holding all other factors equal, it is clear that workers in the manufacturing sector 

earn a pay premium.

 The manufacturing sector houses a great deal of innovative activity, with 75 percent of 

private sector research and development, 60 percent of all U.S. R&D employees, and the vast 

majority of patents issued, despite representing only 12 percent of the GDP.

 Manufacturing activity generates positive spillover benefits, because the know-how and 

capabilities gained in making things is a key ingredient in continued leadership in design, 

product development, and innovation.

U.S. manufacturing’s recovery has been strong

 Since the Great Recession, manufacturing has grown at nearly twice the pace of the economy 

overall, marking the longest period where manufacturing has outpaced U.S. economic output 

in fifty years.

 Analysis by the President's Council of Economic Advisers suggests that cyclical factors do 

not fully explain manufacturing's job gains, as the job gains between 2010 and early 2014 are 

about 500,000 above and beyond what would be associated with the historical cyclical 

pattern.

Manufacturing has faced headwinds over the past two years but those headwinds are 

temporary and will likely subside

 The weak global economy, combined with the decline in energy-related capital expenditures, 

has been a drag on manufacturing given that the sector relies heavily on exports.

 Despite these headwinds, these last two challenging years are identical in manufacturing 

employment growth to the very best two year period from 2001 to 2009. 
4

 After falling in the 2000s, U.S. manufacturing has stabilized its share of global exports, even 

in the face of these headwinds.

The Obama Administration’s actions have built a foundation for manufacturing that is 

stronger than it has been in decades, but optimism about manufacturing’s potential must 

be accompanied by the right policy choices. Examples of progress include:

 Creating manufacturing innovation institutes to boost U.S. competitiveness: The 

Administration’s signature initiative, Manufacturing USA, has now launched nine 

manufacturing innovation institutes to connect our research base to our production base, and 

is on the way to the President’s vision of 15 institutes by the end of the Administration.

 Reinvesting in manufacturing workforce skills: The Administration has invested to rebuild 

community college programs to provide the latest training to manufacturing workers, leading 

to credentials for hundreds of thousands of people, which is needed to keep the United States

at the cutting edge. The Administration has reinvigorated apprenticeships, a proven vehicle 

for “learning while earning,” and we are seeing tens of thousands of new apprenticeships for 

the first time in years.

 Strengthening America’s competitiveness: Over the last eight years the Administration has 

taken a number of steps that make the U.S. more competitive for manufacturing investment, 

like making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit which largely benefits 

manufacturing firms, enabling small business to expense capital investment to strengthen our 

supply chains, investing in clean energy to capture this growing opportunity, and facilitating 

safe and responsible natural gas production to reinvigorate energy-intensive industries.

 Ensuring manufacturers are competing on a level playing field: The Administration has 

brought 23 enforcement cases at the World Trade Organization (WTO)—more than any other 

WTO member—and in every case that has been decided we have won. The Administration 

has worked with Congress to create new tools to enforce trade laws, like the “customs” 

legislation which will hold trading partners accountable.
5

I. MANUFACTURING SECTOR PERFORMANCE AND OUTLOOK

A strong U.S. manufacturing sector is vital to a growing, innovative economy

President Obama made revitalizing American manufacturing a central component of his 

economic agenda to establish the needed foundation for robust, broad-based economic growth. 

Manufacturing has long played an important role in supporting high-quality jobs, both in the 

manufacturing sector and more broadly across the economy. Critically, important know-how and 

capabilities can only be generated and supported by a strong base of production, which is key to 

enabling our country’s innovation capacity.

Workers employed in the U.S. manufacturing sector earn 20 percent higher than the median 

income and, even when holding all other factors equal, it is clear that workers in the 

manufacturing sector earn a pay premium.1 Since the beginning of 2010, U.S. manufacturing has 

directly added over 800,000 new jobs. However, to focus solely on the activities within the four 

walls of a factory is to ignore the important role that manufacturing plays across the economy. 

The sector supports millions of additional jobs through integrated supply chains and millions 

more in communities supported by the economic activity that manufacturing generates. A recent 

study by McKinsey Global Institute estimated that services suppliers and other jobs linked to 

manufacturing firms employ almost six million additional workers.2 Those who have argued that

manufacturing’s impact on jobs is limited by ongoing technological change that allows us to 

produce more with fewer workers, fail to recognize these broader employment impacts from 

manufacturing activity. Manufacturing is increasingly supporting a broader set of high-quality 

business services jobs, like the software and application developers that are increasingly turning 

their focus to the technology embedded in, for example, new automobiles. In fact, it is 

reasonable to expect an increasing integration between these high-quality services jobs and 

manufacturing activity, as these industries become further intertwined. 

A strong manufacturing sector is vital to America’s economic progress because it is 

inextricably linked to our country’s ability to innovate. Despite representing only 12 percent of 

U.S. GDP3, manufacturing accounts for roughly 75 percent of private sector research and 

development, 60 percent of all U.S. R&D employees, and the vast majority of patents issued.4

These investments in innovation and product design are reliant on the know-how and 

capabilities gained throughout the production process. Over the past seven years there has been 

an outpouring of new literature on manufacturing’s role in the economy demonstrating the ways 

in which production activities and the learning inherent in the knowledge activities of research, 

development, and design are co-dependent.

5,6 Companies are increasingly recognizing the 

 

1 Department of Commerce, Economics Statistics Agency, October 2015. www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/thepay-premium-for-manufacturing-workers-as-measured-by-federal-statistics.pdf.

2 McKinsey Global Institute, Manufacturing the Future. 2013.

3 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.

4 National Science Foundation National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, 

Business R&D and Innovation Survey, 2010.

5 Pisano, Gary and Willy Shih. “Restoring American Competitiveness.” Harvard Business Review. July 2009. 

6 MIT Taskforce on Production in the Innovation Economy. A Preview of the MIT Production in the Innovation 

Economy Report. February 2013. 
6

benefits of co-locating production with design, whether that means engineers working on 

product development from the production floor or research centers migrating to factory sites. 

Production activity has the power to enable higher productivity growth, which determines our 

economic potential. The economic evidence is clear that innovation spillovers are strongly 

connected to production activity, and that those spillovers decline with distance.7 For example, 

an economic study showed that when a manufacturing plant chooses to invest in a given 

location, the investment results not just in new production at the site of the plant, but actually 

increased productivity of other firms in the surrounding area.8In other words, manufacturing 

location matters to a country’s and a region’s innovative capacity, and therefore its potential 

for ongoing productivity growth.

If the United States were to allow its industrial base to erode, America would lose its capability to 

produce things. This may enable a vicious cycle that makes the United States less attractive for

new manufacturing and ultimately puts at risk our continuing capability to innovate and raise

future living standards.

Since World War II, U.S. manufacturing performance had steady growth... 

Many have mistakenly argued that U.S. manufacturing has been in steady decline for decades. 

The reality of U.S. manufacturing performance from 1945 to 2000 tells a dramatically different 

story. For decades, manufacturing production expanded at an average annual rate of 3.4 percent, 

roughly in line with real GDP growth. In 1966, the manufacturing sector directly employed 17.3 

million workers. While there were ebbs and flows with recessions and recoveries with U.S. 

manufacturing employment peaking in 1979, and internal shifts between industries and regions 

within the country, in 2000 the manufacturing sector still directly employed 17.3 million 

workers. 

In the mid to late 1990s, at a time of accelerating productivity growth, the manufacturing sector 

expanded production at its fastest sustained rate in decades, increasing to a pace of nearly 6 

percent while adding over 700,000 new jobs. 

...Until the U.S. manufacturing sector faced an existential crisis beginning in 2001

However, beginning in 2001, the onset of the recession drove manufacturing production into a 

period of stagnation that would continue for the remainder of the decade. From 2000 to 2007, 

manufacturing production grew at only 1.3 percent per year, the worst peak-to-peak performance 

since World War II and significantly underperforming the overall economy for the first time. 

And combined with the Great Recession, from 2000 to 2009 the manufacturing sector shed 5.7 

million jobs, or roughly one-third of all manufacturing workers, a higher share of jobs lost than 

 

7 Keller, Wolfgang. "Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion," American Economic Review, 

2002, v92 (1, Mar), 120-142.; Branstetter, Lee. “Are Knowledge Spillovers International or Intranational in Scope?” 

Journal of International Economics 53 (2001) 53-79. March 1999. 

8 Greenstone, Michael; Hornbeck, Rick; Moretti, Enrico. Identifying Agglomeration Spillovers: Evidence from 

Winners and Losers of Large Plant Openings. April 2010.
7

during the Great Depression.9 Over this period, tens of thousands of factories closed their doors, 

including 40 percent of our largest factories, those employing over 1,000 workers.10 By the 

bottom of the Great Recession, factories sat empty and much of our capacity was under-utilized, 

with vacancy rates nearly doubling from 5.1 percent in 2000 to nearly 10 percent in 2009.11

There has been much debate over the causes of this decade of decline for U.S. manufacturing. 

Some economists12,13 have pointed to the impact on U.S. manufacturing of globalization in this 

period, and particularly the impact of China’s entry into global markets. While additional 

research will be required to determine whether it was a failure of trade enforcement in some 

cases, an inappropriate lack of focus on the policies that enable a competitive and flexible 

manufacturing sector that can adjust to new challenges, or a combination of rapid shifts in global 

manufacturing markets combined with constraints on job mobility in the United States, but what 

is abundantly clear is that we were unprepared for these new challenges. 

The auto industry’s failure could have imperiled the future of U.S. manufacturing

When President Obama took office, the heartbeat of American manufacturing—the U.S. auto 

industry—was on the brink of collapse. By December 2008, access to credit for car loans dried 

up and auto sales plunged 40 percent. Auto manufacturers and suppliers dramatically curtailed 

 

9 Atkinson, Robert; Stewart, Luke; Andes, Scott; Ezell, Stephen. Worse Than the Great Depression: What Experts 

Are Missing About American Manufacturing Decline. March 2012.

10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.

11 Tolliver, Jason; Mace, Andy; Bailey, Bethany; Morris, John. The U.S. Manufacturing Renaissance: Driving a 

Resurgence in Industrial Real Estate. Spring 2016.

12 Pierce, Justin R; Schott, Peter K. “The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing.” Yale School of 

Management and National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2015. 

13 Autor, David H.; Dorn, David; Hanson, Gordon H., “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import 

Competition in the United States.” The American Economic Review, Volume 103, Number 6, October 2013, 

pp. 2121-2168(48).

Manufacturing 

Employment 

(left axis)

Aug-16

Manufacturing 

Output (right 

axis)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

10

12

14

16

18

20

1980 1987 1994 2001 2008 2015

Manufacturing Output and Employment, 1980-2016

Thousands

Source:

Notes: 

Bureau of Economic Analysis; Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Data for output is annual and ends in 2015. 

100=2009
8

production, and in 2008 the industry shed over 400,000 jobs, a year in which the manufacturing 

sector overall lost 900,000 jobs.14 It is within this context, unprecedented job losses for 

manufacturing workers, the offshoring of thousands of American factories, and an auto industry 

facing collapse, that many argued that the U.S. manufacturing sector was no longer globally 

competitive and that we should allow our industrial base to continue its decline.

At the time that President Obama took office, GM and Chrysler were on the brink of failure. The 

President’s decision to support GM and Chrysler was, of course, about more than these two 

iconic American companies and the tens of thousands of workers they employed. Consistent with 

the positive manufacturing spillovers mentioned above, estimates at the time from the Bush 

Administration suggested that the failure of GM and Chrysler could have led to the loss of more 

than one million jobs, because the failure of those two firms would have had a cascading effect 

across the industry, through the supply base, and in communities around the country. The end 

result would have eroded our industrial capabilities, potentially to the point that they would have 

been impossible to resuscitate. At the time, Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally came to Washington D.C. 

to argue in favor of the U.S. government intervening to prevent the failure of GM and Chrysler, 

stating that “we believed... that if GM and Chrysler would have gone into free fall bankruptcy, 

they would have taken the supply base down and taken the industry down plus maybe turned the 

U.S. recession into a depression.” Even though Ford did not require direct support, Mulally made 

clear that if GM and Chrysler failed, Ford would fail as well. 

Automakers, like other manufacturers, rely on a network of shared suppliers. These suppliers not 

only make up the majority of the value-added in a vehicle, but they are often critical to new 

innovation and competitiveness across a given industry. The failure of GM and Chrysler would 

not only have potentially had dramatic near-term consequences, including the potential failure of 

Ford and a deeper recession, but it could have done irreparable harm to the fabric of U.S. supply 

chains that is critical to our future economic activity and innovation. In this instance, the policy 

decision by the Obama Administration both supported near-term economic recovery and ensured 

the potential for a reliable foundation upon which manufacturing activity rests. As an example of 

the type of recovery that occurred, auto sales in the U.S. reached a record level of 17.4 million 

units in 2015, the strongest in history.

U.S. manufacturing has had a robust recovery emerging from the Great Recession

Manufacturing output has increased by almost 30 percent since the end of the recession, growing 

at roughly twice the pace of the economy overall from the third quarter of 2009 when the 

economy began to expand through the first quarter of 2016, marking the longest period where 

manufacturing has outpaced U.S. economic output in fifty years.15 Starting in 2009 

manufacturing output has increased as a share of US value-added, contrary to the pattern seen in 

all U.S. recessions since 1982.

 

14 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current 

Employment Statistics Survey, 2008.

15 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, NIPA Tables.
9

Since February 2010, U.S. manufacturing has added over 800,000 new jobs. U.S. 

manufacturing’s recovery and job growth since the Great Recession is a marked departure from 

last decade, when the sector struggled to recover and never added back any of the jobs lost in the 

2001 recession. The auto industry overall, including sales and distribution, has added over 

671,000 jobs since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy in mid-2009, the industry’s 

strongest growth on record.16

In addition to a dramatic break from last decade’s decline, analysis by the President's Council of 

Economic Advisers suggests that cyclical factors do not fully explain manufacturing's job gains, 

as the job gains between 2010 and early 2014 are about 500,000 above and beyond what would 

be associated with the historical cyclical pattern.

U.S. manufacturing has faced headwinds over the past two years, but those headwinds are 

temporary and will likely subside

Following the strong manufacturing recovery in the wake of the Great Recession, the past two 

years have seen lackluster growth in the sector. Manufacturing employment growth has stalled 

and industrial production growth has been slower than at any other point since 2009, largely due 

to a number of temporary factors. A number of data series, like the ISM Purchasing Managers 

survey, reveal the slowing of growth in the manufacturing sector since late 2014 and the 

divergence of the sector’s performance from non-manufacturing industries. Notwithstanding the 

modest improvement in early 2016, it is clear that manufacturing is facing a spell of headwinds. 

 

16 Council of Economic Advisors, September 2016.
10

Two headwinds have dragged down recent manufacturing performance: (1) the weak global 

economy and (2) the decline in energy-related capital expenditure. Factors that drive export 

demand—global economic output and U.S. terms of trade—are particularly important to 

manufacturing as it is a far more trade-exposed sector than other parts of the economy. While 

manufacturing represents roughly 12 percent of value added in the economy, manufactured 

exports have maintained a share of above 60 percent of U.S. exports. This implies a much greater 

sensitivity to the global economy than sectors like construction or health care. Real exports 

rebounded swiftly after the crisis, helping the manufacturing sector. But, recently, real exports of 

goods and services have fallen slightly — 1.1 percent over the past four quarters.

The challenges for U.S. exports principally come from the direct and indirect effects of slower 

foreign GDP growth. Real exports tend to track nearly perfectly with foreign real GDP growth 

(weighted by U.S. export shares). Global growth has slowed notably since 2012, and U.S. real 

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing Indices

Non-Manufacturing Index

Manufacturing Index

Sep-16

Index, Seasonally Adjusted

Expansion

Contraction

Source: Institute for Supply Management.

Agriculture

Services 

Manufacturing

2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

U.S. Exports by Sector

Percent

Source: Census Bureau. 
11

export growth has slowed along with it. At the same time, as the figure below shows, U.S. 

exports have slowed even more in the last two years, based on part on the relative strength of 

U.S. economic output and terms of trade. 

Producers of tradable goods are sensitive not only to a drop in direct exports abroad, but also 

through exports of downstream firms that use their goods as inputs into their own production 

processes. The most export-exposed sectors by this combined measure are primary metals, with 

the highest total (direct and indirect) export share of nearly 70 percent, as well as computers and 

electronics and transportation equipment, with total export shares of about 50 percent. Even 

some services industries, like air and rail transportation, are highly exposed to export demand 

fluctuations.

Consistent with these broad export pressures, U.S. manufacturing industries with higher (direct 

plus indirect) export shares have experienced slower average monthly output growth. Primary 

metals, with the highest total export share, experienced the greatest slowdown since June 2014 

relative to its June 2010-May 2014 average. Transportation equipment, fabricated metals, and 

machinery, with export shares ranging from 20 to 50 percent, also have seen slower output 

growth.
12

The second headwind is the impact on some manufacturing sectors from the drop in energy 

prices. The sharp decline in crude oil prices in 2014 to 2016 due in part to a global supply glut as 

well as slowing demand based on slower global growth, prompted U.S. energy producers to 

reduce their capital investment in drilling. When Brent crude and WTI prices fell to lows in the 

$25-50 per barrel range compared to over $98 per barrel during the third quarter of 2014, the oil 

rig count dropped sharply, diving below 425 after peaking at over 1,600 in October 2014. The 

rapid decline in prices and rig count slowed structures investment and consequently spilled over 

into industries such as steel that sell materials to drillers.

Despite the aforementioned headwinds, the last two years are comparable to the best two years 

from 2001 to 2009, even amongst its periods of modest production growth in the middle of the 

decade. In fact, the best two-year pre-recession performance for manufacturing jobs was 

identical to the recent challenging two-year period, where manufacturing employment has been 

roughly stagnant. 

Food & 

Beverages

Textile Mills

Apparel & 

Leather

Wood Products

Fabriated Metals

Printing

Petroleum & Coal Chemicals

Plastics & Rubber

Nonmetallic 

Minerals

Fabricated Metals Primary Metals

Machinery

Computer and 

Electr.

Appliances

Automotive

Transp. 

Equipment

Furniture

Misc.

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

June 2014-2016 Average Monthly Output Growth

Change from June 2010-May 2014 Average (Pct. Pts.)

Exports as Share of Total Output (%)

WTI Oil Price 

(Left Axis)

Brent Oil Price 

(Left Axis)

Oil Rig Count 

(Right Axis)

Sep-16

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

Rig Count and Price of Oil

Dollars Per Barrel Rig Count

Source: Energy Information Administration; Baker Hughes.
13

Despite these temporary headwinds, the foundation for U.S. manufacturing is as strong as it 

has been in decades

While the headwinds have slowed the expansion of U.S. manufacturing, the underlying 

performance of the sector has been strong. One clear piece of evidence regarding the continued 

resilience of the U.S. manufacturing industry is that the United States has stabilized and begun to 

modestly expand its market share in global manufacturing exports. The U.S. share of world 

manufacturing exports fell precipitously in the first half of the 2000s, a contributing factor in the 

weak production growth from 2000 to 2007. 

Overall, global manufacturing exports declined precipitously in the Great Recession. But as the 

United States emerged from the recession, the U.S. was able to stabilize its share of global 

exports. The U.S. remains the third largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world—

demonstrating the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured goods on world markets.

Over the past several years, surveys of global manufacturing executives have continued to 

demonstrate growing competitiveness in the U.S. as a location for manufacturing production. 

The Boston Consulting Group has found that U.S. manufacturing executives have increasingly 

answered that they are actively moving or actively considering moving production from China to 

the United States, with the most recent survey showing that 53 percent of executives are either 

moving production or actively considering moving production back to the United States.17

Deloitte and the Council on Competitiveness found in a recent survey that global manufacturing 

executives stated that the U.S. is currently the 2nd most competitive location for manufacturing 

production, and that they believe that by 2020 the U.S. will overtake China and be the single 

 

17 Boston Consulting Group, Perspectives, Reshoring of Manufacturing to the U.S. Gains Momentum, December 

2015. 

2015

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

U.S. Manufactured Goods Exports as a Percentage of World 

Percent Manufactured Goods Exports

Source: World Trade Organization; IMF International FInancial Statistics; Eurostat Comext; World 

Bank. 

Notes: Data for 2015 are preliminary CEA estimates based on scaled World Bank WDI data. 

Manufactured exports are defined by SITC sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 (which includes iron and steel, 

chemicals, machinary and transport vehicles, and textiles), but excludes division 68 (non-ferrous 

metals) and group 891 (arms and amunition). This differs from the census definition of 

manufacturing, which is based on NAICS codes 31-33. 
14

most competitive country for manufacturing due to the continued shifts towards more advanced 

manufacturing processes and a growing need for talent.18

The strong foundation for manufacturing expansion and growing optimism from manufacturing 

firms about the U.S. as a location for production rests on several important factors: the changing 

cost and supply chain dynamics of global manufacturing production, the increasing convergence 

of a range of manufacturing production technologies, and the increasing policy emphasis on 

supporting a robust manufacturing base. 

First, U.S. direct manufacturing production costs compare favorably to other advanced 

economies, particularly due to the high productivity of American workers and the low energy 

costs as a result of abundant natural gas. According to The Boston Consulting Group, the U.S. 

relative costs of production in 2014 were within 5 percent of those of China and substantially 

less than countries like Japan, Canada, Brazil, France, and Germany. In addition, companies 

increasingly recognize the need to take a ‘total cost’ approach when evaluating manufacturing 

location decisions. For example, proximity to customers, the ability to manage product 

development and production across disparate locations, and the risks of lengthy supply chains 

leading to costly disruptions all must be factored into location decisions, advantaging the United 

States. The U.S. Department of Commerce developed the Access Costs Everywhere (ACE) tool 

that helps companies understand the interaction of these costs.19

Second, there is an ongoing convergence of manufacturing technologies that has the potential to 

dramatically change both the products we use and how we produce them. Digital manufacturing 

enables the connection of different parts of the manufacturing life-cycle through data and 

modeling, allowing for digital design and digital production runs, reducing cycle time and cost. 

Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, allows for producing products in layers of materials 

rather than subtracting from a block of material via machining or assembling several components 

together, reducing waste and allowing for prototypes to be constructed in some cases at a 

dramatically lower cost. And other emerging technologies—like advanced robotics, artificial 

intelligence, and the internet of things—all offer the promise of advancing the possibilities in 

manufacturing. The common connection is that these are all areas where the United States is a 

global leader, in part due to the inherent and growing connection between software and 

hardware. The United States has a large lead in novel software development, and our ability to 

integrate these new technologies into physical products and manufacturing processes will create 

opportunities for the future of manufacturing and facilitate the potential for enhanced U.S. 

leadership.

Third, the Obama Administration’s focused policy effort, first to rescue the auto industry and 

then to ensure a strong foundation for manufacturing growth, has played a key element in 

enabling manufacturing strength. This focus has influenced policy at the state and local levels, 

which play an important role investing in the assets and capabilities that facilitate a strong local 

production base. While the combination of changing cost dynamics and evolving technologies 

influence manufacturing competitiveness, policy choices will continue to play a key role.

 

18 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index. 

www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/global-manufacturing-competitiveness-index.html

19 Access Costs Everywhere. http://acetool.commerce.gov/.
15

II. OBAMA MANUFACTURING POLICY AGENDA

As the economy emerged from the Great Recession, President Obama directed his team to

establish the policies needed to enable a stronger foundation for U.S. manufacturing expansion, 

recognizing the important connection between a strong manufacturing sector and a strong, 

innovative economy. The experience with the auto industry—where the failure of two companies 

imperiled the health of the broader U.S. manufacturing sector for years to come—demonstrated 

the interconnected nature of the manufacturing sector and the need for a comprehensive 

approach. The manufacturing sector in the United States is diverse, but its continued strength 

relies on a broad set of underlying capabilities that make it more attractive for firms to invest and 

manufacture in the United States. Following the challenges that manufacturing faced from 2000 

to 2009, there had been significant underinvestment in manufacturing capabilities and policy was 

required to rebuild and regrow what some have referred to as the ‘industrial commons’.

The Administration also recognized the need to use a broad set of policy tools to tackle these 

challenges. While manufacturing activity is inherently local, the Federal government plays a key 

role in investing in and establishing the conditions for capabilities to thrive. For example, the 

Federal government can serve as a catalyst, as demonstrated by the President’s Manufacturing 

USA initiative to create public-private manufacturing innovation institutes, or as a convener, as 

demonstrated by efforts like Manufacturing Day and the Supply Chain Innovation initiative; both 

of which have focused local and private efforts on supporting manufacturing capabilities. The 

effort to develop a robust policy agenda included calling on the President’s Council of Advisors 

of Science and Technology (PCAST) to make recommendations and launch a new partnership 

with business and academia called the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. The strong external 

participation from business, academia, and labor strengthened these efforts and will ensure that 

they are lasting.

In total, the steps taken by the Obama Administration have helped to create a foundation for U.S. 

manufacturing leadership. As the United States moves forward, it is critical to reinforce that 

foundation and build on this progress through smart policy choices. Policy will determine if we 

are making the needed investments in technologies and know-how that power innovation or in 

workforce skills to ensure that our workers continue to be the most productive in the world. This 

Administration’s approach has repositioned the role of the Federal government in appropriately 

supporting manufacturing expansion through coherent innovation policy, ensuring U.S. 

leadership in new technologies and approaches. However, more work is needed to continue to 

implement where progress is underway and to kick-start action where progress has been stalled.

The Administration’s emphasis on revitalizing American manufacturing has helped to change the 

conversation around manufacturing’s importance. Whereas prior to and during the Great 

Recession, many argued that manufacturing’s decline was inevitable and perhaps beneficial, 

there is now broader recognition of important role a strong manufacturing sector plays in a 

growing, innovative economy. Given the progress made since 2010, it is critical to continue the

momentum. To be clear, there is no silver bullet to ensuring strong growth across U.S. 

manufacturing. Manufacturing in the United States is diverse. That is why a comprehensive 

effort is required to ensure the right policies with the right solutions are made so that our 

manufacturing sector continues to grow and innovate.
16

A Framework for Manufacturing Policy

In January 2010, the President charged the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology (PCAST) with examining U.S. manufacturing, and in June 2011, led by the efforts 

of PCAST members, Shirley Ann Jackson and Eric Schmidt, the Council released its report 

Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. In response, the President soon 

after created the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee (AMP), a working 

group of 19 manufacturing leaders in industry, academia, and labor and chaired by Andrew 

Liveris, Susan Hockfield, and Rafael Reif, organized under PCAST, as part of his continuing 

effort to maintain the competitive edge on emerging technologies and to invest in the future of 

our manufacturing sector and the White House Office of Manufacturing Policy, co-chaired by 

the National Economic Council and the Department of Commerce. The policies fueled by these 

efforts have been a big contributor to the progress made over the past five years. Building on the 

success of AMP, the President created the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering 

Committee ‘2.0’ in 2013, chaired by Andrew Liveris and Rafael Reif. The AMP 2.0 working 

group, was again organized under PCAST auspices. AMP 2.0 met with industry, academia, 

labor, government, and the public to address the challenge of expanding advanced manufacturing 

across the United States. The central approach of both AMP and AMP 2.0 has been to strengthen 

U.S. manufacturing by (1) enabling innovation, (2) securing the talent pipeline, and (3) 

improving the business climate.

Through these efforts, the Administration has been able to develop a holistic policy approach to 

strengthening U.S. manufacturing by focusing not on the cultivation of specific industries or 

firms, but on investing in the strong foundation—the capabilities, assets, and business 

environment—critical for manufacturers to flourish in the United States. This policy approach 

has four pillars to encourage U.S. manufacturing production, investment, and competitiveness:

1. Spurring innovation through next-generation technologies to ensure that the powerful 

new technologies of tomorrow are developed and manufactured in the United States.

2. Strengthening skills, communities, and supply chains to attract investment to equip the 

manufacturing workforce and manufacturing firms with the skills needed for today’s 

increasingly technology-oriented manufacturing opportunities, and to ensure 

communities large and small across the United States are well-positioned to compete for 

manufacturing investment.

3. Making the United States more competitive for production to create the best business 

environment in the world to enable capital investment.

4. Expanding market access and leveling the playing field to expand market access 

opportunities for U.S. manufacturers of all sizes at home and abroad, and to enforce trade 

rules and protect American workers and firms from unfair practices.
17

Pillar 1: Spurring Innovation Through Next-Generation Technologies

Innovation is America’s central advantage. Without a combination of process and product 

innovation, where making spurs learning in real-time, we risk losing important capabilities that 

underpin our ability to innovate. For many technologies, the capabilities gained in production are 

intertwined with new learning and the knowledge activities of research, development, and 

design. To avoid losing the competitive edge in our ability to innovate, a key component of the 

manufacturing policy for this Administration has been to foster an ecosystem in which we invest 

in research and development to keep our manufacturing sector at the forefront of manufacturing 

innovation. The Federal government has an important role to play by investing in precompetitive research and development, establishing the institutions that enable collaboration 

between firms and academia in order to fully harness our innovation advantage, and creating the 

right incentives for firms to expand investment in innovation activities in the manufacturing 

sector.

Manufacturing USA

The Administration’s most significant action taken to support manufacturing innovation was the 

creation of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, now known as Manufacturing 

USA, in 2012. Manufacturing USA brings together industry, academia, and government to coinvest in the development of world-leading manufacturing technologies and capabilities. Each 

Manufacturing USA institute focuses on a technology area critical to future competitiveness—

such as 3D printing, integrated photonics, or smart sensors. In the four years since its 

establishment, Manufacturing USA has grown from one institute with 65 members to a network 

of nine institutes and over 1,300 members. Across the Manufacturing USA institutes, the Federal 

government has committed over $600 million, which has been matched by over $1.3 billion in 

non-Federal investment. A full list of the Manufacturing USA institutes can be found in the 

Appendix. 

Together, the Manufacturing USA institutes are already enhancing U.S. competitiveness in 

advanced manufacturing—from helping Youngstown, OH attract over $90 million in new 

manufacturing investments to its region and train 14,000 workers in the fundamentals of 3D 

printing for businesses, to supporting companies like X-FAB in Lubbock, TX upgrade to costcompetitive, next-generation semiconductors and sustain hundreds of jobs. These public-private 

partnerships (PPP) are bringing value to their memberships and regions by providing: 

• Technological Pre-eminence: By accelerating the transition from design to Made in USA, the 

institutes are leading the development of emerging manufacturing technologies—for 

example, America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute in 

Youngstown, OH enabled one of its founding members, Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., 

to become the first company to receive clearance from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration 

(FDA) to manufacture 3D-printed polymer implants for use in surgical procedures in the 

United States.

• Collaborative Constituencies: The institutes align industry priorities by combining the efforts 

of manufacturers across geographies and supply chains—for example, the American Institute 

for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics), the Integrated Photonics institute 

in Rochester, NY, has members on both coasts to involve the entire supply chain for 
18

integrated photonics, from microprocessing training and circuit design centers in 

Massachusetts; to wafer foundry, packaging, and assembly centers in New York; to 

integrated photonic device manufacturers in California. 

• Leveraged Investments: For companies, institute membership allows access to unique 

equipment and capabilities that are too costly for any one company to undertake—for 

example, Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA), the Revolutionary Fibers and 

Textiles institute in Cambridge, MA, is standing up a distributed, on-demand foundry to 

rapidly identify domestic manufacturing pathways within its membership to accelerate the 

design-to-product process.

• Customized Training: Institutes act as “teaching factories,” providing specialized curriculum 

for the relevant technology—for example, PowerAmerica, the institute focused on power 

electronics in Raleigh, NC, created the first Master of Science concentration in wide bandgap 

power electronics, in its first year engaging 225 freshman engineering students to create a 

talent pipeline. New courses introduced at Power America-affiliated universities have 

doubled the capacity of graduate students learning about power electronics, impacting more 

than 200 graduate students per year.

• Business Opportunities: By developing national expertise across their supply chains, the 

institutes are creating new reasons for companies to locate jobs and investment in their 

regions and the United States—for example, Leisure Pools, a carbon fiber pool manufacturer 

originally from Australia, has relocated its facilities to be near the Institute for Advanced 

Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI) in Knoxville, TN, as Leisure Pool retools to 

become an advanced manufacturer of carbon fiber and composite materials and adds up to 

1,000 jobs in Knoxville over the next decade.

• Innovation Ecosystems: The institutes are creating trusted environments, knitting together 

technical expertise across supply chains to craft new business opportunities—for example, 

the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII) in Chicago, IL is 

providing space within its facilities for start-ups developing their business, facilitating 

relationships between young companies and its large industrial members through 

collaborative projects.

• Rejuvenated Neighborhoods and Networked Expertise: By anchoring regional manufacturing 

competitiveness, the institutes are breathing new life into the manufacturing regions where 

they are located—for example, Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT), the 

lightweight and modern metals manufacturing institute in Detroit, MI, has transformed a 

former factory that was abandoned during the wave of offshoring in the early 2000s, 

rejuvenating one of Detroit, MI’s oldest neighborhoods. IACMI has co-located with LIFT to 

stand up a composite materials production line, convening the smartest minds across the 

Manufacturing USA Network to accelerate vehicle lightweighting.

Manufacturing USA bridges the gap between research and product development and serve as a 

regional hubs to accelerate additional technologies. The Federal government’s seed funding 

serves as a catalyst to establish each institute, and that funding is leveraged – approximately 

every dollar provided by the Federal government is matched by two dollars from industry. With 

this unique pre-competitive, collaborative model, each institute acts as a “teaching factory” that 

allows for education and training of students and workers at all levels, while enabling shared 

assets to help companies – most importantly small manufacturers access the cutting-edge 

capabilities and equipment to design, test, and pilot new products and manufacturing processes.
19

The early successes are promising. From accelerating the transition from design to Made in the 

USA through 3D printing and digital manufacturing techniques to repurposing existing factories 

to house the next generation of American semiconductor foundries, the manufacturing 

innovation institutes are advancing U.S. leadership in emerging manufacturing technologies that 

make the U.S. more competitive in advanced manufacturing. With over 250 research projects 

teed-up, underway, and completed—each taking a comprehensive approach in bringing together 

leading technologies from industry and their public partners with preeminent academic 

researchers—the institutes are already generating technology breakthroughs with even more just 

around the corner. Each project is situated at the intersection of research and development 

helping transition groundbreaking technology from the lab out onto the factory floor. Some key 

success stories include:

Federal Investment in Manufacturing Research and Development

The Administration has set an explicit focus on supporting the entire pipeline of manufacturing 

innovation, from increasing research and development investments—up 40 percent in the 

President’s FY2017 Budget compared to 2011—to coordinating activities across 13 Federal 

agencies. PCAST also has recommended particular focus on the manufacture of nanotechnology, 

recommending research investment and coordination that will unlock the potential of these 

technologies. Despite a period of difficult budgets, the Administration’s commitment to 

manufacturing R&D was able to deliver substantial expansions of key programs supporting a 

broad set of foundational technologies.

The National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing 

(SAM) serves as a forum for information-sharing, coordination, and consensus-building across 

13 Federal agencies regarding Federal policy, programs, and budget guidance for advanced 

manufacturing. Originally chartered in 2012, the subcommittee seeks to identify (i) gaps in the 

Federal advanced manufacturing research and development portfolio and policies, (ii) programs 

and policies that support technology commercialization, methods of improving business climate, 

and (iii) opportunities for public-private collaboration. 

To foster a shared technological vision across the public and private sectors, in April 2016 the 

SAM released Advanced Manufacturing: A Snapshot of Priority Technology Areas Across the 

Federal Government, a report detailing common priorities for research and development in 

advanced manufacturing technologies and initiatives to strengthen manufacturing education and 

workforce development. Recognizing these areas is a critical step toward identifying smart, 

strategic investments that build on our strengths—revving the engines of American ingenuity and 

honing the skills of the world’s most productive workforce. Among the shared technology 

priorities identified in this report are:

 Advanced materials manufacturing: designer materials that are “born ready” for specific 

next-generation products, approaching atomic precision at kilogram scales;

 Bio-manufacturing for regenerative medicine: repairing and replacing cells, tissues, and 

organs that might one day lead to 3D-printed organs; and

 Continuous manufacturing for pharmaceuticals: uninterrupted production enabling 

greater quality, yield, and flexibility toward personalized medicine.
20

Maker Movement

In June 2014, the President launched the Nation of Makers initiative, a multi-stakeholder effort to 

ensure students, entrepreneurs, and Americans of all backgrounds have access to a new class of 

technologies. In recent years, a growing number of Americans have gained access to technologies 

such as 3D printers, laser cutters, easy-to-use design software, and desktop machine tools. This, in 

combination with freely available information about how to use, modify, and build upon these 

technologies and the availability of crowd funding platforms, is enabling more Americans to 

design and build almost anything. These new tools are giving students the types of hands-on STEM 

learning experiences that spark interest in science and technology careers. They are also fostering 

a “maker mindset”—dispositions and skills such as curiosity, collaborative problem-solving, and 

creative confidence that are vital to the modern innovation economy.

Through the Nation of Makers initiative, the Administration, led by the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, hosted the first of its kind maker faire at the White House in 2014, which 

brought together over 100 makers from more than 25 states, and included more than 30 

exhibits. In June 2015, the Administration proclaimed June 12-18, 2015 as a National Week of 

Making, during which 21 Federal agencies committed a suite of services for people interested in 

engineering and manufacturing. More than 150 colleges and universities, over 125 libraries, and 

more than 90 mayors pledged to take steps to help advance making in the United States. This 

past year the Administration again proclaimed June 17-23, 2016 as the National Week of 

Making. This year, eight Federal agencies announced new grants, education initiatives, training, 

knowledge networks, and other supports to help create more makers and assist more 

entrepreneurs to take prototypes to scale with new ventures – in addition to more than 100 

commitments made to support makers across the United States.

Pillar 2: Strengthening Skills, Communities, and Supply Chains to Attract Investment

Manufacturing production relies on the skills of a talented workforce, the capabilities of robust 

supply chains, and the assets within our regions and communities. In a recent survey, 

manufacturing executives identify workforce talent as the single most important determinant of 

global competiveness.20 The Administration has made investments to rebuild our manufacturing 

workforce training programs after years of neglect, create new efforts like our focus on 

apprenticeships, reinvigorate the critical Manufacturing Extension Partnership to support tens of 

thousands of small and medium manufacturers, and launch the new Investing in Manufacturing 

Communities Partnership to spur communities around the country to leverage their own strengths 

and capabilities to enable a stronger American manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing Workforce Training

From 2000 to 2009, as the manufacturing sector shed jobs, it appeared that there was little need 

to invest in new workforce capabilities in our community colleges and technical schools. As a 

result, our workforce training system was ill-equipped for the expansion of manufacturing jobs 

 

20 Deloitte LLP and U.S. Council on Competitiveness. 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index.
21

since 2010. The Administration has taken a number of steps to reinvest in our manufacturing 

workforce training capabilities, increase our focus on portable credentials for manufacturing 

workers, and increase our focus on apprenticeships, which are underutilized in the United States.

These actions will continue to be of critical importance given the changing dynamic within the 

manufacturing sector, requiring higher levels of formal education and training.

First, to enhance workforce training capabilities and capacity, the Administration awarded nearly 

$2 billion in Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College Career Training (TAACCCT) 

grants help community colleges expand and improve programs that prepare workers for careers 

in high-paying, high-skill occupations. TAACCCT grantees are leveraging curriculum that has 

been developed through strong partnerships between community colleges, the workforce system, 

employers, and industry groups to transform the way they design and deliver courses through 

accelerated learning strategies.

Second, the Administration has focused on apprenticeships, as they tend to lead to good paying 

jobs and provide a strong return on investment for employers—87% of apprentices are employed 

after completing their programs, with an average starting wage above $50,000.21 The return on 

investment for employers is also impressive: for example, international studies suggest that for 

every dollar spent on apprenticeship, employers may get an average of $1.47 back in increased 

productivity, reduced waste, and greater front-line innovation.22

To capitalize on the workforce benefits of apprenticeships, the Administration has allocated $265 

million towards expanding apprenticeships in the United States. These investments have been 

made through a $90 million investment into ApprenticeshipUSA and through $175 million in 

grants. The funding will be distributed through grants to states, regional industry partnerships, 

and public-private partnerships that are working to expand high-quality apprenticeships. The PPP 

grantees are well on their way to creating and filling more than 34,000 new apprentices in highgrowth and high-tech industries including health care, IT, and advanced manufacturing over the 

next five years.

We are already seeing a number of successes in the number of new apprenticeships being created 

and in the high number of credentials earned from TAACCCT graduates:

 Nearly 300,000 participants have enrolled in in-demand education and training programs 

at community colleges in all 50 states through the TAACCCT program, with a total of 

160,000 credentials to date.

 We’ve seen a 31% increase in active apprenticeships since the President’s Call to Action 

in 2014, with an estimated 20,000 additional new apprentices in the manufacturing 

industry.

 

21 U.S. Department of Labor. American Apprenticeship Grants. 2015. https://www.doleta.gov/OA/aag.cfm.

22 Ibid.
22

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)

More than 230,000 small manufacturers form the backbone of America’s supply chains and 

employ an increasing share of U.S. manufacturing’s overall workforce.23 Dense networks of 

these small manufacturers are vital to taking a product from concept to market. The Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) enables the ability of American small 

manufacturers to increase their capability with the latest technologies, which is important to U.S. 

competitiveness for jobs and investment in manufacturing. 

MEP is a network of centers that provide technology and engineering expertise to tens of 

thousands of small- and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. MEP 

creates new linkages between suppliers and provides small manufacturers with insight into 

technologies that can revolutionize their business. Since 1988, MEP has worked with 86,620 

manufacturers, leading to $96.4 billion in sales and $15.7 billion in cost savings, and it has 

helped create and retain more than 797,994 jobs.

Through its budgets, the Administration has continued to call for a modest increase of federal 

investment in MEP. The program will continue to be important as we work to connect small and 

medium manufacturers with the emerging process and product technologies that have the 

potential to transform manufacturing.

Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP)

Manufacturing, by definition, is a local activity. Production happens in a place. The assets and 

capabilities of a given community form the foundation for manufacturing production and 

investment. If we are going to take full advantage of the opportunity in the years ahead, our 

regions and communities must develop local plans for strengthening manufacturing. That is why 

President Obama launched the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) in 

2012, with the goal of encouraging local communities to develop comprehensive economic 

development strategies focused on manufacturing competitiveness by aligning local and Federal 

investments against local strategies. 

IMCP works to enhance the way we leverage Federal economic development funds to encourage 

American communities to focus not on attracting individual investments one at a time, but on 

transforming themselves into globally competitive manufacturing ecosystems. Communities 

apply for an IMCP ‘designation’ by demonstrating their comprehensive manufacturing 

strategies, and if designated, a community receives (i) preferential access to Federal economic 

development funding along with a Federal liaison to navigate Federal opportunities and (ii) the 

ability to brand and promote their community as a designated Manufacturing Community to help 

attract additional private investment and partnerships. The IMCP program acts as an incentive 

for communities to invest in high-return capabilities, rather than low-return giveaways that do 

little to enhance our overall competitiveness.

 

23 Economics and Statistics Administration analysis using data from the Census Bureau’s Business Dynamics 

Statistics (BDS).
23

IMCP Community Snapshot: AMP Socal

The University of Southern California and the Advanced Manufacturing 

Partnership for Southern California (AMP Socal), one of the current 24 IMCP 

communities, built partnerships between industry, government, and academia 

focused on strengthening the aerospace and defense sector. Conceived as a four‐

county collaborative with 86 partners, AMP Socal has grown into a 10‐county 

Southern California partnership with a growing list of collaborators. To further 

develop manufacturing skills, this IMCP community focuses on three pathways: (i) 

a model-based Engineering and Design pathway program that has already placed 

16 trainees in jobs; (ii) an Additive Manufacturing Certificate Program, and (iii) a 

managed career pipeline strategy. 4000+ jobs have been created as a result of 

partnerships developed through AMP Socal and $65 million in funding from both 

Federal and non-Federal sources have been matched by $53 million from local 

sources to enhance the manufacturing competitiveness of this region. Further 

strengthening manufacturing in this IMPC community, the MEP Center leads a 

Growth Acceleration Strategy to provide technical assistance to small and medium 

sized companies to enhance their current capabilities and future potential by 

removing operational and technological barriers to growth. They credit this 

program with retaining 192 jobs over the first 18 months of the designation. 

Adding to the manufacturing ecosystem in this community is the Smart 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute, awarded this past June, which brings together a 

consortium of nearly 200 partners from across academia, industry, and nonprofits—to spur advances in smart sensors and digital process controls that can 

radically improve the efficiency of U.S. advanced manufacturing.

To bolster the competitiveness of each community, twelve Federal agencies, with more than $1 

billion in economic development funds, work with the communities to support and invest in

public-private partnerships that bolster regional manufacturing. The first 12 communities were 

designated in 2014, and there are now currently 24 communities that have been designated 

through this effort. Each community focuses on a particular aspect of manufacturing such as 

chemical manufacturing, aerospace, or shipbuilding industries. The best practices of highperforming communities serve as a model for others around the country looking to take steps to 

expand manufacturing investment and production. 

Supply Chain Innovation

Small manufacturers that form the backbone of America’s supply chains play an increasingly 

important role in creating and retaining manufacturing jobs and investment in the United States. 

To support small manufacturers, this Administration implemented a Supply Chain Innovation 

Initiative designed to strengthen small manufacturers through the sharing and implementation of 

best practices. Because small manufacturers play an increasing role in the overall manufacturing 

sector as members of tightly interdependent supply chains, their ability to keep up with and even 

lead advances in technology is critical to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing overall.
24

One example of an action taken to strengthen supply chain innovation is the SupplierPay 

Initiative, which helps address the difficulties small businesses face in accessing affordable 

working capital. Reducing the time it takes for smaller suppliers to get paid or lowering their 

short-term borrowing costs enables them to devote more of their resources to investing in their

business, hiring, and growing. The Administration’s focus on reinvesting in America’s small 

manufacturers is an example of how public-private sector efforts can strengthen the foundation 

of these key elements of the U.S. economy.

Manufacturing Day

Manufacturing Day is an annual, nationwide celebration of manufacturing that provides an 

opportunity for manufacturers to open their doors to show the public the face of modern 

manufacturing. First celebrated in 2012, the Administration has supported Manufacturing Day as 

a way to showcase the work manufacturers do on a daily basis and to educate students and 

community members on how integral manufacturing is to the local, national and global 

economy. These experiences matter—after participating in Manufacturing Day events, a recent 

study found that 81 percent of students and 91 percent of educators were more convinced that 

manufacturing provides careers that are interesting and rewarding, helping to inspire the next 

generation of manufacturers.24 Given that 80% of manufacturing jobs are currently held by 

workers between the ages of 45 – 65, it is critical that we begin to recruit the next generation of 

manufacturers now.25

Manufacturing Day focuses on changing America’s perception of the manufacturing sector, 

demonstrating what a career in modern manufacturing can look like for the next generation of 

America’s workforce. Changing how the nation views the manufacturing sector is especially 

important given the high-tech nature of many of today’s manufacturing careers. A high school 

diploma and a strong work ethic are no longer a guaranteed ticket to a middle-class career 

working on an assembly line. Over the past 15 years, the percentage of manufacturing employees 

with only a high school degree has dropped from 53% to 44% while the share with college or 

advanced degrees has jumped 8 points, a trend that is expected to continue.26

 

24 Deloitte and Manufacturing Institute perception survey; https://www.mfgday.com/news/manufacturing-dayoffers-insightful-onsite-experiences.

25 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Making it in America, March 2015.

26 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
25

In 2015, Manufacturing Day inspired factories, colleges, and cities to hold more than 2,600 

manufacturing showcases across all 50 states, attracting more than 400,000 participants. 2015 

marked the greatest number of events and highest participation rates yet, and we’re aiming to 

beat those records this year for Manufacturing Day 2016.

Pillar 3: Making the United States More Competitive for Production

To attract investment and production, we must ensure that we are taking full advantage of our 

distinct capabilities while also ensuring that our business environment is properly recognizing 

the role that manufacturing plays. This Administration has focused efforts in four areas to ensure 

the United States remains the best place in the world to invest, grow, and hire: (i) reforming our 

broken business tax system to encourage investment at home, (ii) investing in infrastructure to 

lower the costs of moving goods, information, energy, and people, (iii) initiating regulatory 

reform to ensure that regulations that no longer serve their purpose are cleaned up, and (iv) 

ensuring safe and responsible production to take advantage of our domestic energy resources. 

Business Tax Reform

Today, the U.S. corporate income tax combines a high statutory corporate tax rate with a tax 

base narrowed by loopholes and other tax preferences that creates an unfair playing field and 

distorts investment decisions. These factors disadvantage certain companies, including some 

manufacturing firms, relative to their domestic and international competitors, undercutting 

innovation and job creation. 

The Administration has taken several important steps to support American manufacturers and 

boost innovation. For example, the December 2015 tax and budget agreement made permanent 

the research and experimentation tax credit for the first time since it was initially enacted in 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Bachelor's Degree or Higher Some College High School or Less

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Educational Attainment Among Manufacturing Sector Workers

Percent
26

1981, providing certainty to companies investing in innovation. Roughly 70 percent of this credit 

is utilized by manufacturing firms. In addition, the President has signed more than a dozen tax 

cuts for small businesses into law, including a significant, permanent increase in expensing for 

small businesses. 

In 2012, the Administration put forward a comprehensive business tax reform framework that 

would strengthen U.S. manufacturing and innovation. The President’s framework makes the tax 

code more competitive by lowering the corporate rate to 28 percent, broadening the tax base, 

eliminating dozens of inefficient loopholes and subsidies.[i] The framework includes several 

critical policies to strengthen U.S. manufacturing, including expanding the domestic production 

activities deduction for manufacturing, effectively reducing the top tax rate on manufacturing to 

25 percent. The framework also modernizes the international tax system to encourage domestic 

investment and increase the global competitiveness of U.S. firms, and it simplifies and expands 

the now-permanent research and experimentation tax credit to further encourage innovation.

U.S. Infrastructure

A quality infrastructure system helps manufacturers move goods to market quickly and keep 

costs down in order to stay ahead of global competition. Our infrastructure system used to be a 

source of distinct advantage, but without additional investment, it risks becoming a liability.

Recognizing that a well-maintained and well-connected transportation infrastructure is critical to 

the success of manufacturing and many other industries, this Administration has taken steps to 

start rebuilding our infrastructure to bring it back to the world class position it once occupied. 

While manufacturers have access to more than 4 million miles of public roads, more than 95,000 

miles of freight railroad, and 5,100 public use airports27, our transportation system is aging and 

poses a risk to future competiveness for manufacturers. A World Economic Forum survey 

recently ranked the U.S. as 28th in the world in the quality of our infrastructure. And we continue 

to underinvest: in 2014, public spending on transportation and water infrastructure was only 

about 2.4 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, countries around the world are building for the future and

investing higher levels of their GDP in infrastructure.

The Administration has made some progress, including recent meaningful steps to increase longterm investment in infrastructure. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act 

signed into law this past December authorizes $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 

for highway, highway and motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety, 

hazardous materials safety, rail, and research, technology, and statistics programs. While this is a 

step in the right direction, it is still only a modest increase over current levels of infrastructure 

investing. 

Going forward, more and smarter investment needs to happen in our infrastructure system. The 

President has put forth a number of proposals – including the 21st Century Clean Transportation 

Plan – in order to meaningfully increase investments in our transportation and infrastructure. 

 

[i] Joint Report, The White House, Department of the Treasury, The President’s Framework for Business Tax 

Reform: An Update, April 2016.

27 Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2016.
27

The Energy Opportunity

First, for the roughly one-fifth of U.S. manufacturing that is energy-intensive, low-cost reliable 

energy is important to continued competitiveness. U.S.-based manufacturers currently enjoy a 

competitive advantage from affordable natural gas. Once poised to be a major natural gas 

importer, the United States is now the number one natural gas producer in the world. The surge 

in American natural gas production has lowered energy costs for manufacturers and driven job 

growth, with U.S. natural gas costs one-half that of Europe and one-third that of Asia. Recent 

analysis estimates that industrial sector consumers of natural gas were better off by about $22 

billion between 2007 and 2013 due to abundant, inexpensive shale gas.28 That is an important 

part of why companies have announced tens of billions in new capital commitments in energyintensive manufacturing facilities that will come on line in the years ahead.

Second, the Administration has sustained and strengthened an environment that drives 

innovation across the energy space, with a focus on clean energy, an important and growing 

sector for U.S. manufacturing leadership. We’ve provided tax credits and loan guarantees that 

have supported wind and solar energy. We have financed more than $8 billion in projects 

supporting 35,000 jobs to upgrade state-of-the-art assembly and manufacturing plants which 

have helped accelerate fuel-efficient vehicles production. As part of the American Reinvestment 

and Recovery Act, the Administration funded a carbon fiber testing facility that has played a 

significant role in advancing energy efficient materials manufacturing in the U.S. by cutting the 

cost of carbon fiber in half and reducing energy consumption in the manufacturing process by 60 

percent. Also, through the establishment of Manufacturing USA the Administration supported 

the development of key technologies lightweight metals and flexible electronics that can help 

manufacturers save time and money while creating new industries centered on the most 

advanced manufacturing capabilities. We’ve also invested in producing existing energy sources 

responsibly – such as by investing in technologies that reduce emissions from coal-fired power. 

As a result of this full suite of investments, we have seen technology breakthroughs that have 

continued to keep energy costs down.

Regulatory Reform

An effective regulatory environment is one that carefully enables innovation and international 

competitiveness while protecting public safety, health, and the environment. 

In an effort to create a more cost-effective, evidence-based regulatory system for the 21st century, 

in 2011 the Administration launched an unprecedented, government-wide review of existing 

regulations. As part of this “regulatory lookback,” agencies across the Federal government have 

completed over 800 retrospective review initiatives, achieving an estimated $37 billion in cost 

savings and removing more than 70 notable regulatory provisions from the books. 

The Federal government will need to continue to evaluate regulations based on their costs and 

benefits to continue to create an attractive and effective regulatory environment for businesses 

and manufacturers.

 

28 Hausman, Catherine; Kellogg, Ryan. Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas. Brookings Papers of 

Economic Activity. March 2015.
28

Pillar 4: Opening Markets and Leveling the Playing Field

The Obama Administration has recognized that, for U.S. manufacturing to continue to compete 

globally, it is critical to ensure that trade agreements are enforced, that manufacturers of all sizes 

are able to access new markets at home and abroad, and that the United States continues to 

attract foreign direct investment. To set U.S. manufacturers up for success, this Administration 

has advocated for free and fair trade agreements to facilitate the movement of goods and services 

globally, we’ve brought multiple actions to the World Trade Organization to ensure our trading 

partners are playing by the rules, and we’ve catalyzed the flow of foreign direct investment into 

the U.S. through the SelectUSA program established just five years ago.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Well-negotiated trade agreements are critical to protecting American jobs and manufacturers as 

well as helping expand our exports around the world. Manufacturing exports support more than 6 

million jobs across the U.S. economy—and manufactured exports reached an all-time high of 

$1.2 trillion in 2014, up by more than half since 2009. The competitiveness of American 

manufacturing is amplified by eliminating trade barriers. Securing trade agreements like the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that promote free and fair trade by eliminating tariffs, cutting 

red tape and streamlining customs gives American manufacturers access to rapidly growing 

global markets. Aiming to expand the global reach for U.S. manufacturers, TPP supports 

manufacturing jobs across the United States by creating a more competitive market environment 

in the Asia-Pacific region where U.S. manufacturing exports have historically been 

disadvantaged.

Exports have been a critical part of the recovery in manufacturing, and a strong manufacturing 

base is pivotal to continued growth, competitiveness and innovation across the U.S. economy. 

TPP covers nearly 40% of the world economy, opens markets for manufacturers, and eliminates 

18,000 tariffs, including tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods. TPP establishes rules to prevent 

other countries part of the trade agreement from maintaining, expanding, or creating new trade 

barriers to American manufacturers as they eliminate tariffs. TPP expands trade for knowledgeintensive industries, including advanced manufacturing, which plays to our strengths and ensures 

that in an age of global supply chains, U.S. products have the upper hand. TPP eliminates all 

foreign taxes in the form of tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods exported to TPP countries, 

including rates as high as 70 percent on automobiles in Vietnam. Beyond the advantages to U.S. 

exports and economic growth, expanded trade relationships deepens partnerships with allies and 

help ensure stability and national security.29

Trade Enforcement

While trade opens up access to global markets to manufacturers, it’s also critical that all 

countries play by the rules. To ensure fair, global competition for U.S. manufacturers, this 

Administration has made a strong trade enforcement regime a priority. 

 

29 Office of the United States Trade Representative, Trans-Pacific Partnership Benefits for Manufacturing Fact 

Sheet. 
29

Trade Enforcement: China and the Auto Industry

In 2014 the Obama Administration won a major trade enforcement case against 

China on behalf of U.S. auto manufacturers and the more than 900,000 American 

automotive industry manufacturing workers around the country, from Michigan to 

Ohio to California. In that case, the WTO agreed with the United States that 

China’s imposition of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on Americanmade cars and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) breached numerous international trade 

rules. In 2013, the United States exported over $60 billion of autos, with about 15 

percent of the total, going to China. China is now the second largest export market 

for U.S. autos, after Canada. China’s unjustified duties, which ranged up to 21.5 

percent, affected an estimated $5.1 billion worth of U.S. auto exports in 2013, and 

were applied to well-known models such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee, Buick 

Enclave, Cadillac Escalade, and many others.

Since 2009, the Obama Administration has brought 23 enforcement cases at the World Trade 

Organization (WTO)—more than any other WTO member—achieving removal of barriers and 

increased export opportunities worth billions of dollars to American workers and firms. In 

February of this year, President Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement 

Act—or “customs” legislation—to add to and strengthen our ability to hold trading partners 

accountable. This legislation increases staffing at the Department of Commerce focused on 

enforcement, helps prevent foreign competitors from gaming the process in AD (antidumping) 

and CVD (countervailing duty) cases, and provides enhanced capabilities for CBP to better 

enforce and prevent evasion of these orders. Commerce and the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) are currently enforcing 350+ AD/CVD orders that address dumped goods or 

unfairly subsidized imports from foreign companies. Of these orders, 170 AD/CVD orders 

involve imports of foreign steel, representing nearly half of all cases. 

SelectUSA

President Obama established SelectUSA in 2011 as the first-ever government-wide Federal

program to promote and facilitate job-creating business investment into the United States. 

Foreign direct investment (FDI) strengthens our economy by supporting good-paying jobs for 

millions of American workers, expanding our exports, and funding R&D. Attracting over $348 

billion in FDI in 2015, more than doubling from 2014, the United States is the top destination for 

foreign investment flows in the world.30 SelectUSA provides services to international companies 

of all sizes and U.S. economic development organizations (EDOs), working across the Federal

government. Since 2011, SelectUSA has helped facilitate more than $22.8 billion of investments 

into the United States, supporting thousands of jobs and spurring economic growth. 

 

30 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States Balance of Payments and Direct 

Investment Position Data. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Global Investment 

Trends Monitor No. 22. January 2016.
30

The U.S. manufacturing sector continues to benefit greatly from FDI; nearly 70% of new FDI in 

2015 and over one-third of jobs at U.S. majority-owned affiliates of foreign entities in 2014 were 

in manufacturing industries.31 Manufacturing employment at U.S. affiliates was 2.4 million in

2014, over 20% of all U.S. manufacturing employment.32 Reflecting growth across the 

manufacturing sector, new foreign investment in manufacturing totaled $243 billion in 2015. As 

in 2014, manufacturing accounted for more than half of total new investment expenditures.33

Recognizing the innovation occurring across U.S. manufacturing, over 70% of all foreign 

investment in R&D is concentrated in the manufacturing sector.34

In 2016, the annual SelectUSA Investment Summit attracted the participation of over 2,500

participants from 70 markets around the world and every corner of the United States. Companies 

that participated in the second SelectUSA Summit in March 2015 have since announced at least 

$5.5 billion worth of investments in the United States associated with over 9,480 jobs.

To highlight a few of the success stories coming out of the SelectUSA program:

 The 2015 SelectUSA Investment Summit catalyzed collaboration between Columbus 

2020, a regional economic development group in Ohio, and the Sofidel Group. In July, 

2016, Italy-based Sofidel Group broke ground on a new manufacturing facility in 

Circleville, Ohio. The 1.4 million square-foot facility is expected to create more than 300 

jobs and the $259 million commitment represents the largest private-sector investment in 

Circleville in decades. 

 SATA, a family-owned manufacturer from Italy, recently announced that it would invest 

$114 million in a machining operation that will create 300 jobs in the Brownsville region 

over a 10-year period. SelectUSA worked with the Brownsville Economic Development 

Council for the last two years to advocate for this investment. Additionally, due in part to 

foreign direct investment, the local unemployment rate has fallen from 12.2 percent to 6.7 

percent.

 This past April, AB Group Packaging, based in Ireland, cut the ribbon on their first U.S. 

plant in Delaware. The company met local economic development officials at the 2015 

SelectUSA Investment Summit. They plan to hire 87 workers to make shopping bags and 

tissue here in the United States for retailers like Nike, Vodafone, and Tommy Hilfiger.

 

31 Bureau of Economic Analysis, New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, 2014 and 2015, July 2016. 

Activities of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Multinational Enterprises.

32 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Activities of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Multinational Enterprises.

33 Bureau of Economic Analysis, New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, 2014 and 2015, July 2016.

34 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Activities of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Multinational Enterprises.
31

APPENDIX

Appendix I: List of Manufacturing USA Innovation Institutes

 In Youngstown, OH, America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute – the first Manufacturing USA institute – is accelerating the adoption of 3D 

printing/additive manufacturing by developing and transitioning this suite of technologies 

to industry use, and by engaging in innovative partnerships to rapidly educate and train 

both the current and future additive manufacturing workforce. 

 In Chicago, IL the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII)

is pioneering technologies at the intersection of the digital universe and the factory floor 

connecting different parts of the manufacturing life cycle through data, to then utilize that 

information to enable manufacturers to make smarter, more informed and more 

competitive business decisions. 

 In Detroit, MI, Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT) is developing advanced 

lightweight metals and related manufacturing technologies for industries where the U.S. 

has a traditional manufacturing advantage, such as the aerospace and automotive 

industries, that will enable the lighter, stronger, safer vehicles and airplanes of tomorrow.

 In Raleigh, NC, PowerAmerica is investing in the technologies and techniques to 

convert idle, existing U.S. silicon foundries over to the production of a new generation of 

advanced semiconductor materials that can shrink an electric vehicle recharging station 

from the size of a refrigerator down to a microwave, and increase power generation from, 

wind and other forms of clean energy.

 In Knoxville, TN, the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation 

(IACMI) is pushing advanced composites down the cost curve to enable lightweight 

vehicles with record-breaking fuel economy, lighter, longer and stronger wind turbine 

blades to harness greater wind power, and high-pressure tanks for natural gas-fueled cars.

 In Rochester, NY the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics 

(AIM) is taking the region’s more than 120 years of pioneering optical technologies into 

a new era by transiting out of the lab and into the marketplace innovations in photonics 

that can lead to faster computers, greater Internet capacity, improved night vision 

systems, and needle-less diagnostic tests for diseases like diabetes.

 In San Jose, CA, NextFlex is advancing next-generation flexible hybrid electronics 

manufacturing, and fostering U.S. leadership in manufacturing technologies from smart 

bandages to self-monitoring weapons systems to wearable devices.

 In Cambridge, MA, Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA) is 

spearheading a fabric revolution through innovative fabrics and textiles that protect 

firefighters from the hottest flames, replicate the sensing capabilities of a smart watch 
32

into a lightweight fabric, and have the ability to detect when a wounded soldier needs 

treatment.

 In Los Angeles, CA, the Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute—the newest 

institute announced by the President in June 2016—will spur advances in smart sensors, 

smart products, and smart digital process controls that can work together to radically 

improve the efficiency of U.S. advanced manufacturing.

Forthcoming institutes include:

 Robotics in Manufacturing Environments Manufacturing Innovation Institute. In 

collaboration with the Department of Defense, this institute will focus on building U.S. 

leadership in smart collaborative robotics. Human collaboration with robots has the 

potential to change a broad swath of manufacturing sectors, from defense and space to 

automotive and health, enabling the reliable and efficient production of high-quality, 

customized products.

 Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Manufacturing Innovation Institute. In collaboration 

with the Department of Defense, the Institute will focus on next-generation 

manufacturing techniques for repairing and replacing cells and tissues. The Institute will 

focus on solving the cross-cutting manufacturing challenges that stand in the way of 

producing new synthetic tissues and organs. We expect collaborations across multiple 

disciplines; from 3D bio-printing, cell science, and process design, automated 

pharmaceutical screening methods to the supply chain expertise needed to rapidly 

produce and transport these live-saving materials.

 Modular Chemical Process Intensification (MCPI) Institute. In collaboration with the 

Department of Energy, the Institute will fundamentally redesign the process used for 

manufacturing chemicals, refining fuels, and producing other high-value products by 

combining many complex processing stages into one simple and streamlined step. 

Process intensification breakthroughs can dramatically shrink the footprint of equipment 

needed on a factory floor or eliminate waste by using the raw input materials more 

efficiently. 

 Reducing Embodied Energy and Decreasing Emissions (REMADE) in Materials

Manufacturing Institute. In collaboration with the Department of Energy, the Institute 

will focus on reducing the total lifetime use of energy in manufactured materials by 

developing new cradle-to-cradle technologies for the reuse, recycling, and 

remanufacturing of manmade materials. U.S. manufacturing consumes nearly a third of 

the nation’s total energy use annually, with much of that energy embodied in the physical 

products made in manufacturing. New technologies to better repurpose these materials 

could save U.S. manufacturers and the nation up to 1.6 quadrillion BTU of energy 

annually, equivalent to 280 million barrels of oil, or a month’s worth of that nation’s oil 

imports.
33

 Industry-proposed Institutes Competition. Leveraging authorities from legislation passed 

with broad bipartisan support in Congress, the Department of Commerce has launched 

the first “open topic” institute competition. This competition is open to any topic 

proposed by industry not already addressed by a manufacturing innovation institute. At 

least one institute will be awarded using FY2016 funds, and one or more will be awarded 

subject to the availability of additional funds. The open topic competition design allows 

industry to propose technology areas seen as critical by leading manufacturers to the 

competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing.
34

Appendix II: Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership – 24 Designated 

Communities

 First Round Designated Communities 

o Southwest Alabama, led by the University of South Alabama

o Southern California, led by the University of Southern California Center for 

Economic Development

o Northwest Georgia, led by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

o The Chicago metro region, led by the Cook County Bureau of Economic 

Development

o South Kansas, led by Wichita State University

o Greater Portland region in Maine, led by the Great Portland Council of 

Governments

o Southeastern Michigan, led by the Wayne County Economic Development 

Growth Engine

o The New York Finger Lakes region, led by the City of Rochester

o Southwestern Ohio Aerospace Region, led by the City of Cincinnati

o The Tennessee Valley, led by the University of Tennessee

o The Washington Puget Sound region, led by the Washington Department of 

Commerce

o The Milwaukee 7 region, led by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of 

Milwaukee

 Second Round Designated Communities

o The Greater Pittsburgh Metals Manufacturing Community led by Catalyst 

Connection in Pittsburgh, PA 

o The Alamo Manufacturing Partnership, led by the University of Texas at San 

Antonio in the San Antonio, TX metro area 

o The Louisiana Chemical Corridor led by Louisiana State University, stretching 

from New Orleans, LA to Baton Rouge, LA 

o The Madison Regional Economic Partnership (MadREP) in the Madison, WI 

region 

o The Made in the Mid-South Manufacturing Alliance led by the Greater Memphis 

Chamber spanning nine counties in surrounding Memphis, TN 

o The Greater Peoria Economic Development Council leading a five county region 

in central Illinois 

o The Minnesota Medical Manufacturing Partnership led by GREATER MSP in 

Minneapolis, MN

o The South Central Idaho region led by the Region IV Development Association in 

Twin Falls, ID 

o The Utah Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Initiative led by the University 

of Utah in the Wasatch Front region 

o The Pacific Northwest Partnership Region, led by Business Oregon in Oregon and 

Southwest Washington 
35

o The Connecticut Advanced Manufacturing Communities Region, a four county 

area centered on Hartford, Connecticut, is led by the State of Connecticut 

Department of Economic and Community Development 

o The Central Valley AgPlus Food and Beverage Manufacturing Consortium led by 

California State University in Fresno and the Sacramento Community