Federal Role in Support of 

Technology-based

Economic Development

Report of a Roundtable; December 4, 2000

This is a report of a roundtable discussion among state and local technology-based 

economic development policymakers and practitioners. The purpose of the roundtable, 

which was hosted at the Department of Commerce, was to discuss how the federal 

government might best assist state and community efforts to harness technology for 

economic growth. The views expressed are those of the roundtable participants, and 

do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Commerce. 

Prepared for the Office of Technology Policy,

Technology Administration, USDOC

 
ii

Contents

I. Background....................................................................... 1

II. The Federal Role in Technology-based Economic Development...... 4

III. State and Local Roles and Responsibilities................................. 9

IV. Summary and Recommendations............................................. 12

Appendix A. List of Roundtable Participants and Attendees.................... 14

Appendix B. Discussion Topics and Questions..................................... 15
iii

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Foreword

This report summarizes a roundtable discussion on the Federal Role in Technology-Based 

Economic Development, hosted at the Department of Commerce on December 4, 2000 by the 

Office of Technology Policy (OTP). With the assistance of the State Science and Technology 

Institute (SSTI), OTP invited individuals with experience working at the state or local level, or 

academic expertise to share their insights on how the federal government can most effectively 

complement state and local efforts. 

The roundtable discussion was designed to provide the Department with a variety of views on 

the federal government’s role in supporting technology-based economic development and on 

the appropriate balance of responsibilities between the federal government, its state and local 

counterparts, and the private sector. OTP's experience with the Experimental Program to 

Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT) indicates that federal actions are most effective 

when they serve as a catalyst for, or complement, state and local activities. 

OTP gained valuable insights from the discussion. The following report summarizes some of 

those insights and the discussion as it developed, and not in any particular order of priority or 

preference. The report is neither a consensus document, nor a conference proceeding, and does 

not necessarily reflect the views of the Department. However, the discussion and views 

expressed do provide valuable information on how the federal government might best assist 

states and communities to compete and win in the rapidly changing economy of the 21st 

century. The purpose of this publication is to share those insights with others who have an 

interest in the federal government's role vis-à-vis its state and local counterparts.
1

I. Background

The nature of the American economy has been transformed in the last six years with a 

heavier emphasis on knowledge and technology. This rapidly changing economy, fueled by 

the Internet and information technology, is evidenced by the rise of e-commerce, the dotcom boom, and the spectacular increase in investments in technology companies. The 

results are apparent: new industries created, widespread attention to the potential for 

enormous wealth creation, and existing companies racing to transform themselves to 

compete in this new environment.

While the rise and fall of twentysomething dot-com millionaires is now familiar to all, there 

can be no denying that in less than a decade the American economy has undergone an 

unparalleled transformation. Concomitant with this transformation has been a growing 

realization that its benefits have been fairly localized and concentrated with major 

metropolitan areas on the East and West Coasts the prime beneficiaries. But even in states 

like California that have benefited seemingly in a disproportionate fashion from the New 

Economy, there are vast areas being left behind; for example, unemployment in December, 

2000 was three to four times greater in some counties of the Central Valley—less than 100 

miles from Silicon Valley—than the state rate of 4.3 percent.

Because of the sea change occurring in the economy and the fear of being left behind, 

states and localities have been trying to move rapidly to position themselves to take 

advantage of the transformation. For example, state support for technology-based 

economic development has increased dramatically during the past two years. States with 

long-established programs, such as New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, have 

widened their portfolios of programs and increased their funding. New York alone 

appropriated $145 million for the New York State Office of Science, Technology, and 

Academic Research for FY2001, an increase of more than $100 million in just one year. 

States that have not made significant investments in the past, such as Kentucky and 

Michigan, have embarked on major new initiatives. In 2000, Kentucky passed a $53 

million Kentucky Innovation Act, and Michigan has committed $1 billion over 20 years to 

develop a life sciences corridor. 

State governments are funding research and development, investing in higher education, 

facilitating university-industry relationships, supporting technology commercialization, and 

investing in technology infrastructure. Increasing numbers of state governments are 

actively helping new and growing technology companies to improve worker skills and 

obtain financing and other support services.

Local governments and regional development organizations have also become active in 

promoting technology-based economic development. Indianapolis, New York City and St. 

Louis, for example, are in the process of implementing regional technology development 

strategies. The City of Chicago has undertaken a series of initiatives to promote 

technology development and to position Chicago as a leader in Information Technology. 

In addition, in some cities like San Diego, technology businesses have become the driving 

force in the region’s economic growth.
2

However, while many states, regions, and communities recognize the importance of 

technology in today’s economy and are making significant investments in technology-based 

economic development, others are unable or unwilling to make such investments. In some 

cases, lack of political support makes it difficult or impossible to fund technology-based 

economic development programs. Some state legislators from rural areas, for example, do 

not see how investments to support technology companies will benefit the agricultural and 

rural communities they represent. Other communities may recognize the need for 

investments in telecommunications infrastructure and education needed to support a 

technology-driven economy, but lack the tax base to make such investments. Many states 

with healthy, technology economies find that development is uneven with economic 

growth concentrated in a small number of metropolitan areas, and that some areas 

benefiting from the New Economy are experiencing the pains of expansion—congested 

highways, overpopulated public school systems, and other stresses on public services.

This imbalance is occurring at a time when countries as varied as Australia, India, and 

Ireland are making significant investments to building a technology-based economy. The 

European Union and several Asian countries are also investing billions of dollars. In the 

global economy, for the U.S. to continue to lead, it is in the national interest to have all 

regions and peoples participating in the changing economy. 

Historically, technology-based economic development has been seen as the responsibility 

of state and local governments with minimal involvement from the federal government. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce has historically administered several programs 

designed to promote economic growth through the development and use of technology. In 

addition, the Department has historically supported economic development in distressed 

areas through the Economic Development Administration.

The Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy is the only office in the 

federal government with the explicit mission of developing and advocating national 

policies that use technology to build America’s economic strength. The National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is responsible for advising 

the President on telecommunications issues and works to improve access to advanced 

telecommunications products and services. NTIA helps state and local governments 

promote widespread use of telecommunications technology.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has historically administered 

two programs that have provided direct support for technology development and 

deployment. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP), through partnerships with private 

sector, has provided funding for early-stage, high-risk research and development projects. 

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which has been funded jointly by the 

federal and state governments, has supported a nationwide network of centers located in 

every state that provide assistance to small and medium size manufacturers.

In 1998, Congress created the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology 

(EPSCoT). EPSCoT was created to improve the competitiveness of states and territories 

that have historically received less federal research and development funding. The 

program has provided matching grants to support technology development, deployment, 

and diffusion by promoting partnerships between state and local governments, universities, 
3

community colleges, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector. Through these 

partnerships, EPSCoT has supported state and local efforts to build statewide institutional 

capacity to support technology commercialization, create a business climate conducive to 

technology development, deployment and diffusion, and compete in federal R&D 

programs. The program made two rounds of awards in 1999. No new funding was 

provided for the program in FY 2001, pending an evaluation.

Given the regional and demographic disparity in the benefits accruing from the changing 

economy, the increasing involvement of state and local governments in technology-based 

economic development, and the Department of Commerce’s interest in promoting 

economic growth, particularly in disadvantaged or distressed communities, the Office of 

Technology Policy held a roundtable discussion on the "Federal Role in Technology-Based 

Economic Development" on December 4, 2000. The discussion was designed to provide 

input to OTP on what role the federal government, in general, and OTP, in particular, 

could most effectively play in technology-based economic development.

With assistance from the State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI), state and local 

technology-based economic development policymakers and practitioners were invited to 

participate in the roundtable discussion. Eighteen state and local officials representing 

thirteen states participated in the discussion. Participants were selected to reflect a wide 

range of point of views— state officials, local policymakers, academic researchers, those 

that have benefited from the changing economy, and others that are trying to extend the 

benefits to their region. A list of roundtable participants can be found in Appendix A. 

This paper summarizes the discussion at the roundtable.
4

II. The Federal Role in Technology-based Economic Development

Given the general environment described above and their personal experiences, roundtable 

participants were asked to consider several questions concerning the federal role in 

technology-based economic development. In particular, what is the appropriate federal 

role, and beyond providing funds, what should the federal role include? There was strong 

consensus among the roundtable participants that the federal government has a critical role 

to play in supporting technology-based economic development. The participants suggested 

a variety of roles for the federal government that can be broken into four broad categories. 

The categories and specific roles are described below. The order in which they are 

presented should not be taken as an indication of their relative importance. The list of 

questions and discussion topics that the roundtable participants discussed is available in 

Appendix B.

• Serving as the primary public funder of research and development

Setting the national agenda and serving as a primary funder of research and development. 

Above all else, roundtable participants considered the federal government’s primary 

role in supporting technology-based economic development to be the federal 

government’s support for research and development. The innovation process that 

is driving the economy flows directly from the support the federal government 

provides for R&D—whether through the National Science Foundation, the 

National Institutes of Health or other agencies and laboratories. For innovation 

and technology-based economic development to occur, new knowledge must 

continue to be generated and this will flow out of the R&D the federal government 

helps fund.

• Bolstering capacity for building technology-based economies

Sponsoring pilot projects and disseminating data identifying “best practices.” The 

participants suggested that the federal government could play an important role in 

developing new approaches and innovative practices in technology-based economic 

development by providing support for pilot projects and by disseminating 

information on “best practices.” Participants suggested the federal government 

could track technology-based economic development activities underway across 

the country and provide funding to evaluate alternative approaches that are being 

used. The resulting information could then be shared with state and local officials 

enabling them to make better-informed decisions.

Helping build capacity in universities and state, regional, and local economic development 

organizations to undertake technology-based economic development programs. The participants 

acknowledged that while support for technology- based economic development has 

been growing steadily at the state and local level, there are states and regions that 

are not investing in the elements needed to support a knowledge-based economy. 

The federal government can use its resources to encourage such states and regions 

to increase their investments in higher education and technology-based economic 

development. Without federal involvement, there seems to be a high likelihood 
5

that the current disparity among regions of the country will only continue to get 

worse.

Providing matching funds for technology-based economic development initiatives. While 

economic development occurs at the local level and states and regional 

organizations are in a better position to identify and address local needs, the 

participants suggested that the federal government should provide direct support 

for technology-based economic development initiatives, in part, in order to 

encourage more state and local investment in these activities. Participants pointed 

to the regions that were being left behind and those that lacked the resources on 

their own to address the issue as prime reasons for the federal government to 

provide matching funds.

• Participating in or facilitating the creation of partnerships

Encouraging innovative partnerships of industry, government, and universities. In today’s 

economy, collaborative partnerships between industry, universities and government 

are required to succeed in growing healthy technology-based economies. The 

federal government can serve as a catalyst using existing programs to encourage 

such partnerships at the state and local level. 

Encouraging multi-state cooperation. The roundtable participants acknowledged that 

economic markets often cross state and local boundaries and more technologybased economic development efforts need to be regional in scope even if that 

means crossing political boundaries. But at the same time, participants pointed out 

that it is politically difficult to build support for and organize efforts that involve 

multiple political jurisdictions. It was suggested that the federal government could 

use its programs and offer incentives to encourage multi-state cooperation.

Working with state governments to address regional disparities. Traditionally, the federal 

government has provided assistance to economically distressed areas. Several of 

the participants indicated that while there may be booming technology regions in 

their state, other areas do not seem to be sharing in the technology-based growth 

that is occurring. The participants indicated that the federal government, working 

through and with state governments, should seek to help lesser-developed areas 

become more competitive in the new economy.

Acknowledging the role of state, county, and municipal governments as vital intermediaries. 

While recognizing that the federal government has an important role to play in 

technology-based economic development, the roundtable participants also 

suggested that federal policy makers should acknowledge the vital role that state, 

county, and municipal governments play as intermediaries to entrepreneurs and 

companies. Officials at these levels (and those of regional economic development 

organizations) are aware of local economic and political conditions at a level of 

detail that federal statistics cannot match. They have helpful links to business—

including small business. Successful federal programs must exploit their knowledge 

and their networks.
6

• Utilizing existing resources of the federal government in ways that would 

provide assistance to state and local government

Providing scientific and technical expertise. Several participants suggested that the 

federal government could play a valuable role by lending the scientific and 

technical expertise resident in some of the agencies and laboratories to the aid of 

state and regional development organizations. Policymakers and practitioners are 

confronted with a wide range of areas they can invest in, but often lack the 

technical expertise to judge which projects are most deserving of funding. The 

participants felt that federal assistance in this area could help them determine 

where limited resources should be invested.

Improving access to federal laboratories. Several roundtable participants suggested that 

significant benefits could be derived through improved access to federal 

laboratories. While the high quality of the work performed by the labs was 

acknowledged, there was general consensus that it was difficult to take advantage 

of the full resources they offered. Participants felt that efforts should be made to 

streamline access to laboratories, including improving the availability of 

information on research programs underway at the labs. 

Collecting and disseminating economic data. The roundtable participants indicated a 

need for much better economic data, particularly at the firm level, to be able to 

make informed policy decisions. Participants suggested that more work needs to 

be done on identifying appropriate measures of innovation and collecting data that 

better reflects the realities of the new economy. Several participants commented 

on the challenges of defining technology companies and the delay in publication of 

economic data in an economy that is changing so rapidly.1

Guiding Principles

With these roles in mind, participants at the roundtable identified several guiding principles 

for federal programs that hope to bring real change:

ß Recognize the diversity of states and regions. Each state and region faces its own 

particular combination of development issues, and each has its own tools for 

addressing these issues. Generalized solutions are not likely to succeed. 

 

1

 There is no consensus definition of “high technology” or “technology-intensive industry.” States, 

localities, academic researchers, and associations have all developed their own definitions of what 

industries are considered high technology. A definition published in Monthly Labor Review in June, 1999 

is used by a number of organizations. The industries that are identified as fitting the definition are selected 

by standard industrial classification (SIC) code, which is in the process of being replaced by the North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS); consequently, a new list of “high technology” industries 

will have to be created with the NAICS codes. Further complicating matters is that the availability of 

detailed economic data lags significantly behind when the activity occurred. For example, as this report is

being prepared in March, 2001, the most current County Business Patterns data, which provide detailed 

information on state and local economies, that are available on the web is from 1998.
7

Federal officials need to have an understanding of the unique political, 

historical, and economic backgrounds of the states and regions with which they 

will be working.

ß Be flexible. Programs should be creative in meeting local needs. Federal 

officials should try to meet state and local authorities halfway in selecting 

problems to address and in carrying out the programs themselves. Undue 

administrative rigidity, for example, is counterproductive. 

ß Balance programs across a range of local needs. To be effective, programs must look 

broadly at the economic issues they are attempting to address. A balanced 

portfolio of programs (for example, addressing both urban and rural needs or 

emerging and traditional industries) will be most effective. 

ß Involve states in policy making. State governments should be involved routinely in 

developing science and technology programs at the federal level as they were in 

the design of the EPSCoT program and have been in the implementation of the 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Many states have developed 

sophisticated research and technology programs of their own. Meshing these 

programs with federal initiatives can produce important synergies, and the 

resulting efficiencies would be beneficial for the nation. For federal science and 

technology programs that focus explicitly on economic benefits, states and 

localities are vital participants.

A challenge that federal program managers face when involving states in policy 

making is the unique challenge of working with 50 states and the varying points 

of view that are expressed among state representatives. Even determining who 

represents the state can sometimes be difficult. However, several federal 

programs have been able to successfully negotiate these obstacles.

ß Set high standards and impose accountability. Federal investments made in 

cooperation with those of states and localities should be accompanied by 

measures to help them maintain and improve their performance. The federal 

emphasis on strategic planning and measurable results as part of the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 has given federal agencies 

the tools to set high standards for themselves and—more important—to 

measure their progress toward meeting them. These same planning tools are 

required by the law in federal programs that cooperate with lower levels of 

government. Federal programs should be designed with realistic but 

challenging standards of performance and outcomes. State and local partners 

should be helped, where necessary, to use these tools. Strong incentives should 

be applied for both compliance and performance.

ß Require states to commit matching resources. States wishing to participate in federalstate partnerships to generate technology-based economic growth should be 

expected to contribute significant resources of their own. These contributions 

are important signals of good faith, and help ensure that the states involved will 

follow-through in meeting the goals of the program. 
8

ß Leverage state and local activities. Federal programs should seek, wherever 

appropriate, to build on the existing programs of state and local organizations. 

Occasionally, through a lack of awareness of local activities, federal 

policymakers end up duplicating or ignoring these initiatives. This observation 

underscores the importance of bringing state officials into the policy 

development process.

ß Use state government as a clearinghouse for federal programs active in their states. 

Roundtable participants that came from state government or statewide 

organizations indicated that federal programs which work directly with local 

governments or nonprofit organizations may inadvertently support efforts that 

are duplicative of or even at odds with state policies and strategies. The state 

participants felt strongly that a mechanism should be established for informing 

state officials before any direct assistance is provided to development 

organizations within the state. It was suggested that this could involve 

requiring a sign off or letter of support from the Governor’s office. One 

participant suggested that NIH’s COBRA program might offer a model 

approach. Some of the roundtable participants that came from local 

organizations, however, disagreed with the state representatives and cautioned 

that this approach could be a problem in some states and should not necessarily 

be applied uniformly.

ß Federal programs to assist distressed or disadvantaged areas should be targeted by region 

rather than by state. Roundtable participants were asked to consider whether 

programs to address regional disparities should be targeted to states that are 

underrepresented in technology-based economies or should be made available 

to assist distressed communities in any state. There was strong consensus that 

such programs should be made available to distressed or disadvantaged areas in 

any state.
9

III. State and Local Roles and Responsibilities

The roundtable participants suggested that state and local government have important 

natural advantages that can be leveraged by the federal government in supporting 

technology-based economic development. State and local organizations tend to be more 

flexible in their choices of policy instruments. They are often quicker to react to emerging 

opportunities. They have more direct access to academic institutions and the private 

sector, and fewer ideological objections to cooperating with the private sector. They are 

particularly attuned to small businesses.

At the same time, many state and local governments do not make the most of these 

advantages. 

State Responsibilities

Roundtable participants identified several activities that states should do to work 

effectively with the federal government in promoting technology-based economic 

development. These items as described below can be broken into three broad categories:

• Bolster capacity for building technology-based economies

Demonstrate a commitment to technology-based economic growth. This commitment would 

be demonstrated, in part, by investing strategically in the fundamentals of 

education at all levels, in academic research programs of interest to the state’s most 

promising business clusters, and in technology development and commercialization.

Develop and implement a strategy for expanding its technology-based economy. The strategy 

should be based on data gathered on, among other things, science and technology 

resources in the state, economic and population patterns, economic development 

programs already in place, and sources of finance. The strategy should also 

evaluate local conditions, needs, and activities, including the political 

constituencies, activities of local government, and the needs of business small and 

large.

Develop an evaluation process to measure the outcomes of its programs. The process should 

be based, in part, on the tools of strategic planning. 

• Participate in or facilitate the creation of partnerships

Demonstrate the ability to promote cooperation among stakeholders in the state. Successful 

efforts to build technology-based economies have involved strong public-private 

partnerships of all stakeholders. These stakeholders include businesses, academic 

institutions, and local government. States lacking cooperation among the key 

stakeholders will likely find themselves at a disadvantage when competing against 

others.
10

Proactively form consortia of universities, companies, and other sources and users of technology. 

Not only will these consortia give the state a foundation for technology-based 

growth, but also an edge in participating in federal initiatives.

Commit to sharing information. State policy makers benefit from the experiences of 

their peers in other states and should commit to sharing information on their 

programs and approaches with those peers and with relevant federal agencies 

• Utilize existing resources

Marshal the necessary science and technology resources. States should recognize that to be 

successful they should draw in existing science and technology resources, not only 

from within the state, but also from the surrounding region, the nation, and the 

world.

Work to understand the federal system and processes. Recognizing that the federal 

government has a myriad of resources including federal laboratories that can be 

utilized, states should endeavor to understand the resources that are available.

Local Responsibilities

Local governments often play a critical role in the hands-on work of economic 

development. Roundtable participants identified several responsibilities for local 

governments that focused on two areas: working in partnership with others and 

implementing strategies. The responsibilities include:

• Working in partnership with others

Integrate activities with those of other localities and the state and avoid duplication of effort. 

With increased efforts across the country by local governments to build technologybased economies and limited resources at all levels of government, local policy 

makers should ensure that their efforts are integrated with the activities of others. 

Taxpayers should not be expected to bear the cost of duplicative efforts that could 

be avoided through cooperation.

Identify promising industry clusters. With a strong knowledge of their economy, local 

officials are in a strong position to work with state government to identify 

promising industry clusters that can serve as a focal point of effort. Local officials 

can collect and organize detailed economic data at the firm level.

• Implementing strategies

Deliver high-quality services. A primary area of responsibility on the local level is 

ensuring that whatever services are delivered are of high-quality. 
11

Build local capacity. Local policymakers can build capacity by investing in the areas 

of education, workforce training, business development, and sources of financing 

for companies.

Working with Multi-State Regions 

Regional approaches (i.e., those crossing state borders) have pros and cons. (An example 

of such a region might be Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, or the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed.) Among the advantages of regional programs is that a region may reflect the 

reality of the marketplace, in terms of both private sector activities and economic 

conditions. Programs that focus on regions allow services to be delivered where they are 

most needed, and they can make it easier to share information among the states involved.

On the other hand, dealing with multiple jurisdictions is complicated politically, and the 

governing bodies of such programs are often cumbersome. For similar reasons, service 

delivery is more difficult in such programs, since they must engage more than one state. 

Finally, multi-state regions can be at a competitive disadvantage in applying for and 

administering programs (for example, in competing for grants, regions—unlike states—

generally do not have the necessary personnel and other resources to prepare proposals and 

other development activities). 

Given these difficulties, federal officials should consider what additional flexibility or 

incentives could be built into programs to encourage submissions from multi-state regions. 

In today’s economy, collaborative partnerships are required to grow healthy technologybased economies; in the private sector, these partnerships do not end at state boundaries 

and government initiatives should reflect that reality. At a minimum, federal officials 

should have the flexibility in their programs to encourage multi-state cooperation, 

particularly in response to local officials that believe that approach will work best for their 

region.
12

IV. Summary and Recommendations

The participants in the roundtable agreed on several broad conclusions about the federal 

role in promoting technology-based economic development:

ß A fundamental federal role in technology-based economic development exists. The federal 

government, working in partnership with states and localities, has a 

fundamental role to play in promoting technology-based economic 

development. This role derives from (a) the traditional federal support of 

research and development; (b) the various economic development programs 

that the federal government has evolved over the past half century; and (c) the 

growing awareness of the power of new applications of technology to promote 

economic growth.

Additionally, participants concluded that the federal government needed to 

have a role in technology-based economic development to ensure the economic 

vitality of the nation. While the U.S. economy is the envy of the world, the 

European Union and several Asian countries are investing significant sums in 

their research infrastructure and programs to strengthen the competitiveness of 

their companies. These efforts have the potential to threaten the U.S.’s current 

competitive advantage. 

To a large extent, economic development has been left to the purview of the 

states and local government, but one consequence is that economic benefits 

have been spread unevenly. While it can be argued that states and localities 

should be making greater investments, some states and localities lack the 

resources to do more. Others would be prompted to act, which would benefit 

the nation as a whole, with incentives from the federal government.

ß The scope of federal activities should be relatively broad. The federal role includes—in 

addition to setting the national agenda and funding research—supporting the 

development and dissemination of “best practices,” collecting and 

disseminating economic data, providing funding to encourage states to invest in 

technology-based development in general (and specifically to benefit 

disadvantaged areas), and encouraging multi-state collaboration. 

Recommended Actions

Participants suggested that, in addition to following the guiding principles outlined earlier, 

the federal government should take several actions. The order in which the actions are 

listed below does not indicate their relative priority; participants were not asked to indicate 

which actions they believed were the most important.

ß Convene a meeting of representatives of the federal government agencies 

responsible for collecting and disseminating economic data and state 

officials to discuss data needs and the development of new measures of 

innovation. A number of states have recently developed state-level technology 
13

indicator reports; representatives of these states should be convened to discuss 

data needs at the state and local level. 

ß Support a challenge grant program that encourages innovation. The 

participants suggested that the federal government has a role to play in 

encouraging states and communities to invest in the elements needed to 

support a technology-based economy. There was a consensus among the 

participants that one means of achieving this was by providing matching grants 

to federal funding for technology-based economic development initiatives. In 

addition to state and local officials, private sector representatives should be 

engaged in designing such an initiative.

ß Investigate potential new models for supporting technology-based 

economic development. One roundtable participant suggested the possibility 

of creating a national, quasi-public corporation to fund technology-based 

economic development activities. The roundtable participants agreed that 

alternative mechanisms for providing support for state and local technologybased economic development should be considered.
14

Appendix A. List of Roundtable Participants and Attendees

Participants:

Rob Atkinson

Progressive Policy Institute

Chris Busch

Lee Cheatham

Washington Technology Center

Jim Clinton

Southern Growth Policies Board

Judi Dohn

Henderson (NV) Chamber of Commerce

Dennis Herringshaw

Louisiana Board of Regents

Gordon Kingsley

Georgia Institute of Technology

Maxine Lunn

Virginia’s Center for Innovative 

Technology

Ram Narayanan

University of Nebraska- Lincoln

Cliff Numark

San Diego Regional Technology Alliance

Joe Raguso

California Trade and Commerce Agency

Catherine Renault

UNC- Office of Economic Development

Joel Russ

Maine Science and Technology 

Foundation

Phillip Singerman

Maryland Technology Development 

Corp.

Dan St. Louis

Hosiery Technology Center of North 

Carolina

Sheri Stickley

Oklahoma Center for the Advancement 

of Science and Technology

Charles Weir

Institute for Technology Development

Moderator:

Dan Berglund

State Science and Technology Institute

Attendees:

Dr. Cheryl Shavers

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Technology

Kelly Carnes

Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy

Robert Maher

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Technology Policy

Jon Paugh

Director, Office of Technology 

Competitiveness

Anita Balachandra

Technology Policy Analyst

Doug Devereaux

Technology Policy Analyst
15

Appendix B. Discussion Topics and Questions

Currently, some states are pouring millions of dollars into improving their science and technology 

capabilities (e.g., New York has appropriated $145 million for the New York State Office of 

Science, Technology, and Academic Research; Michigan has allocated $1 billion over 20 years to 

develop a life sciences corridor), while other states are investing little to build a tech-based 

economy (e.g., Wyoming has significantly limited its activities). At the same time, as evidenced 

through new programs and strategic planning activity occurring in St. Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis, 

and New York City, more localities are trying to build tech-based economies. Finally, there are 

indications of a growing divide within states of areas that are benefiting from the New Economy 

and those that are being left behind.

Given this background, please be prepared to discuss the following questions: 

· what is the appropriate federal role in technology-based economic development? 

· ideally, what should it include beyond providing funds? 

· what do different models tell us about the appropriate balance of responsibilities between

federal, state and local government entities?

· should federal efforts be focused on states that need the most help or on regions that need

the most help?

· are the most effective efforts those that are narrowly focused (either by topic or 

geography)?

· where are federal efforts likely to have the greatest impact?

Regional Focus 

Regional economies do not fit neatly within state lines, and emerging clusters are often 

concentrated in specific metropolitan areas. There are an increasing number of actors in 

technology-based economic development with more local governments creating programs and an 

increasing number of non-profit and for-profit initiatives outside of state and local government 

starting operations. However, the federal government has a mixed record of balancing 

relationships between state, local, and non-governmental organizations.

Given this background, please be prepared to discuss the following questions:

· what are the advantages and disadvantages of models that provide funding to sub-state

 regions? 

· can or should the federal government complement statewide efforts by focusing on

underserved areas? 

· what are the advantages and disadvantages of models that use multi-state regions? 

· should the federal government provide incentives to states to work together?