IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v39y2014icp68-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying peer states to assess technology-based economic development

Author

Listed:
  • Schwarzkopf, David L.

Abstract

States often rely on 50-state “report cards” or indices to track their progress in technology-based economic development. Economic development agencies value these indices, published by independent consultancies, because they cut the costs of compiling data, compare states to one another and allow agencies to avoid charges of “cherry-picking” measures to serve their own purpose. The rankings of the states in these indices have appeal as they give policymakers and development agencies an idea of likely peer states and possible members of an aspirant group. Peers and aspirant groups provide a state with examples of alternative approaches to economic development, while allowing agencies to depict economic development activities in competitive terms for policymakers and legislators. Therefore, it is important that these comparisons be valid and, since the state's development policies affect the public, it is worthwhile for the citizenry to understand how agencies make these comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Schwarzkopf, David L., 2014. "Identifying peer states to assess technology-based economic development," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 68-76.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:68-76
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000487
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.08.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Godin, Benoit, 2003. "The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 679-691, April.
    2. Irwin Feller & George Gamota & William Valdez, 2003. "Developing science indicators for basic science offices within mission agencies," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 71-79, April.
    3. Louise Earl & Fred Gault (ed.), 2006. "National Innovation, Indicators and Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3774.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jincheng Jiang & Jinsong Chen & Wei Tu & Chisheng Wang, 2019. "A Novel Effective Indicator of Weighted Inter-City Human Mobility Networks to Estimate Economic Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Schwarzkopf, David L., 2019. "Persistent peers and the rhetoric of state economic competition," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 46-53.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tsao, J.Y. & Boyack, K.W. & Coltrin, M.E. & Turnley, J.G. & Gauster, W.B., 2008. "Galileo's stream: A framework for understanding knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 330-352, March.
    2. Ji Han & Jiabin Liu, 2018. "Urban Spatial Interaction Analysis Using Inter-City Transport Big Data: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Fred Gault, 2013. "Innovation indicators and measurement: challenges," Chapters, in: Fred Gault (ed.), Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, chapter 19, pages 441-464, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Fabian Muniesa & Dominique Linhardt, 2009. "At stake with implementation: trials of explicitness in the description of the state," Working Papers halshs-00362285, HAL.
    5. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    6. Chiara Franzoni & Christopher L. Simpkins & Baoli Li & Ashwin Ram, 2010. "Using content analysis to investigate the research paths chosen by scientists over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 321-335, April.
    7. Fred Gault (ed.), 2013. "Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14427.
    8. Francisco Moris & John Jankowski & Pierre Perrolle, 2008. "Advancing measures of innovation in the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 123-130, April.
    9. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    10. Gemici, Evrim & Gemici, Zafer, 2021. "A Comparative Study on Turkey’s Science and Technology (S&T) Indicators," OSF Preprints csyud, Center for Open Science.
    11. Alina R. Kadyrova, 2015. "Approaches to Statistical Measurement of Advanced Technologies: A Comparative Study," HSE Working papers WP BRP 38/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    12. Hamed Khatibi & Suzanne Wilkinson & Graham Eriwata & Lukuba N Sweya & Mostafa Baghersad & Heiman Dianat & Khaled Ghaedi & Ahad Javanmardi, 2022. "An integrated framework for assessment of smart city resilience," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(5), pages 1556-1577, June.
    13. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    14. Mendonca, Sandro & Pereira, Tiago Santos & Godinho, Manuel Mira, 2004. "Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1385-1404, November.
    15. Steiner, Bodo & Ali, Jolene, 2009. "Regional food clusters and government support for clustering: Evidence for a ‘dynamic food innovation cluster’ in Alberta, Canada?," MPRA Paper 26251, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Kourtit, Karima & Nijkamp, Peter, 2018. "Big data dashboards as smart decision support tools for i-cities – An experiment on stockholm," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 24-35.
    17. Valeria Papponetti & Massimiano Bucchi, 2007. "Research Evaluation as a Policy Design Tool: Mapping Approaches across a Set of Case Studies," Working Papers 2007.75, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Török, Ádám, 2009. "Társadalomtudományi tények és természettudományos módszerek [Social scientific facts and natural scientific techniques]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1067-1087.
    19. van Aswegen, Mariske & Retief, Francois Pieter, 2020. "The role of innovation and knowledge networks as a policy mechanism towards more resilient peripheral regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:68-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.