IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/95-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Matched Client And Census Data To Evaluate The Performance Of The Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Author

Listed:
  • Ron Jarmin

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for evaluating the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). The MEP is administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of its effort to improve the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing industries. As the name implies, the MEP is modelled after agricultural extension. Rather than farmers the MEP's target population is small and medium sized manufacturers, generally those with less than 500 employees. The MEP currently supports 44 manufacturing extension centers around the country. These centers provide technical and business assistance for manufacturers much as county extension agents do for farmers. The goal of evaluation is to see if MEP engagements lead to positive outcomes from the view of important MEP stakeholders (e.g., MEP clients, MEP centers, NIST, state and local governments and Congress). These outcomes are discussed in McGuckin and Redman (1995) and include: Process Outcomes (e.g., adoption of a new technology by a client); Intermediate Outcomes (e.g., reduction in the clients defect rate); Business Outcomes (e.g., survival and profits) and Policy Outcomes (increases in employment,wages and/or exports). The evaluation framework described in this paper has two components. The first component is an evaluation dataset which contains measures of many of the program outcomes listed above for both MEP clients and a representative control group of non- clients. This dataset will be constructed by linking MEP client records with plant level Census data housed at the Center for Economic Studies of the Census Bureau. The Census data provides measures of several outcome and control variables which are comparable across both plants and time. The Census data include observations for all manufacturing plants in the U.S. from which representative control groups can be constructed. The MEP client records provide data on the type and intensity of extension engagements. Linking these rich sources of information yields a comprehensive and powerful dataset for MEP evaluation. The second component is an evaluation methodology which exploits this rich dataset to make statistical inferences about the impact of MEP services, while carefully controlling for other influences. By using this methodology, we can address many of the shortcomings which plagued previous attempts to evaluate extension services. In addition to evaluation, the dataset described in this paper may be used to profile the characteristics of MEP clients and compare them to non-clients. The Census data contain the complete universe of manufacturing establishments in the U.S.

Suggested Citation

  • Ron Jarmin, 1995. "Using Matched Client And Census Data To Evaluate The Performance Of The Manufacturing Extension Partnership," Working Papers 95-7, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:95-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/1995/CES-WP-95-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert H Mcguckin & Thomas A Abbott Iii & Paul E Herrick & Leroy Norfolk, 1989. "Measuring The Trade Balance In Advanced Technology Products," Working Papers 89-1, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Edward Kokkelenberg & Sang Nguyen, 1989. "Modeling technical progress and total factor productivity: A plant level example," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 21-42, March.
    3. Donald Siegel & Frank R Lichtenberg, 1989. "Using Linked Census R&D-Lrd Data To Analyze The Effect Of R&D Investment On Total Factor Productivity Growth," Working Papers 89-2, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    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. Jensen, J Bradford & McGuckin, Robert H, 1997. "Firm Performance and Evolution: Empirical Regularities in the US Microdata," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 25-47.
    2. Ron Jarmin, 1996. "Measuring the Impact of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership," Working Papers 96-8, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Ronald S. Jarmin, 1999. "Evaluating the impact of manufacturing extension on productivity growth," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 99-119.
    4. Shapira, Philip & Youtie, Jan & Roessner, J. David, 1996. "Current practices in the evaluation of US industrial modernization programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 185-214, March.
    5. Bradford J Jensen & Ron Jarmin, 1997. "Measuring The Performance Of Government Technology Programs: Lessons From Manufacturing Extension," Working Papers 97-18, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    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. Douglas W Dwyer, 1995. "Whittling Away At Productivity Dispersion," Working Papers 95-5, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Amanda Driver & James Hodge, 2000. "Understanding the high tech sector in the Cape Metropolitan Region: a contribution to the development of a regional strategy for high tech industry," Working Papers 00037, University of Cape Town, Development Policy Research Unit.
    3. Nguyen, Sang V. & Kokkelenberg, Edward C., 1990. "Measuring Total Factor Productivity, Technical Change and the Rate of Returns to Research and Development," Working Papers 179215, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    4. Link, Albert N. & Paton, David & Siegel, Donald S., 2002. "An analysis of policy initiatives to promote strategic research partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1459-1466, December.
    5. Lall, Sanjaya, 1999. "India's Manufactured Exports: Comparative Structure and Prospects," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(10), pages 1769-1786, October.
    6. Sang V Nguyen & Robert H Mcguckin, 1988. "Public Use Microdata: Disclosure And Usefulness," Working Papers 88-3, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. Sanjaya Lall, "undated". "Turkish Performance in Exporting Manufactures: A Comparative Structural Analysis," QEH Working Papers qehwps47, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    8. Sang V Nguyen & Robert H Mcguckin & Arnold P Reznek, 1995. "The Impact Of Ownership Change On Employment, Wages, And Labor Productivity In U.S. Manufacturing 1977-87," Working Papers 95-8, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    9. Chandana Chakraborty & Romesh Diwan, 1989. "R&D and Components of Technical Change," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 365-371, Oct-Dec.
    10. Julie A. Silva, 2008. "International Trade and the Changing Demand for Skilled Workers in High‐Tech Manufacturing," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 225-251, June.
    11. Dunne, T. & Roberts, M., 1993. "The Long-Run Demand for Labor: Estimates from Census Establishment Data," Papers 10-93-8, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
    12. Lawrence Edwards & Phil Alves, 2006. "South Africa'S Export Performance: Determinants Of Export Supply," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 74(3), pages 473-500, September.
    13. Edward Feser, 2004. "A Flexible Test for Agglomeration Economies in Two U.S. Manufacturing Industries," Working Papers 04-14, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    14. Joe Mattey, 1993. "Evidence on IO Technology Assumptions From the Longitudinal Research Database," Working Papers 93-8, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    15. Feser, Edward J., 2001. "A flexible test for agglomeration economies in two US manufacturing industries," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-19, February.
    16. Albert N. Link & David Paton & Donald S. Siegel, 2005. "An econometric analysis of trends in research joint venture activity," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 149-158.
    17. Godin, Benoit, 2004. "The obsession for competitiveness and its impact on statistics: the construction of high-technology indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1217-1229, October.
    18. Lucia Foster & Cheryl Grim, 2010. "Characteristics of the Top R&D Performing Firms in the U.S.: Evidence from the Survey of Industrial R&D," Working Papers 10-33, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    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:cen:wpaper:95-7. 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: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    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.