THE INNOVATION IMPERATIVE

The twenty-first century is witness to fundamental changes in the world's economies. Knowledge-based economic activity is recognized worldwide as the basis for sustained growth. The prosperity of individual regions is based increasingly on their relative success in attracting and retaining knowledge-based activities and assets and utilizing them for economic development. At the same time, the globalization of trade and investment as well as advances in communications and transportation has created an increasingly integrated global market. Reflecting the growing mobility of capital and labor, states and regions are increasingly vulnerable to companies, industries and jobs moving to other parts of the U.S. or to foreign countries that offer a skilled and flexible workforce, often at lower cost, and greater incentives for investment. The nation's states and regions therefore face an imperative to foster innovation and start, grow, and retain innovative firms if they are to sustain and augment their standard of living and ensure their long run economic well-being.¹

In his conference remarks, Richard Bendis, of Innovation America, outlined the key issues for building knowledge and innovation-based economies. He defined innovation as “the creation and transformation of knowledge into new products, processes and services that meet market needs.” Knowledge economies are “based on creating, evaluating and trading knowledge.” Bendis observed that the public, academic and private sectors each have essential roles in innovation. Academia must focus on the creation, integration and transfer of knowledge itself. Industry must use that knowledge to create wealth in the form of commercial products, processes and services. Governments must develop policies to encourage innovation, engage in long-term vision and planning, invest in under-supported areas, and participate in public-private partnerships with industry.³

He added that technology clusters, which facilitate innovation through physical proximity and the close interaction of many actors from different sectors, serve as catalysts for innovation and the creation of start-ups. While Silicon Valley, Route 128 in Boston and Research Triangle Park in North Carolina are widely cited as examples of successful technology clusters, growing successful clusters by stimulating the development, commercialization and financing of technology-based firms is a significant challenge.⁴ In this regard, Bendis stressed the role of “innovation intermediaries” to coordinate local technologies, assets and resources to advance innovation in a jurisdiction.⁵

Bendis further observed that successful development of economic activity within a region requires a “three-legged stool.” First, the region must attract companies from other regions; second, it must retain companies that are already present; and third, it must create new companies. Creating new companies is both the most important element and the one that is most difficult to achieve. It is important because small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are a major source of innovation and new jobs.⁶ However, as Jeff Johnson, CEO and President of ClearPointe Technology, a managed service provider based in Little Rock, noted at the conference, “very few new firms have adequate cash to get a new business through the first year, and we were no exception.”⁷ The result, according to Bendis, is that most start-ups with new ideas do not move to the commercialization stage – at present of 150-200 small firms that develop business plans, only about 10 draw the interest of venture capitalists, and only one is actually funded. Most small firms that need financial backing are in the proof-of-concept, start-up or seed capital phases, and typically need $500,000 to $2 million for the development of prototypes.⁸ This need is not being met; seed stage investments by the U.S. venture capital industry declined by 48 percent in 2011 to $919 million, or 3 percent of all venture capital investment.⁹ In effect, venture investment is moving downstream, away from risk, a phenomenon that is acting as a drag on start-ups in Arkansas and elsewhere.

Responding to this innovation imperative, governments around the world have implemented a variety of policies and programs designed to promote innovation-based economic growth.¹⁰ Many of these efforts emulate U.S. public-private initiatives that are widely seen as successful. Indeed, the United States has a long tradition in public-private partnerships, beginning with a 1798 government grant to Eli Whitney to produce muskets with interchangeable parts, and continuing through government support for development of the telegraph, the airplane, jet aircraft, semiconductors, computers, nuclear energy and satellites.¹¹

As we see next, Arkansas' recent economic and technological development efforts are a part of this long national tradition in cooperation and pragmatism in fostering economic growth and addressing common missions.

BACKGROUND: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN ARKANSAS, 1955-2012

For most of its history, farming and forestry dominated Arkansas' economy. During the mid-20^th century, sharecroppers and poor migrant laborers were displaced by agricultural automation. While many migrated, others stayed, making up the state's pool of low cost surplus labor. In 1950, Arkansas' per capita income was 56 percent of the national average, and its population was declining. In 1955, the state legislature established the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission (AIDC) with a mandate to promote industrial development. Under the leadership of its first chairman, Winthrop Rockefeller, the AIDC began to court out-of-state businesses aggressively.¹² The result was an influx of manufacturers seeking low wage labor and cheap land. Between 1955 and 1960 Arkansas added over 51,000 jobs.¹³ In 1997, AIDC was renamed the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) to reflect a broader emphasis on developing service and high technology industries in the state.

By the 1970s the “smokestack” industries that had located in Arkansas during the preceding decades came under international competitive pressure and began to move offshore. The percentage of manufacturing employment in the state began a long decline, from 32 percent in 1975 to 17 percent by 2005. Per capita income rose through the 1960s and 1970s, but leveled off in 1978 at about 77 percent of the national average where it has “refused to budge despite the best efforts of economic developers in the state.”¹⁴ Arkansas' unemployment rate, which stood at 5.0 percent in 1970, nearly doubled to 9.5 percent in 1975. Unemployment peaked at 9.7 percent in 1983 and remained above seven percent through the entire decade of the 1980s.¹⁵ In 1979, the AEDC released a report that warned that the state's future economic growth was limited by a strategy that sought to recruit firms that provided labor-intensive, low skill, minimum wage jobs to Arkansans.¹⁶

During the 1980s the state took a number of steps to counteract the loss of businesses and jobs. Two new development agencies were established: The Arkansas Science & Technology Authority (ASTA) was tasked with promoting innovation, scientific research, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education.¹⁷ The Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) was established to provide tax-exempt bonds to finance businesses and education.¹⁸

Despite difficult economic circumstances, Arkansas has spawned a significant number of world-class companies.¹⁹ Wal-Mart, which began with one retail outlet in Rogers, Arkansas, in 1962, became the nation's largest retailer in 1991.²⁰ J.B. Hunt, founded in 1961 in Lowell, Arkansas with five trucks and seven refrigerated trailers, became the largest US trucking company by the early 1990s. Tyson Foods, based in Springdale, Arkansas, and which originally consisted of a farmer driving a single truck to deliver chickens to Chicago, became the largest U.S. processor of poultry and the world's second largest processor of chicken, beef and pork. Murphy Oil Corporation, based in El Dorado, Arkansas, operates onshore and offshore oil and natural gas drilling operations globally, and in 2008 ranked 134^th on the Fortune 500 list.²¹ Other major companies with origins in the state include Riceland, Stephens Inc., Dillard's, Alltel and Acxiom. While most of these companies are not regarded as technology-intensive firms, many of them have applied technology in their business processes with dramatic and in some cases revolutionary impact.²² Arkansas' location in the center of the North American market, reinforced by a strong rail, highway and river-based transportation network, (see Figure 2) has proven a major advantage with respect to attracting and holding some traditional industries.²³ Some local manufacturers have found that Arkansas' location lowers transportation costs and thus makes them cost-competitive with products made in China.²⁴ It is becoming evident that Arkansas enjoys geographic advantages with respect to some technology-intensive activities. Companies such as Nordex USA, LM Glasfiber and Mitsubishi Power System Americas, makers of sophisticated wind power equipment, have all cited the state's location as a key factor in their decision to locate major manufacturing facilities there.²⁵ These traditional advantages, however, may not prove sufficient to address the competitive challenges of the 21^st century.

FIGURE 2

Map of the State of Arkansas. Source: U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

The Battelle Study

In 2007, the Arkansas General Assembly, implementing Accelerating Arkansas' core strategy of “support jobs-creating research, approved funding to support the establishment of the Arkansas Research Alliance (ARA),⁴⁴ a public-private partnership which seeks to foster university-based job-creating research. ARA sponsored a study by the Battelle Technology Partnership.⁴⁵ The study identified 18 “core competencies” in the state as well as 12 “niche competencies,” winnowing those down to nine “strategic focus areas” – multidisciplinary fields of research likely to enable Arkansas to engage multiple institutions and leapfrog traditional universities with strengths in narrow academic fields.⁴⁶ Table 2 details the focus areas.

TABLE 2

Arkansas' Nine Strategic Focus Areas.

The Battelle study offered the ARA a “crucial roadmap” to use in recruiting talent into the state and into the core focus areas, and that the ARA would use it as its “investment roadmap going forward.”⁴⁷

INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE INNOVATION IN ARKANSAS

The Arkansas Strategic Plan summarized the work of the various task forces and consulting firms that have analyzed and made recommendations on the state's economic growth. It noted that “unfortunately, many of the recommendations contained with these early reports were never fully implemented. As a result, numerous problems identified as early as 1964 still remain today.”⁴⁸ Currently, however, there are a number of state, local and federal initiatives under way to address issues of concern raised by the Milken study and other reports released over the past decade.

CHALLENGES

Despite substantial progress in the development of a knowledge-based economy, a number of speakers pointed out that Arkansas confronts key challenges in developing a cadre of educated, skilled labor, in providing adequate venture capital for start-ups, and in securing more federal research funding. Several speakers at the conference drew attention to these challenges.

Building Human Capital

Arkansas' labor force has won frequent praise for its work ethic, and a number of major manufacturers who have chosen to locate in the state have cited the motivation of the work force as an important factor for locating there.⁶⁴ However, with an increasing need for highly educated and skilled workers, Arkansas has found that it trails other states and regions in most indices for assessing skilled human capital. In 2006, the state ranked last among the 50 states in percent of adults with college degrees. A number of executives from technology-intensive companies noted at the conference that this shortage of talent in the state requires them to establish costly training programs when they established businesses there.⁶⁵ Their remarks echo a 2006-07 survey of Arkansas business leaders where 76 percent of those surveyed said that more than half of job applicants who recently graduated from high school lacked basic math and writing skills.⁶⁶

The Arkansas Task Force on Higher Education Remediation, Retention and Graduation Rates was formed pursuant to legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2007 to study the state's education system with an eye toward increasing the percentage of citizens with bachelor's degrees. At that time, the percent of adults in Arkansas holding bachelors' degrees was 22.3 percent – well below the average for the 16-state Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). While Arkansas exceeded many Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states in the number of high school graduates entering college, a greater percentage of those entering college failed to complete bachelors' degree programs.⁶⁷

Reforming of the Public Schools

Governor Beebe and other conference speakers listed the steps that the state is taking to improve PreK-12 education. Previously, only two counties in the state produced college entering populations with the percentage of students requiring remedial math lower than 25 percent. At the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, the percentage of entering freshmen in 2007 requiring remedial courses was 75.5 percent for English, 84.9 percent for math, and 73.6 percent for reading.⁶⁸ A 2006-07 survey of Arkansas college professors on the overall academic quality of the Arkansas public high schools in preparing students for college found that over half gave the public schools grades of D (50.2 percent) or F (9.6 percent).⁶⁹

A decade ago, the shortcomings in the state's PreK-12 educational system were sufficiently severe that the Arkansas courts declared the state's system of school funding to be “inadequate under … The Arkansas Constitution.” The Chancery Court stated that “Too many of our children are leaving school for a life of deprivation, burdening our culture with the corrosive effects of citizens who lack the education to contribute.” The court declared that under the state's constitution, financing must be based on the amount of funding required to provide an “adequate educational system,” and ordered a cost study.⁷⁰ The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision in 2002. The net result of the Lake View decision was a substantial increase in state funding for operations and facilities in elementary and secondary schools as well as overhaul of the curriculum, increased teachers' salaries and increased requirements for accountability from school districts. By the time of the Education Task Force's report, these reforms were beginning to have positive effects.⁷¹ As Governor Beebe noted at in his keynote speech at the conference, Arkansas is now winning accolades for levels of per-pupil funding, test scores, transparency, accountability, standards, and increase in advanced placement students.⁷²

The Arkansas Science Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Coalition is a statewide partnership of leaders from the business, government, education and community sectors to develop and implement policies to improve STEM teaching and learning. In his conference presentation, Michael Gealt of the Arkansas STEM Coalition noted that his organization is concerned with all levels of education from pre-K onward, and functions both as a think tank for ideas for improving STEM education and as a lobbying organization seeking public policies to improve STEM education. Among other initiatives, the coalition has secured funding for 27 elementary school science specialists, sought state grants to STEM teachers to increase their income, established a web portal for STEM lesson plans, and advocated differential pay for STEM teachers.⁷³

Training and Retaining University Graduates

Arkansas has 11 four-year institutions of higher learning, two of which have research as a fundamental part of their missions, the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.⁷⁴ Major public and private commitments have been undertaken to improve the quality of these institutions, efforts that are being reflected in a succession of national research awards and individual faculty and student achievements. In addition, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock is now classified as a Research University with high research activity, and Arkansas State University at Jonesboro is classified as a Doctoral Research University. These four constitute the “Research Universities” of Arkansas.⁷⁵

The fact that Arkansas currently ranks 50^th in the U.S. in the percentage of adults with a college degree is not necessarily an indication of the failure of the state's universities; the problem is one of an out-migration of graduates. The 2009 Battelle study found that Arkansas' university system increased the number of graduates from 12,153 in 2001 to 15,262 in 2007, a growth of nearly 26 percent. Graduates in fields related to science, math and engineering grew from 3,548 in 2001 to 4,341 in 2007, an increase of 22 percent. Most significantly, the number of doctorate degrees in science, math and engineering from Arkansas doubled during the same period, from 65 doctoral degrees to 130, a growth rate nearly double the national average, suggesting that the state's “strong growth in research funding is translating into top-level talent creation in the state.” Health and clinical sciences led the growth in doctoral degrees.⁷⁶

University of Arkansas Chancellor David Gearhart recently pointed out that while the state needs to graduate college students at a higher rate, in fact between 1989 and 2006 Arkansas produced 166,000 college graduates, “nowhere near the last place nationally.” Arkansas has ended up at the bottom of the rankings because during the same period, 42 000 of those graduates left the state, with the most beneficiaries of this migration being “states with human capital economies.” As the Chancellor framed the challenge facing the state, “if graduates are leaving to go where those businesses already are, how do you reverse the process and attract these businesses to your region?”⁷⁷

Speaking at the conference Jeff Johnson, the CEO and president of ClearPointe (a managed service provider headquartered in Little Rock), described the challenges he faced in finding local IT talent to staff his Arkansas-based company. At first the company tried “growing their own” – hiring new college graduates and putting them through six months of training before placing them in company roles. This proved to work well, he said, but at a high cost for a small company, with a significant number of employees tied up in training for extended periods. Hiring talent from out of state also was difficult.

In this regard, he noted, the creation of the Engineering and Information Technology College at UALR was a “godsend.” “We started working with the college more than three years ago, serving on the advisory council.” In the past year, Mr. Johnson and others have helped the college design a curriculum that would assure companies like ClearPointe of a steady flow of qualified applicants.

Research funding in Arkansas universities has been growing rapidly, but from a comparatively weak starting point – in effect the state is still playing catch-up. The Battelle study found that in 2007 spending on university-based R&D in Arkansas totaled $240 million, an amount equal to 0.25 percent of gross state product (GSP), and that to achieve the national average of 0.36 percent of GSP, spending would have needed to be $106 million higher. The level of funding for university research in the state had grown 70 percent between 2001 and 2007, exceeding the national average growth rate of 51 percent.⁷⁸ However, the rapid growth in Arkansas university research was evident across the research spectrum (see Table 3).

TABLE 3

Growth Rate in Arkansas University R&D Funding, 2001-2007.

PROMISING SECTORS

The National Academies conference highlighted the state's economic and technological challenges as well as promising growth areas. As we see below, several speakers noted that the development of these sectors would build on the state's current and potential competencies and leverage Arkansas' areas of strength to grow knowledge-based industries and jobs.

LEARNING FROM OTHER STATES

Arkansas' leaders often draw on the experience of other U.S. states and localities in developing policies to promote the growth of knowledge-intensive industries. Success of particular policies and programs in other states may not be directly replicable, but some of the principles underlying state innovation policies could be adapted to the Arkansas context. For example, the Arkansas Research Alliance Scholars program is modeled on Georgia's highly successful Georgia Eminent Scholars program, which has been luring “top notch scientists to Georgia's research institutions since 1990.”¹²⁵ The Arkansas Economic Development Commission “carefully studied the organization and structures, service delivery methods and funding mechanisms of a dozen states to identify best profiles” in the area of workforce development and training.¹²⁶ Analysis by the National Governors' Association regarding specific state government and metropolitan development strategies has also been consulted.¹²⁷ Speakers at the conference highlighted the recent experience of Arizona, California, and Oklahoma in growing knowledge-based economies.

IN CLOSING

As documented in the proceedings of this National Academies symposium, Arkansas' political, academic, and business leaders are seeking to foster greater awareness of the challenges facing the state and are taking a number of steps to foster the development of a knowledge-based economy. Many of these efforts have been based on commissioned studies that offer frank assessments of the challenges the state faces, inter alia, in primary education, financing the formation of new businesses, and securing federal research funding.

The symposium presented a number of initiatives that are under way to address these challenges. These include initiatives in areas such as nanotechnology research and the manufacture of wind power generation equipment. Arkansas' ability to address these challenges by improving its education, investment and research infrastructure, and by leveraging existing areas of strength to create new knowledge-based companies and jobs will determine the future standard of living and long run economic well-being of its citizens. The proceedings, found in the next chapter, provide detailed summaries of the presentations by the state's business, political, and academic leaders, along with those of senior U.S. government officials and national experts. They highlight the challenges, accomplishments, and opportunities facing Arkansas today.

Footnotes

1

Ross De Vol, et al., Arkansas' Position in the Knowledge-Based Economy Santa Monica: Milken Institute, September 2004, p. 1.

3

See the summary of the presentation by Richard Bendis in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

4

For a review of the nature of innovation clusters and state policies to grow innovation clusters, see National Research Council, Growing Innovation Clusters for American Prosperity, Charles W. Wessner, rapporteur, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011.

5

See the summary of the presentation by Richard Bendis in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

6

Small and medium enterprises generate 13 times as many patented technologies as large firms, and are an important source of innovation for large firms that often partner with SMEs. In the three years after the recession of 2001, companies of less than 20 employees created 107 percent of net new jobs while companies over 500 employees eliminated a net of -24 percent. See the summary of the presentation by Richard Bendis in the Proceedings chapter in this volume, where he cites data from the Small Business Administration.

7

See the summary of the presentation by Jeff Johnson in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

8

See the summary of the presentation by Richard Bendis in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

9

PWC MoneyTree Venture Capital Report, 2010. 10

10

For a review of innovation polices of leading nations and regions in Asia, Europe, and North America and the challenges facing the United States, see National Research Council, Rising to the Challenge, U.S. Innovation Policy for the Global Economy, C. Wessner and A., Wm., Wolff, eds., Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012.

11

For an abridged history of US public private partnerships and an analysis of factors characterizing successful partnerships, see National Research Council, Government Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies, C. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003.

12

The AIDC was formed pursuant to Act 404 of 1955, which also authorized incorporation of local industrial development corporations and issuance of local industrial development bonds. Today the AIDC operates as the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC), with a current mandate to promote economic development and develop strategies that produce better-paying jobs, support communities and support workforce training. See the summary of the presentation by Watt Gregory in the Proceedings chapter in this; See also Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan for Economic Development, 2009, op. cit., p. 2.

13

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009), op. cit., p. 3.

14

Report of the Accelerate Arkansas Strategic Planning Committee, Building a Knowledge-Based Economy in Arkansas: Strategic Recommendations by Accelerate Arkansas (September 2007), pp. 16-17.

15

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan, (2009), op. cit., p. 5.

16

AEDC, Arkansas Climbs the Ladder: A View of Economic Factors Relating to Growth of Jobs and Purchasing Power (1979).

17

Galley Support Innovations (GSI) is a California-based manufacturer of galley locks and latches for OEMs in the aerospace business that relocated to Arkansas in 2005. Hit hard by the economic downturn that began in 2008, it sought assistance from the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority's Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions program. GSI was awarded to ASTA Technology Transfer Assistance Grants (TTAG), which enabled GSI to secure a large multi-year contract with an estimated positive financial impact of $5 million over six years. “AMS Grant Helps Local Aerospace Manufacturer Turn Business Around,” Arkansas Business (January 5, 2012).

18

(2009) op. cit., p. 6. The Arkansas Science and Technology Authority was created by statute in 1983 to “support scientific and business innovation as an economic development tool.” In 2009, it completed 31 projects involving about $8 million in grants and tax credits. It has provided grants to support the Arkansas High-Performance Computing Center at the University of Arkansas and to the Arkansas Research and Education Optical Network (ARE-ON), a communications network linking Arkansas' four-year public universities. The authority provides financial support for technology transfer to local businesses, provides working capital for small start-up businesses (usually pursuant to royalty-based agreements), and sponsors professional development workshops for teachers and grants to individual STEM teachers for equipment and supplies. See the presentation by Watt Gregory, “Evolution of Innovation in Arkansas,” in the Proceedings chapter of this volume. See also the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority website, http://www​.asta.arkansas.gov accessed January 11, 2012.

19

Giang Ho and Anthong Pennington-Cross, “Fayetteville and Hot Springs Lead the Recovery in Employment,” The Regional Economist (October 2005).

20

Wal-Mart, with one of the most sophisticated and innovative supply chains in the world, has attracted distribution centers from its major vendors to Arkansas, including Heinz, Clorox, Pfizer, General Mills, Mattel, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson and Hershey's. “Arkansas: A Natural Wonder,” Inbound Logistics (May 2009).

21

The company offers to pay college tuition and fees for all El Dorado high school students. “Murphy Oil Company,” Arkansas Business http://www​.arkansasbusiness​.com/company_info.asp?sym=MUR

22

Wal-Mart's emergence as the world's largest retailer and the world leader in supply chain logistics is attributed largely to its pioneering practice of tracking inventory by high performance computers.

22

See the summary of the presentation by Watt Gregory in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

23

Arkansas has over 1,000 miles of navigable waterways and port facilities on the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers. Three carriers provide rail service including intermodal freight service. Eight interstate highways cross various parts of the state. Nucor Steel located a mini-mill in Hickman, Arkansas, which makes thin-slab steel coils for use in pipes, tubes, processors and automotive applications, citing location and transportation infrastructure as key decisional factors. Mike Parrish, a Nucor Vice President who managed the Hickman plant, said in 1996 that “What's great about this area is it's centrally located in the country. It's great to advertise in this area. You're on the [Mississippi] River. You can not only ship anywhere in the country, you can ship anywhere in the world,” “Nucor Makes Blytheville Steel Capital of the South,” Arkansas Business (December 16, 1996).

24

In 2011, the designers of five-gallon Kosmo coolers, a proprietary product, abandoned plans to have them manufactured in China, a decision based on “prohibitive” shipping costs. Instead most of the parts for the coolers will be manufactured by custom injection and blow molder River Bend Industries LLC at its factory in Fort Smith, Arkansas. River Bend worked with the designers, Arkansas entrepreneurs Tim Mika and Steve Bowman, developed a mostly US-made product (only the metal legs will be sourced from China) containing blow-molded and injection molded parts and urethane from insulation. The Fort Smith location made River Bend's coolers cost-competitive with China. To build the coolers River Bend is expanding its manufacturing capacity in Fort Smith. “River Bend Gets Kosmo Work,” Plastics News (November 7, 2011).

25

“LM Glasifiber Dedicates Little Rock Factory,” ArkansasOnline (October 28, 2008). Senior Vice President Ichiro Fukue commented that “transportation is very important for this industry. Fort Smith is the center of our market.” “Arkansas Wins $100 Million Wind Turbine Nacelle Plant,” Energy Overviews (May 11, 2011). In 2010, Mitsubishi Power System Americas broke ground on a $100 million wind turbine nacelle plant in Fort Smith, Arkansas, citing the location's transportation advantages as a key factor in the site selection. A Nordex executive commented “here in Jonesboro, we're very near the Mississippi River for barging, there are two railways crossing Arkansas, and the highway system provides a major transportation network, so we can ship the 2.5 MW “Gamma Generation” turbines we're building here anywhere in the country and make delivery in a matter of days.” Interview with Joe Brenner, Vice President for Production, in Wind Systems (January 2011).

26

Testimony of Arthur J. Rolnick Director of Research, Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota, before the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, “Congress Should End the Economic War Among the States,” October 10, 2007; Kenneth P. Thomas, Investment Incentives and the Global Competition for Capital (London and Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011).

27

The Enterprise Zone Act of 1983 established tax credits for creation of new jobs and sales and use tax exemptions for building materials used to construct factories. The Manufacturers' Investment Tax Credit (later renamed InvestArk) extends manufacturers sales and use tax credits equal to seven percent of the cost of modernizing and expanding facilities. Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009) p. 6.

28

See Thomas Howell, “Incentives Competition for Businesses,” In the Appendix to this report. Between 1996 and 1998, Nucor's Blytheville project reportedly received $48.6 million in tax credits and cash. “Results from Subsidies Unknown – State Has Little Idea Whether $633 Million in Breaks to Firms Spurred Investment,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette December 12, 1999); “Choosing a Greenfield Site: Steelmakers Are Attracted Rural Areas,” Iron Age (March 1992); “Arkansas Legislators Present Their Proposal for Tax Breaks for Proposed Steel Mill,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (December 7, 1987).

29

Osceola, Arkansas, was shaken in 2000-01 by the loss of manufacturing plants shut down by Fruit of the Loom (textiles), Eck Adams (furniture), Siegel-Robert (auto parts) and Southwire (wire). The city began using cash generated by the municipally owned electricity distribution system to fund industrial development. In 2003, Osceola secured a new factory opened by DENSO Mfg., a Japanese maker of automotive ventilation systems, defeating other localities with a $3 million combination of incentives, which included land, site improvements, and subsidized electricity rates. Shortly thereafter, Osceola won a $1.2 billion coal fired power plant, the Plum Point Energy Station, offering a 1,000-acre site with infrastructure improvements and a 20-year estate tax abatement. Susan C. Thompson, “Factory Closing Shock Community into Opening Wallets for Economic Development,” The Regional Economist (October 2010).

30

Letter from AEDC Executive Director Maria Haley to Senator Mary Anne Salmon and Representative Tommy Lee Baker, Arkansas Legislative Council, August 22, 2011. In 2010, Caterpillar Inc. opened a $140 million, 600-job road grader factory in North Little Rock. Governor Beebe, who used $3 million from the fund to close the deal, said that “They (Caterpillar) wouldn't be here without the Quick Action Closing Fund.” “Caterpillar Opens New Arkansas Factory, Hiring 600,” Cleveland.com (September 1, 2010).

31

In 2010, Arkansas secured an agreement with Japan's Mitsubishi Power Systems America, Inc. for establishment of a $100 million plant to manufacture wind turbine nacelles at Fort Smith, Arkansas. The city of Fort Smith agreed to issue up to $75 million in revenue bonds for plant construction, to give Mitsubishi a free 90-acre site, to extend streets, water mains and sewers to the plant, and to give Mitsubishi a 50 percent reduction on property taxes. Sebastian County agreed to designate its entire $3.7 million allocation for federal recover zone bank to Mitsubishi. Governor Beebe contributed $3.75 million from the Quick Action Closing Fund to close the deal. “Mitsubishi Incentives Hit $83M,” Fort Smith Times Record (December 25, 2010).

32

Windstream, a rapidly-growing telecommunications network created in 2006 in Little Rock, with $5 billion in annual revenues, investigated alternative sites outside the state for its permanent headquarters, but decided in 2010 to stay in Little Rock, with CEO Jeff Gardner acknowledging that “financial incentives provided by the state and the regional placement relative to the company's placement relative to the company's customers in the southeast played into the decision. The incentives included a $1 million in Quick Action Closing Funds for building and training and additional benefits tied to performance. “Windstream Picks Little Rock, AR for HQ,” Business Facilities (July 13, 2010).

33

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009), op. cit., p. 8.

34

Report of the Task Force for the Creation of Knowledge-Based Jobs (September 2002), pp. 2-3.

35

See the summary of the presentation by Watt Gregory in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

36

De Vol, et al., Arkansas' Position in the Knowledge-Based Economy: Prospects and Policy Options (2004) p. 1.

37

De Vol et al., (2004) op. cit. pp. 3-4.

38

The study of other states' programs was based on an examination of “best in class states,” asking the question what makes some states “best” and how did they get that way? Between October 2005 and June 2006, Accelerate Arkansas' Strategic Planning Committee consulted 95 stakeholder groups in discussions over objectives for a strategic plan and held public strategic planning fora in various parts of the state. A series of 65 strategic objectives was winnowed down to 30. Through this process, five “core strategies” were identified. Teresa McLendon (ed.) Building a Knowledge-Based Economy in Arkansas: Strategic Recommendations by Accelerate Arkansas (September 2007) pp. 33-35.

39

McLendon (2007) op. cit. pp. 26-28.

40

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009).

41

See the summary of the presentation by Watt Gregory in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

42

The net decline has continued despite strong job growth in the oil and gas industry as a result of the development of major hydrocarbon deposits into the state. In 2004, Southwestern Energy successfully drilled test wells for natural gas in the Fayetteville Shale Play, a 20 by 100 mile deposit in north central Arkansas. A rush of development followed by Southwestern and other companies. A 2007 study by the University of Arkansas' College of Business calculated that in that year, exploitation of the Play would add $1.6 billion to the state's economy and employ 6, 000 people. Glen R. Sparks, “Community Profile: Conway, Ark. Makes Play for Economic Boom,” The Regional Economist (July 2007).

43

See the summary of the keynote speech by Governor Mike Beebe in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

44

ARA funding was provided through the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority.

45

Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, “Opportunities for Advancing Job-Creating Research in Arkansas, A Strategic Assessment of Arkansas University and Government Lab Research Base,” 2009. Access the report at http://www​.aralliance​.org/__data/assets/pdf_file​/0017/1682/Job-Creating-Research-in-Arkansas.pdf The 2009 Battelle study was based on interview with 85 of the top researchers in the state and quantitative revision based journal publications and research grants of faculty members during the preceding five years.

46

See the summary of the presentation by Jerry Adams in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

47

See the summary of the presentation by Jerry Adams in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

48

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan for Economic Development, Little Rock: Arkansas Economic Development Commission, 2009. p. 6.

49

Clusters are increasingly acknowledged as key to growing 21st Century innovation economies. See National Research Council, Growing Innovation Clusters for American Prosperity. C. Wessner, rapporteur, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011.

50

De Vol et al., (2004) op. cit., p 50.

51

ARTP, website, http://www​.vark.edu/ua/artp/aboutus.html

52

Financial support for the Center is being provided through an economic infrastructure fund grant and from the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Arkansas Small Business and Technology Development Center, “Enterprise Center to Offer Valuable Technology Incubator Resources,” press release, 2009, http://www​.asbtdc.org/document/master​.aspx?doc=1137

53

Arkansas Act 1045 of 2007.

54

Arkansas State University, “Brian Rogers Named Director of Commercial Innovation Technology Incubator,” press release, January 5, 2011. http://asunews​.astate​.edu/BrianRogersNamedABI-COM.htm ASU developed ABI-COM with support from a grant of $1,750,500 from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration. Ibid.

55

An USEDA Technical Assistance Grant helped establish the Center for Regional Innovation at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. A $1.75 million USEDA public works grant to Arkansas State University at Jonesboro helped establish the Arkansas State Bioscience Institute Commercial Innovation Center. See the summary of the presentation by Barry Johnson in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

56

See the summary of the presentation by Barry Johnson in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

57

Arkansas Cyberinfrastructure Strategic Plan (2008).p. 3.

58

In 2004, 2007 and 2010 Apon led efforts to secure Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) award from the National Science Foundation to establish a new campus research network and upgrade the power and chilling infrastructure of the university's data center. Clemson School of Computing, “Dr. Amy Apon Joins the School of Computing as Chair of the Computer Science Division,” undated press release, http://www​.clemson.edu​/ces/computing/news-stories/aapon.html

59

The External Advisory Committee was partially funded by “NSF Other” funds contributed by the University of Arkansas and the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority. The Committee was chaired by Stan Anhalt, Director of the Ohio Supercomputer Center. The committee's work was supported by an Internal Steering Committee comprised of about 30 Arkansas leaders from the education, industry and public sectors.

60

The Strategic Plan was drafted by the Arkansas Cyberinfrastructure Advisory Committee, which was similar in membership to the Internal Steering Committee.

61

Jay Buisseau, Director of the Texas Advanced Computing Center, cited by Amy Apon, in her remarks at the conference. See the summary of her remarks in the Proceedings section of this volume.

62

Dr. Amy Apon cited research underway by Professor Peter Pulay at the University of Arkansas to study the interaction of chemicals on human protein and DNA that requires four million hours of computing per year. Assistant Professor Doug Spearot is creating three-dimensional models of alloys that do not yet exist, using 20 million or more atoms, an effort which requires six million hours of computing time per year. Nanotechnology device research by Professor Laurent Ballaiche requires 70 million hours of computing time per year. See the summary of the presentation by Dr. Apon in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

63

Purchase of the Star of Arkansas was funded in part by an $803,306 grant from NSF, with matching funds from the University of Arkansas and in partnership with Dell Corp. Stan Anhalt, Chair of the External Advisory Committee, observed that the Star of Arkansas had “the potential to improve Arkansas' economic future through research in areas such as natural gas production, bird flu prevention, rice irrigation, nanotechnology, large-scale transportation and commerce systems, material design, sustainability, and personalized medicine. The Star of Arkansas is eight times faster than the University of Arkansas' other supercomputer, Red Diamond, which was acquired in 2005. University of Arkansas College of Engineering. “University of Arkansas Installing Supercomputer, ‘Star of Arkansas’, to be State's Fastest,” press release, 2008, http://www​.engr.engr​.vark.edu/home/2378.php

64

Nucor Steel has located a number of facilities in Arkansas where local hires were typically “farmers or machinery workers who have been ingrained with a strong work ethic since childhood.” Dan DiMicco, President of Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., commented on his operation in the state that “We hire good people, put them in a culture that encourages them to do well, give them the tools and the opportunity to excel and then we get the heck out of their way.” “Nucor Makes Blytheville Steel Capital of the South,” Arkansas Business (December 16, 1996). Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. cited Arkansas' “extraordinary work ethic” as a factor underlying its decision to locate a $100 million manufacturing facility for wind turbines in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The plant's general manager said that “we looked for a part of the country where manufacturing is not some lost art.” “Mitsubishi Breaks Ground on Nacelle Facility in Arkansas,” North American Windpower (October 8, 2010).

65

See, for example, the summary of the presentation by Jeff Johnson in the Proceedings chapter in this volume. Nordex USA found that when it sought to open a manufacturing plant for wind power equipment in Arkansas, it was only able to find after five months of interviews 62 of the estimated work force of 700 who possessed sufficient skills. Because of the high level of skill required, Nordex plans to build a training academy onsite. See also the summary of the presentation by Joe Brenner in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

66

Arkansas Department of Education, Combined Research Report of Business Leaders and College Professors on Preparedness of High School Graduates (January 2007). Similarly, the human resources manager at Kagome/Creative Foods, a food processor with a facility in Mississippi County, Arkansas, said in 2010 that despite the county's high unemployment, it was “very, very hard to find people to work,” partly a case of “too many undereducated, unemployable youth.” Susan C. Thompson, “Factory Closing Shocks Community into Opening Wallets for Economic Development,” The Regional Economist (October 2010).

67

At the time the Task Force was formed, of every 100 students then in ninth grade, 74 would graduate from high school, 64.7 would enter college, and only 16 would graduate with an associate or bachelors' degree within 10 years. Of 37,160 students who graduated from ninth grade in 1996, only 5,817 had achieved higher degrees by 2006. The Task Force warned that “The pipeline is broken. Can a modern economy be built upon 5,817 people?” Arkansas Task Force on Higher Education Remediation, Retention and Graduation Rates, Access to Success: Increasing Arkansas' College Graduates Promotes Economic Development (August 2008) (“Education Task Force Report.”)

68

Education Task Force Report (2008) pp. 11, 14.

69

Arkansas Department of Education, Combined Research Report of Business Leaders and College Professors on Preparedness of High School Graduates (January 2006).

70

Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee No. 1992-5318 (Pulaski County Chancery Court), May 25, 2001.

71

In 2008, over half of Arkansas students scored “proficient or above” on the state's tests for mastery of grade-level knowledge, whereas proficiency rates a decade previously were between 20 and 40 percent. In 2007, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings cited Arkansas and Massachusetts as two states with education reform models that other states should emulate. Education Task Force Report (2008) p. 12

72

See the summary of the keynote speech by Governor Mike Beebe in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

73

See the summary of the presentation by Michael A. Gealt in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

74

More information on assets, reach, and research expertise of the University of Arkansas system can be accessed at http://www​.uasys.edu/. More information on the Arkansas State University system can be accessed at http://www​.asusystem.edu/.

75

For some considerations, the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff is considered as a fifth research university because of its research on aquaculture.

76

Battelle study (2009) op. cit., p. 5

77

Gearhart, David. “Arkansas 180: Teaching & Research,” http://chancellor​.vark.edu/13132.php.

78

Battelle Study (2009) op. cit., pp. vi-viii.

79

See the summary of the presentation by Richard Bendis in the Proceedings chapter in this volume

80

Report of the Task Force for the Creation of Knowledge-Based Jobs (September 2002). P. 26.

81

See the summary of remarks by Dr. Mary Good in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

82

De Vol et al., (2004), op. cit. p. 81.

83

See the summary of the presentation by Richard Bendis in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

84

See the summary of the presentation by Jeff Johnson in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

85

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009) op. cit., p. 45

86

The tax incentive program provides transferable tax credits to start-ups that do not have a state tax liability. The credits can be sold to individuals or institutions with tax liabilities. Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009).op. cit.

87

These equity investment credits now reside with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission.

88

See the summary of the presentation by Watt Gregory in the Proceedings chapter in this volume; See also the ACCG website, http://www​.arkansaedc​.com/bring-your-business-to-arkansas​/financing​/arkansas-capital-corporation​.aspx accessed January 11, 2012.

89

Governor Mike Huckabee authorized the establishment of the Arkansas Venture Capital Investment Trust to hold the equity interest in the AIF. The trustees of this trust are the President of ADFA, the President of Arkansas Science and Technology Authority, and the Director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. AIF website, http://www​.arkansasinstitutionalfund​.com/aif/web​.nsf/pages/history.html

90

See the summary of the presentation by Jerry Adams in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

91

De Vol et al., (2004) op. cit., p. 61.

92

Following the 2012 reauthorization of the SBIR program, Phase I SBIR awards were raised to $150,000. These are provided for feasibility and proof of concept research. Phase II awards were raised to $1 million. These are intended to develop prototypes or products that are ready for commercialization or application. A Phase III for product development and commercialization has been discussed but not funded. SBIR recipients retain the intellectual property for technology developed through the program.

93

National Research Council, An Assessment of the SBIR Program, C. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008.

94

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1999 issued patent 5,929,304 for “Production of Lysosomal Enzymes in Plant-based Expression Systems” to Carole Cramer.

95

“Arkansas SBIR/STTR Grant Awards,” Arkansas Small Business and Technology Development Center website, http://asbtdc​.org/DocumentMaster​.aspx?doc=2416

96

De Vol et al., (2004) op. cit., p. 28.

97

MEP Center projects include business growth services, technology services to develop products and processes, “lean” manufacturing techniques to promote continuous improvement, quality systems and other standards, advice on energy and sustainability, and development of talent. See the summary of the presentation by Roger Kilmer in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

98

As of late, 2011 AIM had posted about 50 technologies and 50 company “needs and wishes.” See the summary of the presentation by Roger Kilmer in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

99

De Vol et al., (2004) op. cit., p. 78

100

See the summary of the presentation by Donald Senich in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

101

See the summary of the presentation by Paul Suskie in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

102

See the summary of the presentation by Nick Brown in the Proceedings chapter in this volume

103

NCEPT Executive Director Alan Mantooth defines power electronics as “the interface between where we've generated the power and how we want to condition that power specifically for the load.” Examples include power converters that operate between an electric plug and the motor of an appliance or the hard drive of a computer, and “intelligent” lighting systems that turn themselves off when people are not present in a room. At present 30 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is processed by power electronics, a figure that is forecast to rise to 80 percent by 2030. See the summary of the presentation by Alan Mantooth in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

104

NCREPT won an “R&D 100” award from R&D magazine for innovation in 2009 for the development of a 3″×5″ power electronic module for hybrid electric vehicle motors. Current modules must be actively cooled by the radiator, but the NCREPT device can operate at 250 degrees C., does not require water-cooling, and is lighter and more resilient than existing models. The new module was developed with funding from Japan's Rohm Semiconductor and Sandia National Laboratory, and was manufactured in Fayetteville by NCREPT and Arkansas Power Electronics. See the summary of the presentation by Alan Mantooth in the Proceedings chapter in this volume

105

Battelle Study (2009) op. cit., p. 21.

106

At the beginning of the 1940s Arkansas had the largest commercially exploitable deposits of bauxite in the United States. Alcoa and the Reynolds Metal company established plants in the state, and a United States government entity, Defense Plant Corporation, built an aluminum factory in Jones Mill, Arkansas, which was leased to Alcoa.

107

SPP members include utilities, cooperatives, state and municipal agencies, and bulk power marketers.

108

Nordex USA, a subsidiary of Nordex SE, a German manufacturer of wind turbines and a pioneer in the development of wind-driven power generation.

109

See the summary of the presentation by Joe Brenner in the Proceedings chapter in this volume. The sheer size and weight of large wind turbines make transportation costs a factor in locational decisions. The turbines manufactured in Jonesboro will be as tall as a football field is long, and each turbine blade will be a comparable length. See the summary of the presentation by Nick Brown in the Proceedings chapter in this volume; “Arkansas Wins $100 Million Wind Turbine Nacelle Plant,” Energy Overviews (May 11, 2011); Interview with Joe Brenner, Mitsubishi Power Systems America, in Wind Systems (January 2011).

110

The University worked with Nordex and Beckmann Volmer, a supplier to Nordex of turbine mainframes and other components, to create classes and degrees to meet the unique need of the wind power industry. The University now offers training in “mechatronics,” a combination of electrical and mechanical skills specific to the manufacture of wind turbines. “Beckmann Volmer Breaks Ground on Osceola Plant,” Paragould Daily Press (September 14, 2011); Interview with Joe Brenner, Vice President of Nordex USA, in Wind Systems (January 2011).

111

Arkansas received over $117 million in grant money for energy efficiency and renewables projects. Another $34 million went to the state in the form of tax incentives for wind power generation, electric vehicles, batteries, and other renewable and energy efficiency technologies. See the summary of the presentation by Gilbert Sperling in the Proceedings chapter in this volume. Nordex USA received $22 million from ARRA in the form of tax credits to support its manufacturing facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas. “Firm Building Jonesboro Plant to Get $22 Million Stimulus,” NWA Online (January 11, 2010).

112

See the summary of the presentation by Sperling in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

113

At the end of 2010, the state had 10 megawatts (MW) of wind power generating capacity online with another 210 MW in planned projects. According to an estimate by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Arkansas has sufficient wind resources to provide 58.3 percent of the state's current electricity needs. “Arkansas is a National Leader in Wind Energy Manufacturing,” American Wind Energy Association (August 2011).

114

See the summary of the presentation by Joe Brenner in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

115

“A Wind Study the Size of Arkansas,” Wind Power News (April 1, 2011).

116

See the summary of Professor Salamo's presentation in the Proceedings chapter of this volume.

117

“Beebe, FDA Sign First of its Kind Agreement at NCTR,” Arkansas Business (August 12, 2011).

118

In 2001, the Department of Defense deeded 1,500 acres of arsenal land adjacent to the NCTR facility to the Economic Development Alliance of Jefferson County. Envisioning a regional research park, local leaders created the Bioplex on the land, using $200,000 in federal grant money to clear land, and to build roads and utilities. The state has pledges to support the project with tax credits, revenue lands and other incentives. See Arkansas Business, “NCTR Has Potential to Create High-Paying Jobs,” July 4, 2011.

119

Arkansas is the number one producer of rice in the US and is second in broilers, third in cotton, cottonseed and catfish, fourth in turkeys, fifth in grain sorghum, eighth in chicken eggs and ninth in soybeans. Food processors in the state include Tyson Foods, Frito-Lay, Butterball, Wal-Mart, Riceland, Post and Nestle. See the summary of the presentation by Carole Cramer in the Proceedings chapter of this volume.

120

Industrial Jobs in Arkansas Declined 1.5 percent Over Last Year,” Manufacturers' News (October 31, 2011), citing the Arkansas Manufacturers' Register.

121

US consumers have highly sophisticated and increasing demand for healthy and fresh foods. “Speed-to-market, logistics networks, quality control, and the accurate matching of supply and demand: represent areas for the application of science and technology, potentially giving the state “a competitive advantage in the nation.” De Vol, et al., (2004) op. cit., p. 150.

122

See the summary of the presentation by Carole Cramer in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

123

Battelle study (2009) op. cit., pp. 18-20, ix.

124

Battelle Study (2009) pp. ix, 23. Invotek, based in Alma, Arkansas, is currently marketing an eye-safe laser pointer.

125

“Scholars Program Copies Georgia's Model,” Innovate Arkansas (August 22, 2011).

126

Governor Mike Beebe's Strategic Plan (2009) op. cit. p. 26.

127

A 2006 study prepared for Accelerate Arkansas at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock contained an extensive survey of state and metropolitan strategies for success in the new economy. Gregory L. Hamilton and Teresa A. McLendon, Closing the Gap: Ann Examination and Analysis of Per Capita Personal Income in Arkansas (August 2006) pp. 32-44.

128

Chartered by the state legislature, CCST is comprised of over 200 of the state's leading science and technology experts. Designed to bridge the gap between “those who know science and technology and those who create and enforce the state's laws and policy,” CCST produces reports on the state's scientific and technological activities and supports scientific activity and education. Its sustaining institutions are six state universities, and six national laboratories are sustaining members. Recent analytic work includes studies of California's energy future; use of information technology to integrate genetic/genomic test results to promote personalized healthcare; preparation of elementary school teachers to teach science; nanotechnology in California; and reform of California's STEM education structure. See the summary of the presentation by Susan Hackwood in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

129

See the summary of the presentation by Susan Hackwood in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

130

Fifty-six percent of the funds were committed to “strategic research” and another 17 percent to graduate-level research fellowships. See the summary of the presentation by William Harris in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

131

Examples of new R&D partnerships generated by SFAz included initiatives in concentrated solar energy and energy storage, mining, pharmaceuticals and the development of jet fuel from algae. See the summary of the presentation by William Harris in the Proceedings chapter in this volume.

132

I2E website, http://www​.i2E.org/about Created in 1987, OCAST is a state government agency responsible for technology-based economic development. As of late 2011 OCAST had helped create 433 client companies, 140 of which had raised $359 million in equity funding (66 percent from outside Oklahoma). The combined companies have developed 336 new products. One OCAST innovation was to hire a “CFO in residence,” in effect a CFO capable of serving a number of start-ups simultaneously on a part-time basis in their efforts to secure venture capital. See the summary of the presentation by David Thomison in the Proceedings chapter in this volume