Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:09:31.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public and private goods in the development of additive manufacturing capacity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2017

Steven Samford ,
Peter Warrian  and
Elena Goracinova
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The promotion of additive manufacturing (AM) as a set of enabling technologies has been a prominent feature of new policies seeking to revitalize manufacturing in developed economies. Because of its differences from traditional manufacturing technologies, small businesses, in particular, face high costs in adopting AM methods. How can governments assist small firms and their innovation ecosystems to make significant leaps in enabling technologies? This paper conceptualizes the challenges faced by groups of small enterprises adopting new technologies and a decentralized policy effort to systematically increase the use of advanced manufacturing technologies. In Canada, funding used by community colleges to create applied research centers has been intended to establish anchors for local “industrial commons” around advanced manufacturing methods. By providing both information and working capital to private sector partners, these community college programs should ideally mitigate challenges to the adoption of AM technologies—the so-called “valley of death”—in local ecosystems. There are many successful individual cases of partnership (i.e., private goods); however, this bottom-up approach seems to fail both as a means of promoting vibrant industrial commons (i.e., public goods) and as a coherent national strategy. We trace the challenges of this approach to principal-agent problems associated with layering new programs upon existing organizations, the density of program participants, and the presence of appropriate technologies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 482 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2017 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to David Wolfe, Dan Breznitz, and Robert Luke for helpful comments on the project, to participants in the Innovation Policy Lab working group at the University of Toronto, and to the interview subjects for their willingness to take part in the study. Financial support for this research was provided by SSHRC Partnership Grant No. 895-2013-1008.

References

Breznitz, Dan and John, Zysman. 2013. The Third Globalization: Can Wealthy Nations Stay Rich in the Twenty-First Century? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breznitz, Dan and Samford, Steven. 2017. “Case Study: Canada's Industrial Research Assistance Program.” Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Carriére, B. 2014. 2002–2013: A Decade of Change in Canadian Manufacturing Exports. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, Olivier, Gereffi, Gary, and Staritz, Cornelia, eds. 2010. Global Value Chains in a Postcrisis World: A Development Perspective. Washington, D.C., World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cimoli, Mario, Dosi, Giovanni, and Stiglitz, Joseph, eds. 2009. Industrial Policy and Development: The Political Economy of Capabilities Accumulation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Canadian Academies (CCA). 2013. Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada's Research Strength and Innovation Weakness. Ottawa, ON: Advisory Group, Council of Canadian Academies.Google Scholar
DeGroot, Hans. 1988. “Decentralization Decisions in Bureaucracies as a Principal-Agent Problem.” Journal of Pubic Economics 36: 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Christopher. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Erica and Kirchain, R. 2010. “Design for Location? The Impact of Manufacturing Offshore on Technology Competitiveness in the Optoelectronics Industry.” Management Science 56(12): 2323–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, Mark. 2015. “Small Innovative Company Growth: Barriers, Best Practices, and Big Ideas: Lessons from the 3D Printing Industry.” Washington, D.C.: Small Business Administration (SBA).Google Scholar
Jackson, Deborah J. 2012. “What is an Innovation Ecosystem?” Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation [working paper] (http://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/download-files/DJackson_What-is-an-Innovation-Ecosystem.pdf)Google Scholar
Jenkins, Tom, Dahlby, Bev, Gupta, Arvind, Leroux, Monique, Naylor, David, and Robinson, Nobina. 2011. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action (Review of Federal Support to Research and Development - Expert Panel Review). Ottawa, ON: Industry Canada.Google Scholar
Livesey, Finbarr. 2012. “The Need for a New Understanding of Manufacturing and Industrial Policy in Leading Economies.” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 7(3): 193–202.Google Scholar
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, ed. 2010. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. New York: Anthem.Google Scholar
National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). 2013. “Evaluation of the College and Community Innovation (CCI) Program: Final Report.” Ottawa, ON: NSERC.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard, ed. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, Eoin, Andreoni, Antonio, López-Gomez, Carlos, and Gregory, Mike. 2013. “What is New in the New Industrial Policy? A manufacturing Systems Perspective.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 29(2): 432–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, Wallace. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pisano, Gary P. and Shih, Willy. C. 2009. “Restoring American Competitiveness.” Harvard Business Review (July-August): 1–13.Google Scholar
Porter, Michael. 2007. “Clusters and Economic Policy: Aligning Public Policy with the New Economics of Competition.” White Paper, Institute for Strategy & Competitiveness, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Samford, Steven. 2017. Networks, Brokerage, and State-Led Technology Diffusion in Small Industry. American Journal of Sociology 122 (5).Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1954. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 387–389.Google Scholar
Science, Technology, and Innovation Council (STIC). 2014. “State of the Nation 2014: Canada's Science, Technology and Innovation System: Canada's Innovation Challenges and Opportunities.” Ottawa, ON: Science, Technology and Innovation Council.Google Scholar
Shapira, Philip, Youtie, Jan, Cox, Debbie, Uyarra, Elvira, Gök, Abdullah, Rogers, Juan, and Downing, Chris. 2015. Institutions for Technology Diffusion. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Tommasi, Mariano and Weinschelbaum, Federico. 2007. “Centralization vs. Decentralization: A Principal-Agent Analysis.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 9(2): 369–389.Google Scholar
Wohlers Associates. 2014. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of the Industry. Nap.: Wohlers Associates, 2014.Google Scholar