Why Do We Neglect Workforce Demand?

Abstract

Over the past two decades, there has been a series of alarming reports about the insufficiency of either the size or the growth of the United States science and engineering workforce. Earlier arguments tended to focus upon claimed current or looming shortages or shortfalls in the number of scientists and engineers (1). The most recent examples emphasize that the U.S. is in the process of falling behind competitor countries in Europe and Asia (2). Admittedly there is a considerable overlap among the groups that have been producing the most recent reports--even more so given that some of the same individuals co-authored more than one of them. Skeptics therefore might dismiss this pulse of anxious ruminations as merely a concerted PR campaign undertaken by parties of interest, e.g., those seeking increased federal funding for science and math education and research, or increased RD the groups involved include reputable organizations such as the U.S. National Academies, the Business Roundtable and the Council on Competitiveness, successful corporations and universities with substantial R&D activities, and respected scientists and engineers. Their expressed concerns deserve serious consideration. The most recent reports make a number of sensible and well-crafted recommendations. Most of these deal with improving the quality of K-12 science and mathematics, which due to space limitations cannot be reviewed here. Suffice it to say that these are desirable goals that if achieved would have broadly positive impacts upon the skills and sophistication of the American public. Nonetheless, their impact upon the U.S. science and engineering workforce would most likely be quite indirect, and in any case could have effect after only a decade or more. Supply Without Demand? The most striking characteristic about the recent anxious reports is clear--their almost universal emphasis upon the supply side of the science and engineering workforce. Most pay little or no attention to the other side of the coin, demand. Of course, it is important for any economy to have a supply of well-educated scientists and engineers that is sufficient to staff its corporate, government and university research and development activities. These are critical elements of any advanced economy, even if in the aggregate they represent rather small fractions of their occupations (on the order of 5 percent). While sufficiency of supply is important, it is equally critical that there be a sufficiency of demand in labor markets for the professional services of scientists and engineers. Increasing supply without increasing demand is an obvious recipe for serious market imbalances in science and engineering workforces, imbalances that almost always are unhealthy and destructive. It therefore is quite remarkable that most of the recent reports hardly mention the demand side of the supply/ demand equation. Their core assumption--usually implicit--is that any economy will be more innovative and competitive if it has more scientists and engineers--whatever the demand situation might be. One 2005 report forthrightly printed its key (and ambitious!) goals in the most prominent of locations--its front cover: Goal. Double the Number of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Graduates by 2015 (3). The report calls for numerous measures to motivate U.S. students and adults to study and enter science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers. Remarkably, this report hardly mentions which careers might be available for the doubled number of graduates, nor whether the motivation for U.S. students and adults to pursue science and engineering careers might increase if there were more (and more stable) demand, i.e., if these career paths were reasonably attractive relative to alternatives they have available in other professions such as law, medicine, business, and so forth. …