American Competitiveness Initiative Research Articles

The Central American Competitiveness Initiative

Purpose – This paper is a historical account of the process by which Michael Porter and INCAE Business School put together a regional competitiveness strategy for Central America that was officially adopted by the governments of five participating countries, and implemented through a series of Presidential Summits that occurred between 1995 and 1999. The paper provides a unique case study on the adoption of the concepts put forth by Porter in his book “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” (1990) at the highest level of government. The study arrives at a series of practical implications for policy makers that are particularly relevant for the implementation of supra-national regional strategies. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conduct an extensive literature review of 190 policy papers produced by INCAE Business School, that are used to recreate the historical evolution of the regional competitiveness strategy. The effect of Porter’s intervention is also assessed by comparing the main economic indicators of each participating country with those of 2005-2010. One of the authors was the main protagonist in the successful implementation of the strategy, and the paper relies partially on his accounts of events. Findings – This study describes how economic policy in Central America was profoundly influenced by Michael Porter’s thinking in the second half of the 1990s. These policy changes promoted international competition of Central American clusters and firms, and opened the region for international investment and tourism. The region experienced important increases in its economic integration, its international trade, foreign direct investment and tourist arrivals. Gross domestic product growth was accelerated in Honduras and Nicaragua. Research limitations/implications – Like all case studies, this study has limits related to the generalizability of its conclusions. Additionally, it is not possible to determine the precise nature of the relation between the implementation of the regional economic strategy, and the impact on economic growth, integration, FDI attraction and exports. Practical implications – The paper has several practical implications that relate to the design of regional economic strategies. First, it identifies policy areas that are more effective as part of regional strategies, and distinguishes them from those that should be resolved at the national level. Second, it suggests a process that can facilitate execution. Finally, it provides an example of the coordinating role that can be assumed by an academic institution such as INCAE. Originality/value – The Central American Competitiveness Initiative provides a unique setting to study the implementation of competitiveness policy for several reasons. First, in all countries in Central America, Michael Porter’s diamond framework (1990) and cluster theory were officially adopted at the highest level of government. Second, in addition to their individual competitiveness strategies, all countries adopted a regional strategy for cooperation and economic integration. Finally, the Central American Competitiveness Initiative was founded on one of the first competitiveness think tanks of the world.

Engineering Design: A Foundation for a 21st Century Renaissance

Engineering Design: A Foundation for a 21st Century Renaissance

What If Congress Doubled R&D Spending on the Physical Sciences?

Executive Summary Many business, academic, and scientific groups have recommended that the Congress substantially increase R&D spending in the near future. President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative calls for a doubling of spending over the next decade in selected agencies that deal with the physical sciences, including the National Science Foundation. We consider the rationale for government R&D spending in the context of globalization and as an investment in human capital and knowledge creation with gestation times far longer than federal funding cycles. To assess the impact of a large increase in R&D spending on the science job market, we examine the impact of the 1998–2003 doubling of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget on the biomedical sciences. We find that the rapid increase in NIH spending and ensuing deceleration created substantial adjustment problems in the market for research and failed to address long‐standing problems with scientific careers that are likely to deter man...

Final Bush R&D budget again boosts physical sciences; takes parting shot at earmarks

For the third year, President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative proposes big increases for NSF, the Department of Energy, and NIST. Funding for most other agencies would rise modestly.

SPACE-BASED SCIENCE AND THE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE

I discuss the process by which science contributes to the setting of government priorities, and how these priorities get translated into programs and budgets at the federal agencies that fund scientific research. New technologies are now opening exciting scientific opportunities across the biological and physical sciences. I review the motivations and goals of President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), the importance of societal relevance to federal investments in basic research, and the ACI's impacts on discovery-oriented disciplines within the physical sciences.

Special report: Budget boosts physical sciences in FY 2008, most other research down

For the second year, President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative would significantly increase funding for research at NSF, Department of Energy, and NIST laboratories. Other agencies aren't so lucky.

The Myth of the Good Mathematics Teacher

One of the most publicly celebrated figures in mathematics teaching during the last century was Jaime Escalante (dramatized in the film Stand and Deliver). The Escalante story aptly fulfills three prevailing myths about effective teachers: the Teacher is self-made, the Teacher is the expert, and everything depends on the Teacher. These myths are so predominant in our culture that we can also see their representation in recent legislative actions such as No Child Left Behind and the American Competitiveness Initiative. This demonstrates the strength that the myth has in reflecting, influencing, and legalizing our perceptions of good mathematics teaching.

Funding slated to decrease for some U.S. science agencies

Nearly five months into Fiscal Year 2007 (FY2007), U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law on 15 February legislation that sets funding for most of the federal government through 30 September. While funding for research and development at some science agencies—particularly those included in the American Competitiveness Initiative, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation—will increase over FY2006, R&D funding at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will decline.Further, the funding situation for NOAA, USGS, and EPA is not likely to improve in FY2008. If the president's budget requests for these agencies, which was released on 5 February (see Eos 88(1') and 88(8), 2006), is passed, their R&D budgets would decline even more.

Effort continues to double budget at several science agencies

The Bush Administration has proposed continuing last year's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in the rollout of the $2.9 trillion Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 U.S. federal budget request, released on 5 February. Over a 10‐year period, ACI would double the cumulative budgets of the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology ‘core’intramural research and facilities.The initiative got off to an uneven start last year, however. Although the U.S. Congress passed FY2007 budgets for defense and homeland security, since 1 October 2006 all other departments and agencies have been operating under a series of continuing resolutions. These resolutions provide funding at the lowest of the levels set in either of the appropriations bills passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate or the amount provided in FY2006.

BUSH PROPOSES CUT IN GAS USE

AN AMBITIOUS BOOST for ethanol, a modest increase in vehicle efficiency, and a nod to the importance of technological solutions for climate change were among a small number of energy and science topics mentioned by President George W. Bush on Jan. 23 in his State of the Union address. Unlike last year, there was no $50 billion American Competitiveness Initiative for basic science or new R&D tax credits and science education proposals. But like last year, the President continued to commit the nation to cutting oil imports (C&EN, Feb. 6,2006, page 7). Bush's intention this time is to cut projected gasoline use by 20% by 2017. The plan would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 8.5 billion gal through better vehicle efficiency and cut another 35 billion gal of gas consumption by substituting renewable or alternative fuels. Bush's new alternative fuel target is nearly five times the government's current goal of ...

NCLB and the Competitiveness Agenda: Happy Collaboration or a Collision Course?

AMERICAN SCHOOLS have spent the last five years under the spotlight of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The statute's relentless push to close the racial achievement gap and pursue universal proficiency in reading and math has focused unprecedented attention on basic instruction. However, this push has also raised concerns about a slighting of high-achieving students and about inattention to advanced instruction and the dictates of national competitiveness. These concerns have taken on a more pressing cast in the past three years, a period backlit by Thomas Friedman's best seller, The World Is Flat, and by the growing recognition that modern communications, transportation, and financial markets have created an increasingly global economy in which high-level science, math, and language skills are crucial to national well-being. Of course, for all the popular attention that Friedman has garnered, his point is hardly new. Robert Reich, secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton, made many of the same arguments in his influential 1992 book, The Work of Nations. The fears about China and India today are more than a little reminiscent of--and tinged with the same hysteria as--discussions of Japan, Inc. in the 1980s. Nonetheless, the shrinking manufacturing sector and the accelerating off-shoring of service jobs--including a growing number of white-collar positions--have sparked much concern about the rate at which America is producing engineers, scientists, and graduates conversant in multiple languages. In 2005 the National Academy of Sciences reported, Having reviewed trends in the U.S. and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. (1) In 2006 ETS reported that 61% of opinion leaders identify math, science, and technology skills as the most important ingredients in determining whether the United States will continue to compete successfully in the global economy. (2) Addressing such concerns, the Bush Administration launched its American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in early 2006. The Administration announced at the time: The President has launched the ACI to help our students do better in math and science. We will train 70,000 high school teachers to lead Advanced Placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math. If we ensure America's children have the skills they need to succeed in life, they will ensure America succeeds in the world. (3) What does this new emphasis on mean for schooling? Is it consistent with the requirements of No Child Left Behind that have so thoroughly dominated education policy for the past five years? Are the two agendas on a collision course? And what are the implications for the future of federal education policy? A BIT OF HISTORY Historically, there always has been an unavoidable tension between efforts to bolster competitiveness (read: efforts to boost the performance of elite students, especially in science, math, and engineering) and those to promote educational equity. Champions of particular federal initiatives tend to argue that the two notions are complementary, but history shows that the ascendance of one tends to distract from attention paid to the other. For instance, the great investment of energy in high achievers in math, science, and language by the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 largely dissipated when the Johnson Administration and the Washington education community turned their attention to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the equity agenda of the Great Society. Congress enacted the NDEA at the height of the Cold War as a hurried response to the Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik I. …

American Competitiveness Initiative Update

American Competitiveness Initiative Update

PROTECTING AMERICA'S ECONOMIC FUTURE

THIS YEAR has been good for the physical sciences. It started during President George W. Bush's State of the Union address in January, when he announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to enhance physical sciences funding and education to ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness. The momentum for physical sciences continued throughout the year as Congress took steps to implement the initiative. With congressional activity on ACI expected to resume when the new Congress convenes in January, the scientific community is doing its part to inform the debate. One such activity was a workshop held just outside Washington, D.C., on Dec. 3-5 with support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the National Institutes of Health. The workshop, titled Enhancing Innovation & Competitiveness through Investments in Federal Research, pulled together leaders from the physical sciences sectors of industry and academia to discuss how to effectively use t...

US innovation policy: Creating (and expanding) a national agenda for global competitiveness

SummaryWhile many critics of the state of US global competitiveness believed they were faint voices in the economic policy wilderness, their concerns were being heeded by a leading national economic policy group, the Council on Competitiveness. The National Innovation Initiative Report (Innovative America), released by the Council on Competitiveness in December 2004, presents a national innovation policy agenda (under three broad categories of Talent, Investment, and Infrastructure) for the public and private sector to debate. The Bush administration, under its innovation policy agenda (A New Generation of American Innovation and American Competitiveness Initiative) released in April 2004 and January 2006, has emphasized three major technology policy initiatives (hydrogen fuel technology, health information technology, and broadband technology development) and increased federal R&D funding and tax incentives (totaling $5.9 billion for FY07) respectively. The weakness of both policy agenda approaches is in the narrow interpretation of ‘innovation’; that is, focusing on the ‘technology’ side of innovation at the expense of market knowledge or organizational innovation In general, both public and private sector efforts need to be enlisted to encourage inter-organizational scientific and engineering communications across organizations and national borders (socalled ‘public spaces’); create an internal environment within US corporations that is conducive to, not only technological, but also organizational innovation; and develop metrics to measure an expanded national inventory of innovation activities – beyond that of traditional science and technology indicators.

Alarm Bells Should Help Us Refocus

![Figure][1] We're hearing alarm bells these days about science in the United States. On the one hand, we've been told that in the global economy of today's “flattened” world, we need to bolster innovation and competitiveness and science and engineering research and education. Earlier this year, when President Bush announced his American Competitiveness Initiative, the future appeared brighter for the physical sciences, math, and engineering (although the National Institutes of Health budget remains flat). But other alarms have sounded that the increases may be at the expense of the disciplines that have historically sought to understand how all this hard work actually helps societies deal with these very issues. Last month, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), chair of a Senate panel that oversees the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), aggressively argued that the agency should limit its funding for the social sciences and focus on the “hard” sciences. Although the committee stopped short of tying NSF's hands, Congress has yet to make a final decision on whether or not competitiveness is just about technology. Congress should think hard about this. ![Figure][1] In the past, investments in science have brought breakthrough technologies, a productive technical workforce and positive trade balance in the high-tech sector, and medical miracles, along with many other tangible benefits. Most Americans believe they are healthier and better off because of the nation's long-standing preeminence in science and technology. Moreover, because other nations are replicating our blueprint for research and higher education with increasing success, competition is growing fierce. So fierce, that our country's present and future position in the world economy is at considerable risk. All this challenges our political leaders, but it should also challenge the broad scientific community to make sure that our science actually helps provide what most Americans need. Clearly, this requires an aggressive and ambitious program of basic research in the hard sciences, including physics, chemistry, materials science, mathematics and computer science, biology and biomedical science, earth and space sciences, and engineering. But that will not be enough. The successful application of new knowledge and breakthrough technologies, which are likely to occur with ever-increasing frequency, will require an entirely new interdisciplinary approach to policy-making: one that operates in an agile problem-solving environment and works effectively at the interface where science and technology meet business and public policy. It must be rooted in a vastly improved understanding of people, organizations, cultures, and nations and be implemented by innovative strategies and new methods of communication. All of this can occur only by engaging the nation's top social scientists, including policy experts, to work in collaboration with scientists and engineers from many fields and diverse institutions on multidisciplinary research efforts that address large but well-defined national and global problems. This will not be easy. It will require qualitative changes in research cultures and in the way federal agencies consider research funding. Cynics may dismiss these concerns with an abrupt, “We've seen all this before.” I believe they are wrong and it would be folly to ignore the alarm bells. Rather, let us use these sometimes shrill warnings to help us refocus and regain the high road for the 21st century for science, the nation, and all of humanity. Albert Einstein eloquently framed this issue for scientists in 1931 at the California Institute of Technology: “Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors … Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.” Congress, as well as scientists, should remember these words. ILLUSTRATION: PAT N. LEWIS Over decades, as our scientific knowledge has become more sophisticated, we have come to recognize how such things as human dynamics and institutional behavior can either enhance or impede the benefits to society of our research achievements. But recognizing that reality is only the first step. We need a much better understanding of how new technical knowledge and tools translate into products, jobs, and wealth; how people learn; how offshoring of jobs, even technical jobs, affects our workforce and quality of life; how increased investment in science and engineering research leads to increased industrial productivity and to better jobs; and how to cope with a host of ever-changing societal problems. These issues are the domain of the social sciences, which also need increased federal support. But that still is not sufficient. [1]: pending:yes

House Panel to Bush: Math Later

A new $250 million push by the White House to strengthen mathematics for elementary and middle school students appears doomed this year after a House panel zeroed it out of a 2007 spending bill for the Department of Education (ED). Dubbed Math Now, the initiative was to be the centerpiece of a $412 million request to improve math and science education that is part of the president's broader American Competitiveness Initiative. But legislators decided to put off the program while an ED-funded panel, launched last month, studies the effectiveness of various math curricula ( Science , 19 May, [p. 982][1]). “It made more sense to wait until the panel has finished,” says a congressional aide. The spending panel provided only $97 million for ED's share of the competitiveness initiative. Education lobbyists don't expect any more support in the Senate. “I got the sense several weeks ago that it was a lost cause this year,” says Ken Krehbiel of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. At the same time, however, legislators added $42 million to the president's $183 million request for the Mathematics and Science Partnerships, a state block-grant program for precollege math and science education. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5776.982a

CONGRESS TACKLES EDUCATION ISSUES

TO KEEP AMERICA COMPETItive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity, President George W. Bush stated in his January State of the Union address. But unless this talent and creativity is reinforced by a solid math and science education, he added, the U.S.'s competitive edge will be lost. With that, he introduced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to increase support for basic research and education in physical science. Fueled by ACI and a report released last fall by the National Academies on U.S. competitiveness, how to strengthen U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has become the focus of numerous congressional hearings and legislation. Most recently, a trio of bills has been introduced in the House to encourage innovative research and to strengthen and expand the K-12 and undergraduate education programs at the National Science Foundation and the Department ...

Senate Panel Chair Asks Why NSF Funds Social Sciences

U.S. SCIENCE POLICYSenator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), chair of a panel that oversees the National Science Foundation and a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, doesn't think the social sciences should benefit from President George W. Bush's proposal for a 10-year doubling of NSF's budget as part of his American Competitiveness Initiative. ([Read more][1].) [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5775/829a

BRIGHTER TIMES FOR BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH

ASSESSING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN science and technology has been the focus of many reports and meetings over the years. Although concerns over the nation's future as the leader in this area have been growing in the science and technology community, it wasn't until this year that bolstering U.S. science and technology made its way into the public mainstream. The boost came on Jan. 31 during the presidential State of the Union address. In his address, President George W. Bush noted that to maintain a strong economy, the U.S. must remain a global leader in science and technology. To that end, he rolled out the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which is a blueprint to increase support for basic research and education in the physical sciences. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people—and we're going to keep that edge, President Bush said in his address. Tonight, I announce the American ...

Proposed U.S. budget request reduces funding for some science agencies

Federal non‐defense research and development (R&D) would receive a small boost under the Bush Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request, which was released on 6 February. However, science conducted and funded by agencies not highlighted in the president's American Competitiveness Initiative would get only small increases or even large cuts if these budgets are approved by Congress (see Eos 87(7) 2006).House of Representatives Science Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bart Gordon (D‐Tenn.) said, “There appear to be cuts in science and technology research that more than offset the targeted increases of the president's competitiveness initiative.”