Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Public and private goods in the development of additive manufacturing capacity

Abstract
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
* Corresponding author: Steven Samford, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, 1 Devonshire Place, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3K7 Canada, e-mail: ssamford@umich.edu
Peter Warrian, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, 1 Devonshire Place, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3K7 Canada, e-mail: peterwarrian@sympatico.ca
Elena Goracinova, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, e-mail: elena.goracinova@mail.utoronto.ca
Footnotes
Hide All

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
BreznitzDan and John Zysman. 2013. The Third Globalization: Can Wealthy Nations Stay Rich in the Twenty-First Century? New York: Oxford University Press.
BreznitzDan and Samford Steven. 2017. “Case Study: Canada's Industrial Research Assistance Program.” Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
CarriéreB. 2014. 2002–2013: A Decade of Change in Canadian Manufacturing Exports. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
CattaneoOlivier, Gereffi Gary, and Staritz Cornelia, eds. 2010. Global Value Chains in a Postcrisis World: A Development Perspective. Washington, D.C., World Bank.
CimoliMario, Dosi Giovanni, and Stiglitz Joseph, eds. 2009. Industrial Policy and Development: The Political Economy of Capabilities Accumulation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Council of Canadian Academies (CCA). 2013. Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada's Research Strength and Innovation Weakness. Ottawa, ON: Advisory Group, Council of Canadian Academies.
DeGrootHans. 1988. “Decentralization Decisions in Bureaucracies as a Principal-Agent Problem.” Journal of Pubic Economics 36: 323337.
FreemanChristopher. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
FuchsErica and KirchainR. 2010. “Design for Location? The Impact of Manufacturing Offshore on Technology Competitiveness in the Optoelectronics Industry.” Management Science 56(12): 2323–49.
HardinGarrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 12431258.
HarrisonMark. 2015. “Small Innovative Company Growth: Barriers, Best Practices, and Big Ideas: Lessons from the 3D Printing Industry.” Washington, D.C.: Small Business Administration (SBA).
JacksonDeborah 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)
JenkinsTom, 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.
LiveseyFinbarr. 2012. “The Need for a New Understanding of Manufacturing and Industrial Policy in Leading Economies.” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 7(3): 193202.
LundvallBengt-Åke, ed. 2010. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. New York: Anthem.
National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). 2013. “Evaluation of the College and Community Innovation (CCI) Program: Final Report.” Ottawa, ON: NSERC.
NelsonRichard, ed. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
O'SullivanEoin, 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): 432462.
OatesWallace. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
OstromElinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PisanoGary P. and ShihWilly. C. 2009. “Restoring American Competitiveness.” Harvard Business Review (July-August): 113.
PorterMichael. 2007. “Clusters and Economic Policy: Aligning Public Policy with the New Economics of Competition.” White Paper, Institute for Strategy & Competitiveness, Harvard Business School.
SamfordSteven. 2017. Networks, Brokerage, and State-Led Technology Diffusion in Small Industry. American Journal of Sociology 122 (5).
SamuelsonPaul A. 1954. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 387389.
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.
ShapiraPhilip, 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.
TommasiMariano and Weinschelbaum Federico. 2007. “Centralization vs. Decentralization: A Principal-Agent Analysis.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 9(2): 369389.
Wohlers Associates. 2014. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of the Industry. Nap.: Wohlers Associates, 2014.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business and Politics
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 1469-3569
  • URL: /core/journals/business-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 27 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 141 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 9th June 2017 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.