Research-Based Guidelines in Developing Successful

University Based Research and Higher Education

Programs in Science and Technology

Wayne D. Purcell
Alumni Distinguished Professor
and
Karen P. Mundy
Communications Coordinator, REAP

Rural Economic Analysis Program

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Special Report

December 2003
 Executive Summary
Numerous analyses show research universities to be the primary catalysts for the expanded economic
activity associated with existing and new technology firms. New high tech firms locate in the presence of
major research universities, especially when “star researchers” are on the faculty of the Universities. The
impact of the university investments is strongest when the research university (1) allows its faculty to
cooperate with private researchers, and (2) encourages research faculty to start new firms that
commercialize the technology or innovation developed in the research labs.

The economic impact from research and development programs and expenditures has a broad range
depending on the degree of specialization of the technology developed. In general, the more specialized
the new research program, the lower the return on the investments will be. Based on a study of the
economic impact of James Madison University in 1995 and the significant work by Kirchhoff et al. in
2003, for every $1 million spent by the University involved, total new jobs will be 33 to 34 (the JMU
result) or 39 to 40 (the Kirchhoff et al. result). The impacts of the new expenditures develop over time
and with a significant lagged and continuing influence. Kirchhoff, et al. found only slight reduction in the
impact of new firm births in the fifth year after the initial expenditure, and reduced impacts would extend
across even more years. When account is taken of the total impact of new firms, even with allowance for
business failure, the taxes from new jobs in Virginia where about 5.5 percent of personal income is
usually paid in state taxes will generate a significant return on investments in research and innovation in
the science and technology fields.

Many research efforts show the presence of a research university to be the primary and most important
component of an economic development effort to attract or start new technology firms. Labor Market
Areas (LMA) that do not have a research university presence tend to lag, in measurable ways, behind the
pace of economic activity and business growth in LMA’s that have one or more active research
universities. Overall, we find that the literature involving research and analysis of the impacts and
influences of new programs in university research and higher education document the presence of a
research university p0rogram as an important, often the number one, contributor to economic growth and
to a strong and competitive private business sector.
 Research Based Guideline 1
In launching new research university and higher education programs, the focus of attention needs
to be on growing small businesses and the creation of new small businesses to maximize impact
from university research and development dollars.

Small firms innovate and develop new technologies and new procedures at a rate of 1.24 to 2.38
times higher than large firms, with “large firms” defined as more than 500 employees.
(Audretsch, 1995; Kirchhoff et al. cite Futures Group, 1984; Audretsch, 1991; Chakrabarti,
1991).

A “spillover effect” exists with a flow of technology from large firms to small firms, which
explains how small firms can be so innovative without spending major research and development
dollars (Audretsch and Feldman 1996; Jaffe, 1989; Kirchhoff et al. cite Jaffe, 1986; Acs,
Audretsch, and Feldman, 1994). Small firms do not have to be located in proximity to larger
firms for the technology flows from the large firms to smaller firms to develop.

Small firms make a major contribution to economic growth and create the largest share of new
jobs with newly formed small businesses the most effective in creating new jobs (Kirchhoff et al.
cite Birch 1979 and 1987; Kirchhoff 1994; Storey 1994; Baldwin 1995; Wennekers and Thurik
1999; Stel, 2002; Almus and Nerlinger 1999. p. 2).

Research Based Guideline 2

Research shows the factors most important to economic growth across communities ranging from
large metropolitan areas to rural areas are in order of importance (1) presence of universities, (2) a
skilled labor force, (3) presence of airports, and (4) a nice place to live. This finding was reported
by Birch, Haggerty, and Parsons, 2000; Rosan, 2002; and is supported by Kirchhoff et al., 2003.

Research universities develop and attract college graduates to their areas to provide the educated
work force the newly created firms will need. University research and development expenditures
and the proportion of college graduates in the Labor Market Area (LMA) population are highly
correlated statistically and deliver a joint influence on new firm creation and on new job creation
across at least five years after the R & D expenditure.

A study by the Office of Technology Policy, 2000 shows that the wide disparity in university
research funding is closely related to wide inter-state differences in economic growth rates. The
study suggests that adequate funding of university research staff and faculties and the concurrent
support for a better educated labor force are catalysts for triggering high local economic growth
rates.

Kirchhoff et al. note that many of the 494 LMA’s in the U.S. have no research university and
recommend state economic development programs encourage development of at least one
research university in each LMA to accelerate economic growth (p.25). Universities are seen as
the “feed stock” for new firms and new economic growth in other studies (Kirchhoff et al. cite
Birch, Haggerty, and Parsons, 2000, p. 24). A recent federal government report states that all
areas of technology-based economic growth in the U. S. have strong concentrations of research,
both university and privately-based (Office of Technology Policy, 2000, p1).

1
 Research Based Guideline 3
The location and level of research activities and the corollary intellectual pursuits of innovations
will largely determine the geographic location of the technology and biotechnology sectors.

Collaboration between research faculty at universities and corporate scientists facilitates growth
in new firms, especially technology firms. Zucker, Darby, and Armstrong (1998) find that five
articles co-authored by academic and corporate scientists imply about five new products in
development, 3.5 new products on the market, and 860 new employees in the corporate sector.

The location of top university research scientists will significantly determine where new
technology firms will locate. Both the higher level of academic achievement and better access to
capital and especially venture capital in the market areas are attractions (Zucker, Darby, and
Brewer, 1998, p. 302).

To successfully attract new technology firms, strong academic institutions and laboratories with a
good research base appear to be required (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2002).

Research Based Guideline 4

The presence of “star researchers” and the presence of top-20 research universities are the primary
determinants of where biotechnology firms will locate and where new firms will be launched.

From 1975 through 1990, the American biotechnology industry went from essentially 0 to over
700 active firms with the impetus coming from the discovery of the basic technique for
recombinant DNA in 1973 (Zucker, Darby, and Brewer, 1998, p.302).

The primary growth pattern in technology firms as identified by Zucker, Darby, and Brewer
(1998) is one or more research university scientists who established a new private business while
remaining on the university faculty. The universities have typically facilitated development by
permitting and/or encouraging research faculty to pursue private commercialization of technology
and new innovations.

The top-20 research universities identified by Zucker, Darby, and Brewer (1998) are Brandeis,
Cal Institute of Technology, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT,
Rockefeller, Stanford, California-Berkeley, California-LA, California-San Diego, California-San
Francisco, Chicago, Colorado-Denver, University of Pennsylvania, Washington-Seattle,
Wisconsin-Madison, and Yale. Including top university locations in the overall model helped
explain the location decisions of new technology firms but did not replace the “star researcher”
locations in importance as a predictor of new technology firm location.

2
 Research Based Guideline 5
A “regional spillover” effect boosts new firm growth in and around a catalyst for economic activity
such as a research university or a major private corporate research enterprise.

Paul Krugman (1991a, 1991b) strongly confirmed the theory of regional spillover. This concept
now being applied to technology firms is an extension of the long used “cluster” hypothesis in the
traditional economic development literature.

Industry density and population and growth are statistically strong explanatory factors in efforts
to explain variations in the rate of new firm formation in different market areas. The spillover
effect is intensified in Labor Market Areas with more businesses and with a growing population
(Armington and Acrs, 2001, p. 41).

Human capital, as measured by the percentage of workers with a college education, is also a
strong reason for higher rates of new firm formation in any particular geographic or market area
(Armington and Acrs, 2001, p. 42).

Research Based Guideline 6

Obvious research spill-over and cluster development is found in the Silicon Valley (California),
Route 128 Corridor (Massachusetts), and Research Triangle Park (North Carolina). Successful
clusters have several elements: local leaders recognize and support the potential of the industries
and regional strengths and assets; potential industries have access to a trained, educated
workforce; local champions serve as a catalytic influence; people with entrepreneurial drive and
knowledge of sound business practices; people have access to capital; informal and formal
information networks provide cohesion; businesses have staying power over long run; and the
educational and research institutions are involved in cutting edge work (Miller, 2002).

Stanford Research Park: In 1996, Silicon Valley generated $100 billion from companies started
by Stanford graduates and faculty. In 1998, the Valley attracted $4.7 billion in venture capital
(Rosan, 2002, p.1).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and other area universities in the
Route 128 Corridor: MIT-related firms employ about 125,000 people in Massachusetts and
represent at least 5% of the state’s employment (Rosan, 2002).

Duke University, University of North Carolina, and North Carolina State University: The
Research Triangle Park started in 1959. It now employs more than 100,000 people (Rosan,
2002).

3
 Research Based Guideline 7
Extensive research documents the significant influence of universities in economic
development and in the location and creation of new business firms, especially in the
technology and biotechnology areas of activity.

According to Rosan (2002), people, not companies are the center of the “knowledge economy.”
People choose where they want to live based on the amenities available—high quality of life,
high environmental quality, natural beauty, outdoor recreation, thriving cultural centers, vibrant
downtown—and the jobs move to the people. Because universities need to attract smart, talented
people, the universities are investing in communities to make them attractive places to live.
Many universities are models. Not only do they provide the research and technology that result
in spin-off companies, they also provide business incubators to help get the businesses started.
They provide grants to revitalize neighborhoods and build affordable housing, and they invest in
K-12 education.

Zucker, Darby, and Brewer (1998) found “strong evidence that the timing and location of initial
usage [of biotechnology by firms] are primarily explained by the presence at a particular time
and place of scientists who are actively contributing to the basic science as represented by
publications . . .” (p. 290). They also found that “intellectual human capital tends to flourish
around great universities, but the existence of outstanding scientists measured in terms of
research productivity played a key role over, above, and separate from the presence of those
universities and government research funding them . . .” (p. 302).

To attract bioscience industries, a state needs strong academic institutions and laboratories with a
good research base and an institutional structure that aids in the commercialization and
technology transfer to small, start-up companies. “In the long run, firms will go where the
research and start-ups are percolating.” (FRB of Dallas, 2002, p. 10)

4
 Research Based Guideline 8
A positive and statistically significant relationship exists between dollars spent on research and
development by science and engineering programs in research universities and the creation of new
business firms.

Coefficients on research and development dollars in regression models of the general form New
firms = f (R&D dollars and other explanatory variables) where the other variables are such as
population change, educational level of the workforce, state or regional total economic activity,
etc., range in different model specifications from 0.040 to 0.068. With research and development
dollars expressed as dollars per worker in the Labor Market Area (LMA), a coefficient of 0.068
would mean an added $1.00 in R & D expenditures per worker in the LMA would be associated
with 0.068 new firms. A new firm would therefore come with 1.0 ÷ 0.068 or $14.70 in new R &
D dollars per worker in the LMA.

Research by Kirchhoff, et al., 2003, shows a primary economic boost in the first year after R & D
expenditures, but a positive influence exists for up to five years with only a 15 percent “damping”
of impact in the fifth year after the initial expenditure. The average firm size in the data set was
15.25 employees. New firms at 15.25 employees per firm in the first year and new firms with
14.70, 14.15, 13.58, and about 13.00 new jobs (a 15% decline) in years two through five,
respectively, after the initial R & D expenditure would generate a direct impact of 70.68 new jobs
for each $4.90 million in research expenditures. (The $4.9 million comes from $14.70 per worker
times 333,000 the average number of workers per LMA in the U. S.) At a $30,000 income per
job per year and with state taxes near 5.5 percent of personal income in Virginia, the 70.86 jobs
could generate $116,622 in state tax revenues by the end of the five-year period.

If the employment multiplier is 1.75, an additional 123.69 (1.75 * 70.68) jobs would be created
across the five-year period via the indirect and induced economic impacts. These additional
123.69 jobs would pay an added $204,088 in Virginia state taxes. The expenditure of $4.9
million in R & D could therefore result in state taxes of $320,710 ($116,622 + $204,088) or a 6.5
percent return on investment in R & D. Combined, there will be 39 to 40 new jobs per $1 million
in research expenditures.

Adjusted R2 measures indicate that the regression models estimated by Kirchhoff et al. explain
59% to 62% of the variation in number of new firms launched. Explanatory variables such as
population change, unemployment rate, density of firms in the LMA, firm size, etc. were
combined with research and development expenditures. In complex business environments, these
R2 levels and the statistical significance of the relationships are strong and the results can be used
with confidence.

5
 Research Based Guideline 9
Economic growth, as measured by net new job creation, is influenced by a host of factors with
varying and often complex time-lag relationships. Modeling economic growth to find the primary
“drivers” of new job creation is made difficult by the complexity of the relationships and by the
presence of a statistical property called multicollinearity (explanatory variables are highly
interrelated and isolating the impact of a single explanatory variable such as university R & D
expenditures is therefore difficult). Sophisticated econometric models were used by Kirchhoff et al.
to measure the impact of a number of the “drivers” in economic growth. Including all the drivers
in a well-specified model allows statistical measurement of the influence of each driver while
accounting for the presence of other factors.

The rate of new firm creation has a positive and statistically significant impact on new job
creation. (Kirchhoff et al., 2003, p.24)

No statistically significant relationship exists directly between net new job creation and university
research and development expenditures. Research to model this complex relationship suggests
the impact of university research and development dollars on new jobs is indirect and is delivered
through the creation of new business firms which offer new jobs.

Human capital, as measured by educational levels, exerts a positive and statistically significant
influence on net new job growth.

The effect of research and development expenditures and of educational levels on rate of new
firm creation is similar and is intertwined. Alternative model specifications to separate the
relative importance of the two indicate research and development expenditures are more powerful
in explaining new firm creation than is educational level (Kirchhoff, et al., 2003, p. 23).

New firm creation is more likely in LMA’s with higher levels of population, suggesting an
agglomeration effect in the more populous LMA’s.

Establishment density, where establishment is defined as either a firm or a plant in a multi-plant

firm, is positively associated with new firm creation and this finding confirms the presence of a
“spillover effect” from existing firms to new firms. This aggregation or agglomeration effect has
been documented across the U. S. in identified geographic areas with a concentration of high tech
firms.

6
 Research Based Guideline 10
Economic impact studies of state institutions of higher education show that both the state and the
locality surrounding the institution will benefit from the presence of the institution. Many
universities, to increase their benefits to the communities and to enhance their own revenues to
expand research (1) support business incubators, (2) provide funding for innovative start-up firms,
and (3) provide the nucleus for cluster business development. These “Innovative Universities” have
economic development as part of their mission, goal, and vision statements; pursue industry
research partnerships and education partnerships and industrial extension/technical assistance;
pursue entrepreneurial development and technology transfer; reward faculty for participating in
economic development activities; and develop formal partnerships with economic development
agencies (Rosan, 2002).

Some tidbits of information documenting the impact of “innovative universities”:

Center for Biotechnology Technology (a N.Y. Center for Advanced Technology p. 1) for the
2000/2001 year shows
o Gross corporate revenues from Center activities: $178 million;
o New jobs: 139; and
o Corporate savings $5.1 million
Center of Excellence (N.Y.): Attracts new funding from Federal and other sources for R & D
projects; growth of corporate revenues from R&D; creation of new enterprises; job
creation/retention.
o Corporate “graduates” of incubator: $100 million annual revenues;
o New companies created with technology from Stony Brook: 21 with combined total of
more than 75 employees and over $6 million in revenue;
o Licensing of university-developed technologies: 2 drugs produced combines sales over
$600 million; drug discovery technology licensed in 90 companies world wide;
o Technology transfer: correlated with growth in sponsored programs; and
o Job creation/retention: cumulative total 7,400 jobs.
Oklahoma Food and Agricultural Products Research and Technology Center: created “to help . . .
bridge gap between agricultural production of raw products and finished products”
(Zimmerschied, et al., p. 3).
o Firms assisted had $544.9 million annual sales (40% of GSP);
o Firms assisted had 8,383 direct, full-time employees (21% of direct employment); and
o FTE/$ million sales: direct—15.1; indirect/induced—8.6; total—10.3.
University of British Columbia University Industry Liaison Office (Sudmant, 2000, p. 4):
o Since 1984 licensed 293 UBC originated technologies; and
o Helped create 91 companies employing over 2,050 and revenues over $106.2 million as
direct result of UBC research and technology development. Technology areas: life
sciences; physical sciences, and information technology.
Georgia Center (Georgia Center in the Department of Marketing 1996)
o Total economic impact: $20.17 million;
o Direct impact: $10.50 million;
o Indirect impact: $9.67 million;
o Local jobs: 778;
o Personal income (local) $14.74 million; and
o Durable goods purchased with income: $1.97 million

7
 Research Based Guideline 11
The economic impact of R & D activities as part of a university program will vary across direct
economic impact as compared to direct plus induced economic impact and will vary across the
geographical area considered—be it regional or state.

The regional direct expenditure multiplier for James Madison University (JMU) is 1.19 which
means an added $0.19 is generated for each $1.00 in university expenditures. For the state, the
multiplier is larger: 1.30.

The regional employment multiplier is 17.45 jobs per $1 million in university expenditures. But
the multiplier for the state is significantly larger at 19.78.

When induced or indirect impacts are added, the state-level expenditure multiplier is 2.17 and the
employment multiplier is 33.02 new jobs per $1 million in university expenditures. (The
Kirchhoff et al. study generated some 39.4 jobs per $1.0 million in research expenditures by a
university, a finding very consistent with this result in the JMU study).

Source: Office of Institutional Research, James Madison University, 1994-95.

Research Based Guideline 12

Expenditures on research and development in University research programs generate a significant
number of new jobs in addition to the jobs created in the research programs.

Multipliers for output or revenue are measured in dollars and for employment as a multiple of the
number of jobs created in the firm or program being started or expanded:

Des Moines International Airport (transportation, communications, and public utilities):

o Output: 1.53
o Jobs: 1.71

University of British Columbia:

o Total expenditures: 1.50
o Total employment: 1.50

James Madison University total Harrisonburg/Rockingham County (Office of Institutional

Research)
o Employment (jobs/$million expenditures): 23.76
o Total expenditures: 1.59

Biotechnology Industry Organization (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2002, p. 7 & 9)

o Employment: 2.9
o Revenue: 2.3

University of Calgary (Office of Institutional Analysis, 2001)

o Income: 1.7
o Employment: 1.5

Manchester College, Indiana (McNamara, 1996)

o Output: 1.628
o Employment: 1.60

8
 Research Based Guideline 13
The probability of success for a new firm is related to structure of the local economy, the size of the
new firm as it is being launched, and the rate of innovation as measured by new technologies and/or
new products.

Firm size as measured by the number of employees at the startup of the new firm is positively
correlated with the probability of new-firm survival. The statistical relationship is highly
significant (p<0.05) over the first 10 years of firm life (Audretsch, 1995, p. 453).

The probability of survival for a new firm is negatively related to industry structure as measured
by economies of size and by the degree of product differentiation. Audretsch (1995) confirms
that both plant and firm size in the prevailing economic sector are major barriers to new firm
survival.

Chances of survival are lower in market/sector or geographical market areas where the rate of
innovation is very high. Several studies explain the apparent inconsistency by noting that new
technology and technological innovation can encourage new entries to an excessive level and hurt
the chances of any one new entrant, especially a smaller new entrant.

9
 References
Almus, Matthias and Eric A. Nerlinger. “Growth of New Technology-Based Firms: Which Factors
Matter?” Small Business Economics. (13:141-154), 1999.

Armington, Catherine, and Zoltan J. Arcs. “The Determinants of Regional Variation in New Firm
Formation,” Regional Studies. (36.1:33-45), 2002.

Audretsch, David B. “Innovation, Growth and Survival,” International Journal of Industrial

Organization. (13:441-457), 1995.

Audretsch, David B. and Maryann P. Feldman. “R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and
Production,” The American Economic Review. (Vol. 86, No. 3: 630-640), June 1996.

Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. “Economic Impact NASA JSC. 2003. Found at
http://www.cladef.com/templates/includes/print_email/inc_printthis.asp. Last accessed 12 Nov. 03.

Center for Biotechnology. Translating Good Science into Good Business: Report to the Community,
2001. N.Y State Center for Advanced Technology. 2002.

Center of Excellence. “Economic Impact.” Found at http:lina.tns.synysb.edu:8080/econ_impact.html.

Last accessed 3 Nov. 03.

Georgia Center’s Department of Marketing Services. “Economic Impacts of the Georgia Center on
Surrounding Communities.” 1996. Found at http://www.gactr.uga.edu/gcq/gcqfall96/economic.html.
Last accessed 21 Nov. 03.

Des Moines International Airport. “A Leading Influence in Central Iowa.” 1998. Found at
http://www.dsmairport.com/AboutUs/Economic_Impact.htm. Last accessed 12 Nov. 03

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “The Economic Impact of Biotechnology,” Southwest Economy.
March/April 2002.

Federation of American Scientists. “ASA Technological Spinoff Fables.” E-Prints, 1995. Found at
http://fas.org/spp/eprint/jp_951525.htm. Last accessed 10 Nov. 03.

Kirchhoff, Bruce A., Catherine Armington, Iftekhar Hasan, and Scott Newbert. The Influence of R&D
Expenditures on New Firm Formation and Economic Growth. (Maplewood, N.J.: BJK Associates),
2003. Found at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs222tot.pdf. Last accessed 17 Dec. 03

Krugman, Paul (a). “History and Industry Location: The Case of the Manufacturing Belt,” American
Economic Review. (Vol. 83, No. 2:80-83), 1991.

_____ (b). “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography,” Journal of Political Economy. (Vol. 99, No.
3: 483-499), 1991.

Los Alamos National Laboratory. “Our Community: Economic Support.” 2003. Found at
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/pdf/CR_Fact_Economic.pdf. Last accessed 17 Dec. 03.

10
McNamara, Kevin T. “Economic Impacts of Manchester College on the Wabash County Economy.”
Purdue University Center for Rural Development: Research report #12A. 1996.

Millier, Lauren. “Economic Clusters: Universities as a Catalyst for Development,” EdDevJournal.

2002. Found at http://ecdevjournal.com/pubs/2002/art0t_02.htm. Last accessed 10 Nov. 03.

Morehouse, Barbara J. and Mirsa Paula Walker. “Designing the Future: The Bioindustry in Arizona.”
University of Arizona. May 1997.

Office of Institutional Analysis. “The Economic Impact of the University of Calgary, 2000-01.” Calgary,
Alberta: The University of Calgary.

Office of Institutional Research. “The Economic Impact of James Madison University on the
Harrisonburg/Rockingham County Area and the Commonwealth of Virginia.” James Madison
University, 1996. Found at http://www.jum.edu.instresrch/resrchstud/economic/econimpt.htm. Last
accessed 21 Nov. 03.

O’Hara, Russell. “The Economic Impact of Higher Education.” Statewide Office of Budget and
Institutional Research, University of Alaska. July, 2002. Found at
http://www.commonwealthnorth.org/uastudy/pitneyecon.htm. Last accessed 3 Nov. 03.

Porter, Michael. E. “Atlanta-Columbus Clusters of Innovation Initiative.” Washington, DC: Cluster on

Competitiveness. Found at http://www.compete.org/pdf/atlanta_final.pdf. Last accessed 17 Dec. 03.

Princeton University. “Regional Economic Impact: A Princeton Profile, 1997-98.” 1997. Found at
http://www.Princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/97/24impact.html. Last accessed 12 Nov. 03.

Rexhausen, Jeff, Christina M. L. Kelton, and Lisa A. Schlafer. “The Economic Impact of Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital Medical Center on Greater Cincinnati.” (Economic Center for Education and
Research, University of Cincinnati), Aug. 2003.

Rosan, Richard M. “The Key Role of Universities in Our Nation’s Economic Growth and Urban
Revitalization.” Urban Land Institute. 2002. Found at
http://experts.uli.org/Content/WhosWho/Officers/Rosan/Rosan_C7.htm. Last accessed 17 Dec. 03.

Strayhorn, Carole K. “The Impact of the State of Higher Education System on the Texas Economy.”
Dec. 2002. Found at http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/highered/productivity.html. Last
accessed 3 Nov. 03.

Sudmant, Walter. “The Economic Impact of the University of British Columbia on the Greater
Vancouver Regional District.” Planning and Institutional Research, The University of British
Columbia, Aug. 2000.

U.S. Department of Labor. Labor Market Areas, 2003. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2003, pg. 144-148. Found at http://stats.bls.gov/lau/lmadirectory2003.pdf. Last accessed 21 Dec, 03.

Winters, Dennis K., and William A. Strang. “University of Wisconsin System’s Economic Contribution
to Wisconsin.” Sept. 2002. Found at http://www.northstareconomics.com/UWSsum.pdf. Last
accessed 17 Dec. 03.

11
Zimmerschied, Ann, Mike Woods, Charles Willoughby, Rodney Holcomb, and Daniel Tilley.
“Economic Impact of the Firms Assisted by the Oklahoma Food and Agricultural Products Research
and Technology Center.” Selected paper, annual meeting Southern Agricultural Economics
Association, Feb. 2003.

Zucker, Lynne, G., Michael R. Darby, and Marilynn B. Brewer. “Intellectual Human Capital and the
Birth of U.S. Enterprise,” The American Economic Review. (Vol. 88, No. 1: 290-306), 1998.

12