The chosen public policy is represented through the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), which main purpose is in supporting, promoting, and accelerating innovation in the United States “through high-risk, high-reward research in the areas of critical national need (NIST, 2010). The program came as a replacement to a previous program with a similar purpose, which is the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). In that regard, this paper provides an overview of TIP, its occurrence and the interests it serves, outlining such points as the effectiveness and proposed modification.
The initial public policy, which started with the creation of ATP in 1988, had the main purpose of supporting technological research that “had the potential to provide broad-based economic benefits for the nation” (Slivinski, 2007, p. 8). The effectiveness of the program can be judged on the number of the project that it funded, which as of 2005 was 768 projects at the cost of at least $2.3 billion (Slivinski, 2007). Nevertheless, the ATP intuitive received a lot of criticism due to the supporting evidences of duplication of efforts, funding researches which were already supported and had no problem supporting their own research. The latter can be seen in the fact that the top beneficiaries of the ATP were multi-billion companies such as “IBM, General Electric, Honeywell, Xerox, and Dow Chemical” (Slivinski, 2007).
The ATP was abolished in 2007, while the statute created TIP. In that regard, it can be stated that the rationale of TIP can be seen in addressing the controversial aspects of ATP, which can be seen in the program’s provisions, such as the restriction to small and medium businesses, the concentration on potentially revolutionary technologies, the restriction on duplicated R&D developments, and the adoption of cost-sharing as the mechanism of support (NIST, 2009). In such way the company ensures that the researches address critical national needs (NIST, 2009), rather than help keeping U.S. companies in the lead in world technology markets (Benedetto, 2005). The latter does not imply that large corporations cannot participate in the TIP projects. It just means that they will not receive TIP funding (NIST, 2009)
Due to the short period in which TIP was in force, its effectiveness is still to be assessed. A list of the project funded in 2009 reveals such critical areas as development of SCANS for advanced health management, civil infrastructure health monitoring, infrastructure defect recognition and others. The sum costs by TIP might reach up-to $88 million, in which almost half, i.e. $42.5 million is potentially to be funded by TIP (NIST, 2009).
Potential modification to the project might include extending the scope of research toward business of a larger scale. In that regard, preventing the initiative to turn into the cancelled ATP, several measures would be initiated such as supporting the project until it starts to gain considerable income, which then would oblige companies to repay the funding. In such way, the program will prevent the funding from being exploited by large corporations, and on the other hand, unlike small and medium businesses might reach considerable results in shorter tomes.
It can be concluded that TIP is perspective public policy, which effectiveness is still to be assessed. Nevertheless, the purpose of the program, as well as its aims, already demonstrates that the issues found in ATP were addressed.
References
Benedetto, R. (2005). Program keeps avoiding the ax. USA Today. Web.
NIST. (2009). TIP Annual Report. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Web.
NIST. (2010). Technology Program Homepage National Institute of Standards and Technology. Web.
Slivinski, S. (2007). The Corporate Welfare State How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses. Policy Analysis. Web.