Abstract
In this chapter, Gabe examines the effects of technology on the economic development of states and US metropolitan areas. The specific types of technology considered are high-tech businesses, biotechnology, and environmental and energy companies, as well as businesses in the knowledge economy. Information presented in the chapter shows that all of these types of technology support the growth of good jobs. The positive impacts of technology are considerably stronger in metropolitan areas, especially very large regions, as compared to states. The technology-based indicators help the growth and productivity of US metropolitan areas, which suggests that differences in the deployment of technology across places are contributing to a divergence in the economic performance of US regions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
To differentiate between industry- and occupation-based approaches to economic development, Edward Feser (2003) refers to the former as focusing on “what people make” and the latter as “what people do” in their jobs.
- 2.
I purposely left out information technology, another technology-based approach, because we’ve already (indirectly) looked at the impacts of IT on economic development. In the chapter on “Picking Winners,” we found a positive relationship between economic development and a region’s specialization in the communications sector. Likewise, our analysis of workforce skills in the chapter on “Human Capital” showed that (computer) programming skills have a positive effect on economic development. Given that information technology involves the use of computers to analyze, store and communicate information, we can imply from our earlier results (pertaining to communications and programming) that IT is probably good for the economic development of regions.
- 3.
The shares of high-tech businesses (as of 1990) in US metropolitan areas and states are estimated using County Business Patterns data of the U.S. Census Bureau.
- 4.
Ross DeVol (1999, Table 2.1) counts the following sectors as high-technology: drugs; computer and office equipment; communications equipment; electronic components and accessories; aircrafts and parts; guided missiles, space vehicles and parts; search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems, instruments, and equipment; laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments; surgical, medical, and dental instruments and supplies; telephone communications services; computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services; motion picture production and allied services; engineering, architectural, and surveying services; and research, development, and testing services.
- 5.
These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, and Virginia.
- 6.
The shares of biotechnology businesses (as of 1990) in states and US metropolitan areas are estimated using County Business Patterns data of the U.S. Census Bureau.
- 7.
The 13 metropolitan areas counted among the top-twenty regions for high-tech and biotechnology businesses are Ann Arbor (Michigan), Boston, Boulder (Colorado), Bridgeport (Connecticut), Corvallis (Oregon), Denver, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Barbara, State College (Pennsylvania), Trenton (New Jersey), and Washington DC.
- 8.
The shares of environmental and energy businesses (as of 1990) in states and US metropolitan areas are estimated using County Business Patterns data of the U.S. Census Bureau.
- 9.
The shares of knowledge economy businesses (as of 1990) in US metropolitan areas and states are estimated using County Business Patterns data of the U.S. Census Bureau.
- 10.
The top-twenty US metropolitan areas for the share of knowledge economy businesses are Albuquerque (New Mexico), Atlanta Austin Boulder (Colorado), Bridgeport (Connecticut), Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Phoenix, Reno (Nevada), Salt Lake City, San Diego; San Francisco, and San Jose.
- 11.
These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Utah.
References
Allen T, Gabe T (2003) The business climate for biotechnology in Maine. Maine agricultural and forest experiment station, University of Maine, Miscellaneous Report 432, December.
Backman M, Gabe T, Mellander C (2016) Effects of human capital on the growth and survival of Swedish businesses. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 46: 22–38.
Bluestone B, Clayton-Matthews A (2013) Life sciences innovation as a catalyst for economic development: The role of the Massachusetts life sciences center. The Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northeastern University, March. https://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/LifeSciences_%C6%92.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2016.
Busch L, Lacy W, Burkhardt J, Lacy L (1991) Plants, Power and Profit: Social, Economic and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Carlson R (2016) Estimating the biotech sector’s contribution to the US economy. Nature Biotechnology 34: 247–255.
DeVol R (1999) America’s high-tech economy. Milken Institute, July. http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/view/5. Accessed 13 October 2016.
Doms M, Dunne T, Troske K (1997) Workers, wages, and technology. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 253–290.
Feser E (2003) What regions do rather than make: A proposed set of knowledge-based occupation clusters. Urban Studies 40: 1937–1958.
Florida R (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class, Basic Books, New York.
Florida R (2012) The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited, Basic Books, New York.
Gabe T, Abel J (2011) Agglomeration of knowledge. Urban Studies 48: 1353–1371.
Hecker D (1999) High-technology employment: A broader view. Monthly Labor Review 122: 18–28.
Machlup F (1962) The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Malecki E (1984) High technology and local economic development. Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 262–269.
Moretti E (2012) The New Geography of Jobs, Mariner Books, Boston.
Muro M, Rothwell J, Saha D (2011) Sizing the clean economy. The Brooking Institute, Metropolitan Policy Program. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0713_clean_economy.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2016.
Noble D (1997) EBI market and industry research methods. Environmental Business International, Inc.
Porter M (2000) Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly 14: 15–34.
Portz J, Eisinger P (1991) Biotechnology and economic development: The role of states. Politics and the Life Sciences 9: 225–239.
Romer P (1990) Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98: S71–S102.
Sommers D (2013) BLS green jobs overview. Monthly Labor Review, January.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gabe, T.M. (2017). Technology and the Growth of Good US Jobs. In: The Pursuit of Economic Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52476-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52476-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52475-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52476-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)