Publications

Peer-Reviewed Articles (w Abstracts)

Fišar, M., Greiner, B., Huber, C., Katok, E., Ozkes, A., and the ⁑Management Science Reproducibility Collaboration (forthcoming). ‘Reproducibility in Management Science’ Management Science. (⁑Contributed as Member of the Management Science Reproducibility Collaboration)

With the help of more than 700 reviewers we assess the reproducibility of nearly 500 articles published in the journal Management Science before and after the introduction of a new Data and Code Disclosure policy in 2019. When considering only articles for which data accessibility and hard- and software requirements were not an obstacle for reviewers, the results of more than 95% of articles under the new disclosure policy could be fully or largely computationally reproduced. However, for 29% of articles at least part of the dataset was not accessible to the reviewer. Considering all articles in our sample reduces the share of reproduced articles to 68%. These figures represent a significant increase compared to the period before the introduction of the disclosure policy, where only 12% of articles voluntarily provided replication materials, out of which 55% could be (largely) reproduced. Substantial heterogeneity in reproducibility rates across different fields is mainly driven by differences in dataset accessibility. Other reasons for unsuccessful reproduction attempts include missing code, unresolvable code errors, weak or missing documentation, but also soft- and hardware requirements and code complexity. Our findings highlight the importance of journal code and data disclosure policies, and suggest potential avenues for enhancing their effectiveness.

Myers, K. and L. Lanahan. (2022) ‘Estimating Spillovers from Publicly Funded R&D: Evidence from the US Department of Energy’ American Economic Review. 112(7): 2393-2423. doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210678

We quantify the magnitude of R&D spillovers created by grants to small firms from the US Department of Energy. Our empirical strategy leverages variation due to state-specific matching policies, and we develop a new approach to measuring both geographic and technological spillovers that does not rely on an observable paper trail. Our estimates suggest that for every patent produced by grant recipients, three more are produced by others who benefit from spillovers. Sixty percent of these spillovers occur within the United States, and many of them occur in technological areas substantially different from those targeted by the grants.
Data and Code for: Estimating spillovers from publicly funded R&D: Evidence from the US Department of Energy (openicpsr.org)

*Graddy-Reed, A., *L. Lanahan. (2022) ‘Prioritizing Diversity? The Allocation of US Federal R&D Funding’ Science and Public Policy, doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac052

We examine the distribution of federal research and development funding across the academy early in the researcher’s pipeline. We use a unique program, the US National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), to document diversity and disparity in allocation and assess the relative impact of federal funding across four different academic divisions that include engineering, life sciences, math and physical sciences, and social sciences and psychology. After controlling for disciplinary differences in research practices, we find that the impact of federal funding yields similar rates and impact of research. However, we document disparity in how federal funding is allocated across the country to institutions and individuals. Together, these findings prompt a discussion around the trade-offs of funders focusing on national priorities or broadening participation. We conclude with recommendations for the GRFP.

E. Johnson, I. Hemmatian, L. Lanahan, and A. Joshi. (2022) ‘A Framework and Databases for Measuring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems’ Research Policy, 51(2) doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104398.

Scholarly literature on the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has increased sharply over the past five years. The surge in interest has also heightened the demand for robust empirical measures that capture the complexity of dynamic relationships among ecosystem constituents. We offer a framework for measurement that places collaborative relationships among entrepreneurs, firms, government agencies, and research institutions at the center of the ecosystem concept. We further emphasize the four roles of the federal government as a catalyst, coordinator, certifier, and customer in shaping these relationships. Despite the central importance of these firm government interactions, there is surprisingly little research on suitable methodologies and appropriate data for systematically and reliably incorporating them into measures of ecosystem health. Our study aims to address this gap in the literature by first developing a conceptual framework for measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems and then describing an array of accompanying databases that provide rich and detailed information on firms and their relationships with government organizations, accelerators, and research institutions. A major advantage of our approach is that all the underlying databases are drawn from non-confidential, publicly available sources that are transparently disclosed and regularly updated. This greatly expands the potential community of scholars, managers, and policymakers that may independently use these databases to test theories, make decisions, and formulate policies related to innovation and entrepreneurship.

*Clayton, P. *L. Lanahan, and *A. Nelson. (2022) ‘Dissecting Diffusion: Tracing the Plurality of Factors that Shape Knowledge Diffusion’ Research Policy, 51(1) doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104389

Knowledge diffusion drives both technical progress and economic growth. In this study, we present a unique comparative case study that examines the diffusion of two comparable, foundational biotechnology inventions – recombinant DNA (rDNA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Using a variety of metrics to trace knowledge diffusion, we find robust evidence that the diffusion of PCR significantly outperforms rDNA. Examining the historical record, we then consider how organizational origin, licensing strategy, complementary assets, industry stage, and early social networks play a role in shaping these processes. Ultimately, we show that reliance on a single diffusion metric or factor is insufficient in explaining knowledge diffusion. We argue for the exploration of multiple underlying factors in diffusion studies, and we highlight the utility of employing multiple complementary measures in diffusion research.
Replication Data for "Dissecting Diffusion: Tracing the Plurality of Factors that Shape Knowledge Diffusion" - Harvard Dataverse

*Lanahan, L., *D. Armanios, and A. Joshi. (2021) ‘Inappropriateness Penalty, Desirability Premium: What Do More Certifications Actually Signal?’ Organization Science, doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1463.

Prevailing theory argues that more certifications increase performance. However, emerging empirical evidence implies that obtaining more certifications may actually decrease performance. How do we reconcile this tension? Practically speaking, why would ventures seek additional certifications in light of these recently identified risks? To address this gap between existing theory and recent empirics, we look more closely at ventures’ activities and performance outcomes after they receive their first certification. We posit that different patterns of certification reflect different forms of experimentation. In particular, ventures may be willing to experiment in ways that incur an inappropriateness penalty for the chance to gain a subsequent desirability premium if their experiments succeed. Inappropriateness means that certifications signal divergence from accepted market norms and standards. Desirability means that certifications signal activities that are in the perceived self-interest of the potential audience. We hypothesize that certifications reflecting broad experimentation incur initial inappropriateness penalties; yet when successful, they are more likely to lead to breakthroughs that generate desirability premia. We find support for this idea through an empirical analysis drawing from a sample of 7,440 U.S. ventures that receive one or more Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) grants to commercialize new technologies. This study advances institutional theory of certification to better account not only for its benefits but also for its costs.

Lanahan, L., A. Joshi, and E. Johnson. (2021) ‘Do Public R&D Subsidies Produce Jobs? Evidence from the SBIR/STTR Program’ Research Policy, 50(7). doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104286.

Governments make substantial investments in small businesses to promote innovation and create jobs. While there is extensive evidence that R&D policies catalyze innovation, there is less empirical evidence on their employment effects. We examine the impact of public R&D subsidies on net job creation with a two-study empirical research design that draws upon first-time recipients of the U.S. SBIR/STTR program from the five leading federal agencies from 2000 to 2015. This two-study design enables us to analyze the extensive and intensive margins of the program. For the first study, we compare federal recipients to a matched set of nonrecipients and find awardees hire fewer employees than their counterparts. For the second study, we leverage a natural experiment to investigate the employment effects of additional matching funds from state governments. We find evidence that federal recipients that receive noncompetitive matching funds also hire fewer employees than federal recipients located in states without the match. We investigate a series of features that may accelerate or attenuate the total effect and find that ventures substitute away from hiring toward partnering and gaining access to external resources. Moreover, firms with heightened levels of risk, indicated by medium-to-low credit records, account for the greatest difference. These results highlight tensions for ventures as they balance competing expectations of the program to stimulate innovation while also creating jobs. Policymakers should reconsider whether emphasizing direct job growth is appropriate when evaluating this type of R&D program.
Data for Replication: Do Public R&D Subsidies Produce Jobs? Evidence from the SBIR/STTR Program - Harvard Dataverse

*Graddy-Reed, A., *L. Lanahan, and ^J. D’Agostino. (2021) ‘Training Across the Academy: The Impact of R&D Funding on Graduate Students’ Research Policy, 50(5). doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104224.

This paper measures the impact of external R&D funding on the career trajectory and research productivity of graduate students across the divisions of life sciences, math & physical sciences, engineering, and social sciences & psychology. We contribute to the understanding of the production of science by examining the training regimen for graduate students. We exploit variation between 3,678 awardees and honorable mentions of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program. We find consistent evidence that the award increases degree completion, placement in a post-doctoral or academic research position, research productivity and impact, and network size. We further explore the role of the graduate advisor in this training process and find the award does not disrupt the apprenticeship model, but instead, increases the student’s interaction with their advisor.

*Armanios, D., *L. Lanahan, and ^D. Yu. (2020) ‘Varieties of Local Government Experimentation: U.S. State-led Technology-Based Economic Development Policies, 2000 – 2015,’ Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(2). doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0014

A recent understudied phenomenon has emerged whereby public institutions are collectively taking on an expanded role in technological innovation by offering resource, policy, and infrastructure support even when the trajectories of these technologies are unclear. We term this phenomenon as government experimentation. Scholarship has tended to examine national efforts, yet local governments are in an ideal position to tailor programs to the local market context given their proximity. Nevertheless, we have a limited understanding regarding how local institutions experiment. The aims of this paper are twofold. First, we outline our methodological approach for building a unique dataset that classifies the portfolio of U.S. state government technology-based economic development policies from 2000-2015. We turn to the State Science and Technology Institute as the primary data source. Among the set of 1,659 state-led actions, we classify the context, topic, and lever. Second, we offer descriptive and comparative analysis of this local government experimentation. In considering the spread of each state’s policy portfolio, we highlight four distinct experimental archetypes – hub specialists, public entrepreneurs, industry architects, and ecosystem designers. Finally, we consider theoretical, managerial, policy, and methodological implications that could be derived from our characterization of this phenomenon of local government experimentation.
Data for Replication: https://cms-staging.andrew.cmu.edu/epp-2/stategovexp/

*Graddy-Reed, A., *L. Lanahan, and J. Eyer. (2019) ‘Gender Discrepancies in Publication Productivity of High-Performing Life Science Graduate Students,’ Research Policy, 48(9). doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103838.

Despite equal matriculation into life science graduate programs, the gender gap persists for later-stage professional outcomes. To understand this divergence, we examine graduate training and use the competitive NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program to identify high-quality life science students that are awardees and honorable mentions. We use a differencing research design to estimate the relative difference of the R&D award across gender on publication trajectory. The results of the triple difference estimation show a negative effect for women compared to men from the award. We investigate the driver of this effect by examining trends within gender and find a large, positive effect of the award for men but fail to find such evidence for female awardees. Our results indicate different signaling effects across gender even though the funding is meritocratic.
Data for Replication: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/DHBW3F

*Graddy-Reed, A., *L. Lanahan, and ^N. M. V. Ross. (2018) ‘The Effect of R&D Investment on Graduate Student Productivity: Evidence from the Life Sciences,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(4): 809-834.

This study examines the role of graduate training and R&D investments on research productivity by focusing on the effect of federal funding for early career graduate students. We employ a difference-in-differences research design drawing upon a sample of high quality life science graduate students that either are award recipients or honorable mentions of the prestigious U.S. National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program. We find that a $91,000 grant over three years has a limited, yet positive impact on the awardee’s productivity. These effects are driven by the sample of graduate students without publications prior to applying for the fellowship.
Data for Replication: doi:10.7910/DVN/SUISTL

*L. Lanahan and *D. Armanios. (2018), 'Does repeat certification always benefit a venture?' Organization Science, 9(5): 931-947.

An implicit assumption in institutional theory is that more certifications improve a venture’s likelihood for success. However, under certain conditions, we argue more certifications may be detrimental to the venture’s performance. We advance this notion by examining both who is doing the certification and, in turn, what information is revealed to others through the certification. Our study advances two new constructs based on varying instances of follow-on certification: certification broadening where the initial and follow-on certifiers are different institutions, and certification redundancy where the initial and follow-on certifiers are the same institution. Through studying sequences of certification in the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) federal and state programs, we find that certification broadening generally increases a firm’s ability to acquire private resources, while certification redundancy generally decreases a firm’s ability to acquire private resources. This study advances a more dynamic view of certification within institutional theory, namely when we disaggregate sequences of certifications, we are able to better ascertain when certification helps a venture and when it does not.

Lanahan, L., and M.P. Feldman. (2017), 'Approximating Exogenous Variation in R&D: Evidence from the Kentucky and North Carolina SBIR State Match Programs,' The Review of Economics and Statistics. doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00681

The theoretical rationale for government investment in R&D is well established, but empirical studies clarifying the most effective means of investment are lacking. There is considerable research on the effect of government investment at the firm level; however, this paper takes a narrower look to consider the effect of government investment in R&D projects. This paper examines the differential effect of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) State Match programs that reward successful federal Phase I projects on securing the larger follow on Phase II award. I use a difference-in-difference (DD) research design, identifying projects from comparable neighboring states without the program. I also estimate the marginal effect of the matching funds on Phase II success rates by considering variations in size of the state match. Results suggest that the state match has an impact for projects proposed by firms with less previous SBIR success. These results offer compelling policy implications: rather than continuing with the current policy practice of providing an equal amount of state matching funds to the entire pool of SBIR Phase I recipients, states ought to consider channeling funds to firms with less experience in the federal program.
Data for Replication: doi:10.7910/DVN/UC2ENJ

*Graddy-Reed, A., *L. Lanahan, and ^N. M. V. Ross. (2017), ‘Influences of Academic Institutional Factors on R&D Funding for Graduate Students,' Science and Public Policy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scx017

We examine the effect of academic institutional characteristics on research funding grant success for graduate students. This paper draws upon the US National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP). We match a set of graduate students to their graduate programs to examine whether higher education institutional factors mediate funding assignment to award or honorable mention. We find evidence that a series of leadership, peer, programmatic, and university characteristics are associated with grant funding outcomes. Notably, faculty research and peer quality are associated with award success, while the signal of being at a public institution decreases the likelihood of award receipt. Moreover, while we find that larger programs are more likely to have graduate students that receive awards, the larger, lower-ranked programs exhibit inefficiencies in scaling the activity. This implies these programs may face coordination costs that are detrimental to the rate of graduate student success.
Data for Replication: doi:10.7910/DVN/THMLXE

L. Lanahan, A. Graddy-Reed, and M.P. Feldman. (2016) 'The Domino Effects of Federal Research Funding,' Plos ONE, 11(6): e0157325. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0157325

The extent to which federal investment in research crowds out or decreases incentives for investment from other funding sources remains an open question. Scholarship on research funding has focused on the relationship between federal and industry or, more comprehensively, non-federal funding without disentangling the other sources of research support that include nonprofit organizations and state and local governments. This paper extends our understanding of academic research support by considering the relationships between federal and non-federal funding sources provided by the National Science Foundation Higher Education Research and Development Survey. We examine whether federal research investment serves as a complement or substitute for state and local government, nonprofit, and industry research investment using the population of research-active academic science fields at U.S. doctoral granting institutions. We use a system of two equations that instruments with prior levels of both federal and non-federal funding sources and accounts for time-invariant academic institution-field effects through first differencing. We estimate that a 1% increase in federal research funding is associated with a 0.411% increase in nonprofit research funding, a 0.217% increase in state and local research funding, and a 0.468% increase in industry research funding, respectively. Results indicate that federal funding plays a fundamental role in inducing complementary investments from other funding sources, with impacts varying across academic division, research capacity, and institutional control.
Data for Replication: doi:10.7264/N3W957G6

*Moulton, J. G., *A. Graddy-Reed, and *L. Lanahan. (2016) ‘Beyond the EITC: The Effect Of Reducing The Earned Income Tax Credit On Labor Force Participation,’ National Tax Journal, 69(2), 261-284. DOI/10.17310/ntj.2016.2.01 (author's contributed equally)

The authors exploit variation in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program based on exit, specifically when households lose eligibility based on children aging out of the program. Placed within the larger context of the EITC, this offers a framework for assessing if the aims of the program – in terms of incentivizing work – extend beyond the EITC tenure. They estimate the impact of reducing the EITC on mothers’ labor force participation (LFP) using a combination of difference-in-differences and household fixed effects models with the NLSY79 data. The results indicate that some of those most eligible for the EITC (unmarried, less educated mothers) leave the workforce when they lose eligibility for the EITC.

Feldman, M.P., T. Hadjimichael, L. Lanahan, and T. Kemeny. (2016) ‘The Logic of Economic Development: A Definition and Model for Investment,’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34: 5-21. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15614653

Despite significant public resources devoted to promoting innovation and entrepreneurship, there is little agreement about how to measure outcomes toward achieving the larger objectives of economic development. This paper starts by defining economic development and then considers the role of government, arguing that public policy should focus on building capacities that are beyond the ability of the market to provide. This shifts the debate toward a neutral role of government as a builder of capacities that enable economic agents, individuals, firms, or communities to realize their potential.

Lanahan, L. (2016) 'Multilevel Funding for Small Business Innovation: A Critical Review of U.S. State SBIR Match Programs,' The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 220-249. DOI 10.1007/s10961-015-9407-x

U.S. State governments invest in early-stage innovative activity as an economic development strategy. Nevertheless, attention directed at the public sector’s role in this capacity has been placed on federal policy actions overlooking the growing role of states. The primary aims of this paper are two-fold: (i) to articulate the motivations for multilevel public support for small business innovative activity, placing emphasis on state level incentives directed towards entrepreneurial activity; and (ii) to empirically evaluate the State Match Phase I (SMP-I) program. The SMP-I program is a diffuse state level policy designed to complement the federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program by offering noncompetitive matching funds to the state’s successful SBIR Phase I recipients. This offers an opportunity to examine the marginal impact of public R&D given the state intervention. This paper employs a state and year fixed effects model and considers two outcome variables – Phase II success rates and Phase I application activity. To account for industrial heterogeneity, the data are stratified by the federal mission agencies. Results from the empirical analysis indicate that the state match increases the Phase II success rates for firms participating in the National Science Foundation (NSF) SBIR program.

Lanahan, L. and M. P. Feldman. (2015) ‘Multilevel Innovation Policy Mix: A Closer Look at State Policies that Augment the Federal SBIR Program,’ Research Policy, 44: 1387-1402. DOI 10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.002

This paper examines nested, multilevel innovation policies paying particular attention to U.S. federal and state small business innovation research programs. With 45 states offering a range of SBIR Outreach and SBIR Match programs specifically designed to enhance the federal SBIR program, such programs provide a useful lens for examining the nature of the multilevel innovation policy mix. The contributions of this paper are twofold. First, the paper provides theoretical motivation for multilevel innovation policy responses placing emphasis on positive policy responses in which state policies enhance federal policies. Second, the paper provides an empirical analysis examining the multilevel factors associated with a state government response that augments the federal SBIR program. The results from this analysis indicate these state policy actions are associated with a confluence of multilevel factors driven not only from top-down federal actions, but also from bottom-up, internal state political and economic factors as well as from lateral pressures from peer states.

Feldman, M.P., L. Lanahan, and I. Lendel. (2014), ‘Experiments in the Laboratories of Democracy: State Scientific Capacity Building,’ Economic Development Quarterly, 28(2), 107 - 131.

State initiatives that build innovation capacity by supporting local academic research, attracting eminent scholars, and building research excellence have become prominent among the 50 states over the past 30 years. This paper focuses on three programs: University Research Grants, Eminent Scholars, and Centers of Excellence. We include examples for each of state programs and trace the historical evolution of program attributes. Our objectives is to differentiate program attributes in order to improve understanding of state science initiatives and begin to assess how programs contribute to the ultimate goal of creating economic growth. Our empirical analysis demonstrates evidence of the long-term impact of these three programs in building state innovative capacity. The paper concludes by outlining how these data may be used in future analyses.

Book Chapters

Feldman, M. P. and L. Lanahan (2015), ‘State Science Policy Experiments,’ in A. Jaffe and B. Jones (eds) The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy. University of Chicago Press.

Hardin, J., L. Lanahan, and L. Brun, (2015) 'Assessing State-level Science and Technology Policies: North Carolina's Experience with SBIR State Matching Grants,' in Audretsch, B. D. et al. (eds) Oxford University Handbook of Local Competitiveness. Oxford University Press.

Feldman, M. P. and L. Lanahan (2015), ‘Crafting a Comeback: Innovation and Entrepreneurship as an Economic Development Strategy in Mature Regions,’ in J. Bryson et al. (eds) Handbook of Manufacturing Industries in the World Economy. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Feldman, M. P., A. Freyer, and L. Lanahan (2012), ‘On the Measurement of University Research Contributions to Economic Growth and Innovation,’ in J. Lane et al. (eds) Universities and Colleges as Economic Drivers: Measuring Higher Education’s Role in Economic Development. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Feldman, M. P., L. Lanahan, and J. M. Miller (2011), ‘Inadvertent Infrastructure and Regional Entrepreneurship Policy’, in M. Fritsch et al. (eds.) The Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham: 216-251.

Policy Reports & Other Publications

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023). Review of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the National Science Foundation. National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020). Review of the SBIR and STTR Programs at the Department of Energy. National Academies Press.

Feldman, M. P., L. Lanahan, and I. Lendel (2014), 'Focus on State Economic Development Policy,' Economic Development Quarterly, 28(2), 103 - 106.

Feldman, M. P., L. Lanahan, and E. Stokan (2014), 'Stage I: Initial Findings on Metrics and Potential Data Sources Examining the i6 Challenge and the Jobs Innovation Accelerator Challenge (JIAC) Projects,' presented to the Economic Development Administration.

Feldman, M. P., A. Graddy-Reed, L. Lanahan, G. McLaurin, K. Nelson, and A. Reamer (2012), ‘Innovative Data Sources for Regional Economic Analysis’ (Kindle edition)

Feldman, M. P. and L. Lanahan (2010), ‘Silos of Small Beer: A Case Study of the Efficacy of Federal Innovation Programs in a Key Midwest Regional Economy’, Science Progress: Center for American Progress.

Papers Under Review & Working Papers

*Gish, J., *L. Lanahan, and *J. Beck. ‘A Values-Complementarity Model of Social Movement Influence on Entrepreneurship’ (Conditional Accept)

*Lanahan, L., I. Hemmatian, A. Joshi, and E. Johnson. ‘Drivers of Firm-Government Engagement for Technology Ventures’

*O. Hmaddi, *L. Lanahan, and *A. Murray. ‘Tracing Entrepreneurial Spillovers: Evidence from the U.S. State Small Business Credit Initiative and Kickstarter’

*Armanios, D., *L. Lanahan, A. Joshi, and O. Hmaddi. ‘Can Place-Based Certification Improve Venture Performance in Impoverished Areas?’

*Lanahan, L., I. Hemmatian, A. Joshi, and E. Johnson. ‘Exploring Public Sector Focus Among Ventures’

E. Johnson, I. Hemmatian, A. Joshi, and L. Lanahan ‘The Role of Community Development Financial Institutions in Supporting Equitable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems’