|
It is now generally conceded that the current
economic environment is qualitatively different from that which
prevailed little more than a decade ago. That is, we are in the
midst of a "new economy" that is characterized by
burgeoning trade and global business relationships, the importance
of technology in new products and processes, a key role of small
entrepreneurial companies, and the particular importance of a
skilled and educated workforce. To illustrate, the American
Electronics Association (1998) reports that as of 1996, the U.S.
high-technology industry was the largest in the country, paid an
average wage that was 73% higher than the average private sector
wage, and was exporting over $150 billion in goods, making it the
largest United States exporting industry.
Regarding the workforce issue, it should not be
too surprising that a knowledge-based economy is heavily reliant on
people with scientific and technical expertise. Recent analyses have
suggested that some fast-growing industries are being stymied by a
lack of new hires with appropriate skills (Office of Technology
Policy, 1997), and human resources are typically at the top of most
companies' list of pressing business issues. There is also
longitudinal evidence that highly skilled people not only play an
important role as new hires, but also as a wellspring of
entrepreneurial start-up companies. For example, the record of MIT
graduates is startling. They have founded over 4,000 firms,
employing 1.1 million people, and generating $232 billion in sales (BankBoston,
1997).
These issues are increasingly the focus of public
policy debate as well, as political and economic development leaders
see human resources as an important ingredient in a state's
long-term growth strategy. For example, in a recent issue of Maine
Policy Review, David Silvernail (1997) examined the issue of
Maine residents' participation in higher education. When compared
against a number of similar states, Maine seems to fair poorly on a
number of participatory indices.
However, from an economic development perspective,
a more telling analysis might focus on the participation of
individuals as working members of the economy with key technical
skills (e.g., individuals with recent science and engineering
degrees). After all, the new economy is being built around talented
people with special knowledge, more than the traditional economic
ingredients.
Recently the Southern Technology Council conducted
a national analysis of interstate migration of recent science and
engineering graduates. Using a database developed through the
National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), the Southern
Technology Council team was able to analyze a national sample
of individuals who were currently working, and who had recently
received either a bachelor or master's degree in a science or
engineering discipline. The thrust of the Southern Technology
Council analysis was to compare states on their performance in
retaining their own recent science and engineering graduates and/or
attracting the graduates from states elsewhere in the country. In
effect, some states can be net exporters of science and engineering
personnel, while others may function as magnets for this important
human commodity. In addition, the Southern Technology Council team
conducted predictive analyses in a preliminary attempt to determine
key factors that seemed to influence interstate personnel migration
phenomena.
BENCHMARKING RETENTION AND MIGRATION OF RECENT
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING GRADUATES
Although there has been considerable interest in
and debate about a so-called "brain drain" within state
governments (Schmidt, 1998), few states or even institutions
systematically monitor retention or migration rates. Further, lack
of any standardized measure of these phenomena preclude
state-by-state comparisons for those that do. By taking advantage of
the NSRCG, a national probability survey of recent science and
engineering graduates supported by the National Science Foundation,
the Southern Technology Council team was able to produce retention
and migration benchmarking data for the whole United States.
Data analyses were based on the 1993 NSRCG
database, the most recent available at the time. NSRCG-93 includes
personal, educational and employment data on over 19,000 science and
engineering students who received their degrees sometime between
spring 1990 and 1992. Employment data for these individuals focused
on their status for the "target week," April 15, 1993.
Without going into the methodological and
computational detail of the Southern Technology Council study,
suffice it to say that four "outcome" indices were
developed using the raw data from the NSRCG database. Two outcome
indices focused on retention, although based on different graduation
cohorts. In one case, the analysis looked at the extent to which
individuals who had received a high school degree in a focal state
(and who had then gone on to get a bachelor and/or master's degree
in science and engineering anywhere) are now working in that state's
economy. A parallel index computed the fraction of recent science
and engineering graduates (at either the bachelor or master's level)
from a focal state's colleges and universities who are now working
in that focal state's economy
In addition, two outcome indices were developed to
capture the phenomena of net migration of science and engineering
graduates. That is, whatever their retention performance for locally
educated students, states can also reach a positive balance of trade
in science and technology personnel by functioning as a magnet for
individuals who were educated elsewhere and take a job within that
state. By the same token, some states may be experiencing a negative
net migration, not only because they are not retaining their own,
but also because they are not attracting graduates from elsewhere.
Net migration was computed by comparing the number of former
students from any state who are working in the focal state compared
to the number of graduates produced by that state's education system
(high schools; recent college graduates). A fuller description of
the calculation of these indexes is given in the original report (Tornatzky
et. al., 1998).
HOW IS MAINE DOING?
How is Maine doing? In a word, poorly. On the two
retention performance indices described above, Maine is among the
bottom five states. Perhaps more importantly, the retention
percentages among the top ranked states are nearly four times those
of Maine. Maine's standings on the migration indices are similarly
disappointing; it is among the bottom five states in terms of both
net migration measures. Further; the absolute values of the
migration indices suggest that Maine has, in effect, a negative
exchange balance with other states in terms of recently graduated
science and engineering personnel. This is "brain drain"
with a vengeance.
It's worth noting that the NSRCG focused on 1993,
a period of economic slowdown and general population loss in Maine,
and that observers have already noted young people were more likely
to be outmigrants (Murphy, 1997). However; our analyses indicate
that this exodus was particularly high among college-educated
scientists and engineers the key ingredient in fueling growth in the
new economy
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO RETENTION AND MIGRATION:
NATIONAL AND MAINE DATA
As indicated above, the Southern Technology
Council team devoted considerable effort to determine what factors
seemed to predict or determine the retention
or migration outcomes. Using census and other national databases, we
developed a battery of state-level predictor variables from six
domains.
Geographic characteristics (e.g., size and density
of population) were used because these variables were seen as
important in the literature and tend to be "givens" a
state can do little to change. Variables that described industrial
structure (e.g., percentage of GDP by sector) were included on the
assumption that certain industries might be better employers of
science and engineering (S&E) graduates. State economic
performance variables (e.g., income per capita) were included
because a robust economy might be more attractive to graduates.
Federal funding variables (e.g., funding for defense per capita)
were used because some research indicates certain kinds of federal
spending can support or stimulate S&E employment.
R&D/technology intensity variables (e.g., industry R&D
spending per capita) were examined because of the obvious link
between research activity and investments, and S&E manpower.
State education and policy variables (e.g., state support for
science and technology initiatives per capita) were included based
on the assumption that states can take actions to make their
institutions and labor market more attractive to graduates. A
complete list of predictor variables is provided in the full report
(Tornatzky et. al., 1998).
The general analytic approach was multiple
regression analysis. Statistically significant geographic predictors
were "forced" into the equation first in order to control
for their effects. Other predictors were added based on a stepwise
inclusion criterion which identified the best predictors. In
general, the predictive analyses were able to explain a great deal
of the variance in state-level retention and migration. Four
predictors explained 51% of the variance in retention/most recent
graduates; five predictors were able to
explain 78% of the variance in retention/high school graduates;
three predictors explained 41% of the variance in net
migration/most-recent graduates; and five predictors explained 52%
of the variance in netmigration/most-recent graduates.
Of the factors that determined retention outcomes
across fifty states, several seemed to have interesting implications
for Maine. For example, one significant predictor of both retention
measures was per capita income. It is worth noting that Maine ranks
35th in personal income per capita. Another prominent predictor was
the percentage of high school graduates from Maine attending college
in-state. In Maine's case, the state ranks 35th in the percentage of
students attending both high school and college in-state. This theme
was analyzed in significant detail by Silvernail, as noted above.
Another factor negatively associated with retention across the fifty
states was permeable borders. This was operationalized by the
percentage of residents who are employed out of state. Looking at
Maine's geography there is clearly a potential for cross-border
employment-seeking in the technology-intensive industrial regions of
Massachusetts and other proximal states.
Turning to the prediction of the net migration
indices, there were again some interesting findings from the
national analysis that seemed to have clear relevance for Maine.
Perhaps most interesting was the negative relationship between
public tuition levels (both in-state and out-of-state fees) and net
migration. In other words, the lower that public tuition is, the
higher the states net migration rates. While speculative, this is
probably due to the tendency of graduates to seek employment close
to where they earn their degree. Unfortunately, Maine ranks as the
13th highest state in terms of in-state public tuition and 19th
highest in out-of-state tuition. Another predictor of net migration
was average technology wages (lower wages yielded negative net
migration), and on this measure Maine ranks 35th among the states.
Finally, defense spending was positively associated with net
migration, an area Maine has suffered some losses during the early
1990s.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This geographic analysis of employment trends of
recent science and engineering graduates strongly indicates that
Maine has a problem. Not only is the state not retaining its own
best and brightest, but it is failing to attract talented
individuals from elsewhere in the country. In the long run, this has
serious implications for economic development in the state. As the
country moves toward embracing the new formula
of technology, skills, and globalization, Maine will be increasingly
at risk.
Based on the Southern Technology Council analysis
of predictive factors involved in retention and migration, there
appears to be several areas demanding further analysis and possible
policy action:
- It seems relatively clear that Maine must
increase the level of investment in and support of its public
higher education system, particularly its flagship research
university - tuition levels are non-competitive, the state is in
the bottom quartile in terms of higher education expenditures
per capita, and the R&D performance of its institutions lags
the national leaders.
- However; if Maine does nothing more than beef
up support of its higher education system, the likely result may
be an acceleration of its export trade of bright people. There
are simply too many technology-based jobs in proximal states,
and lacking its own indigenous technology structure, Maine will
continue to be a science and engineering farm team. The policy
implication for the state is that it needs to devote significant
effort and expenditures in building a technology-based economy.
Moreover, there are only two ways to do this: One is to recruit
technology-based companies from elsewhere. Paradoxically, having
a large supply of science and engineering graduates who must
leave the state to find suitable employment may turn out to be a
distinct industrial recruitment advantage. Second, the state can
grow its own technology-based companies through various
entrepreneurial support programs, seed investment funds, and
similar approaches. However, it must also ensure that there are
incentives for keeping these enterprises and their jobs in Maine
once they are created.
- Finally, Maine should embark on a significant
and much more detailed analysis of retention and migration
patterns of science and engineering personnel, and the factors
which influence them. The data reported here are derived from a
national database commissioned by the National Science
Foundation. It would be worthwhile for Maine's state policy
makers to address a similar set of issues through a much more
robust Maine study sample, with data collected over a number of
years. For instance, how has Maine fared in the
hyper-competitive market for information technology workers?
Would Maine expatriates have stayed home if comparable jobs were
available locally? What factors have induced scientists and
engineers trained in other states to migrate to Maine?
Clearly Maine has a significant challenge in
amassing the highly skilled human resources that are critical to a
knowledge-based economy. It cannot act too quickly.
Louis G. Tornatzky served as director of the
Southern Technology Council (STC) in Research Triangle Park, NC,
from 1993 to 1998, and is currently in the process of relocating to
the West Coast. He has a Ph.D. in social/organizational psychology
from Stanford University.
Denis Gray is associate professor, and coordinator
of the Human Resource Development Program, Department of Psychology,
North Carolina State University. He is senior editor of a recent
publication - Managing Managing the
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center - published by
Battelle Press.
Stephanie A. Tarant is a master's candidate in the
Industrial/Organizational and Vocational Psychology Program at North
Carolina State University. Her research interests include technology
and labor force issues, migration, performance appraisal, and
personnel selection and training.
Julie Howe works as a research analyst and trial
consultant in New York. She has a Ph.D. in social psychology from
North Carolina State University.
REFERENCES:
American Electronics Association. Cybernation:
The Importance of the High-Technology Industry to the
American Economy. Washington, DC: American Electronics
Association, 1998.
BankBoston. MIT: The impact of Innovation. Boston,
MA: BankBoston Economics Department Special
Report, 1997.
E. D. Murphy, "Flat population could dampen
state economy," Maine Sunday Telegram 7
September 1997: 1A, 12A.
Office of Technology Policy. America's New
Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997.
P. Schmidt, "More states try to stanch 'Brain
Drains,' but some experts question the strategy," Chronicle
of Higher Education 20 February 1998: A36-7.
Silvernail D. L. "Increasing postsecondary
enrollments in Maine." Maine Policy Review (Fall 1997):
26-34.
Tornatzky, L., Gray, D., and Tarant, S. Where
Have All the Students Gone? Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern
Technology Council, 1998.
ENDNOTES:
1. Since this study was performed
NSF has completed and disseminated results from the 1995 version of
the NSRCG.
2. NSRCG defines scientists and
engineers as anyone who receives a degree in the life, physical and
social sciences, as well as in the engineering fields.
3. Because of the large number of
predictors examined and the potential for multicollinearity,
variables were accepted if they were significant at p<.1
Full cite: Tornatzky, Louis G., Denis Gray, Stephanie A. Tarant, and Julie
Howe. 1998. Maine's Science and Engineering Brain Drain.
Vol. 7(1): 44-49.
Please let us know what you think of this paper:
|
