Transcript Science and Technology Policy in the 2016 U.S.

Beyond the Headlines:
Science, Technology, and Innovation
Policy and the 2016 U.S. Elections
David M. Hart
Schar School of Policy and Government
George Mason University
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research
June 22, 2016
What’s Not at Stake
• Rhetorical support for science, technology,
innovation, and entrepreneurship
• U.S. aspiration to continue to be a leader in
global S&T
• Mixed economy with a large private sector,
especially in high-tech
• Belief that S&T have important roles to play in
achieving major public goals
Source: Science and Engineering
Indicators 2014
Since at least 1979 roughly 7 in
10 Americans see the effects
of scientific research as more
positive than negative for
society. In 2012, this included
50% who said they believed
the benefits “strongly”
outweigh the negatives and
22% who said the benefits
slightly outweigh the potential
harms
Does the Campaign Matter?
Promises, Efforts, and Results
“Presidents invariably attempt to
carry out their promises…the
promises parties made were
consistent with their postelection
agendas.”
- Jonathan Bernstein,
Washington Monthly, Jan 2012
• Michael Krukones, Promises and Performance:
Presidential Campaigns as Policy Predictors (1984)
• Jeff Fishel , Presidents and Promises: From
Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance
(1985)
• Gerald Pomper, Elections in America: Control and
Influence in Democratic Politics (1980)
What’s at Stake:
Innovation and the Economy
• GOP tends to support:
• Dems tend to support:
1. Refrain from “picking
winners and losers”
among economic
sectors and from
downstream RD&D
2. Easier pathway to
workforce for foreignborn STEM grads
1. Downstream support for
manufacturing
innovation
3. More confrontational
posture toward China
3. More cooperative
posture toward China
2. Comprehensive
immigration reform
including tighter controls
on some high-skill visas
“Reclaim millions of American
jobs and reviving American
manufacturing by putting an
end to China’s illegal export
subsidies and lax labor and
environmental standards. No
more sweatshops or pollution
havens stealing jobs from
American workers.”
“As a senator, Hillary cofounded the bipartisan Senate
Manufacturing Caucus, fought
Bush Administration efforts to
cut support for manufacturing,
and called for a “New
Manhattan Project” to rebuild
American manufacturing. “
What’s at Stake:
Energy and Environmental STI
• GOP tends to support:
– Fossil fuel exploration in
Arctic/public
lands/offshore
– Nuclear power RD&D
– Simpler and less
cumbersome
environmental regulation
– Skepticism that
environmental agencies
are objective and scientific
• Dems tend to support:
– Climate change mitigation
incentives and regulation,
such as CAFE standards
and Clean Power Plan
– Renewable energy and
energy efficiency RD&D
– Confidence in the expertise
and intentions of
regulatory agencies
“My 100-day action plan…save
the coal industry…lift
moratoriums on energy
production in federal areas…
revoke policies that impose
unwarranted restrictions on
new drilling technologies…
cancel the Paris Climate
Agreement and stop all
payments of U.S. tax dollars to
U.N. global warming programs.”
“Climate change is an urgent
threat and a defining challenge of
our time—and Hillary Clinton has
a plan to tackle it by making
America the world’s clean
energy superpower, taking bold
steps to slash carbon pollution at
home and around the world, and
ensuring no Americans are left
out or left behind. “
What’s at Stake:
Health-Related STI
• GOP tends to support:
– No drug price controls
– Accelerated FDA action
on new drug
– Limited product liability
litigation
• Dems tend to support
– Drug price
negotiations/controls
– Caution at FDA
– Robust product liability
litigation
“Remove barriers to entry into
free markets for drug providers
that offer safe, reliable and
cheaper products. Congress will
need the courage to step away
from the special interests and
do what is right for America.
Though the pharmaceutical
industry is in the private sector,
drug companies provide a
public service.”
“Demand a stop to excessive
profiteering and marketing by
denying tax breaks for directto-consumer advertising and
demanding that drug
companies invest in R&D in
exchange for taxpayer
support…Transform our health
care system to reward value
and quality.”
What’s at Stake:
Defense/International STI
• GOP tends to support
– Narrower concept of
national security
– Exotic weapons and
nuclear weapons labs
– Use of force (sometimes
including ground troops)
• Dems tend to support
– Broader concept of
national security
– Arms control and
“science diplomacy”
– Peace-keeping and
humanitarian
intervention
“America First will be the major
and overriding theme of my
administration…. We are getting
out of the nation-building
business….We will spend what
we need to rebuild our
military…. We are also going to
have to change our trade,
immigration and economic
policies to make our economy
strong again…We need to think
smarter about areas where our
technological superiority gives
us an edge. This includes 3-D
printing, artificial intelligence
and cyberwarfare.”
“Our economy provides the
foundation for our leadership, our
diplomatic influence, and our
military might. We succeed when
we invest in our people, our
infrastructure, and our
technological edge…. ensure the
United States maintains the besttrained, best-equipped, and
strongest military the world has
ever known “
The President’s Key Policy Levers
•
•
•
•
•
Budget
Appointments
Regulation, interpretation, and enforcement
Foreign policy
“Jawboning” that shapes the national mood
Composition of the Proposed FY 2017 Budget
Total Outlays = $4.1 trillion
outlays in billions of dollars
Net Interest
$303
Defense
Discretionary*
$529
[Defense R&D]*
$79
Other Mandatory
$656
Nondefense
Discretionary*
$557
Medicaid
$386
[Nondefense R&D]*
$68
Medicare
$598
Social Security
$967
*Approximately $4 billion for R&D is classified as mandatory spending. Figures are estimates.
Source: Budget of the United States Government FY 2017 . Projected deficit is $503 billion. © AAAS | Feb. 2016
Iron
Law?
AAAS Analysis of 2016-17 Budget Deal
Enough About That:
Who’s Gonna Win?
Historical context for 2016:
• Two term incumbent = time for a change?
• Slow, uneven economic recovery = peasants
with pitchforks?
• Not quite war, not quite peace = potential for
October surprise?
• Long-term demographic shift toward
“majority minority” electorate?
Presidential Elections:
“Time for a Change” Model
Vote Share for Incumbent Party Candidate = 46.9
+ .105*incumbent president’s net approval rating
(approval – disapproval) in the final Gallup Poll in June
+ .635*annualized growth rate of real GDP in the second
quarter of the election year
[term for first term incumbent removed]
– 2.76*POLARIZATION
– For elections since 1996, the polarization variable takes on
the value 1 when there is a first-term incumbent running
or when the incumbent president has a net approval rating
of greater than zero; it takes on the value -1 when there is
not a first-term incumbent running and the incumbent
president has a net approval rating of less than zero.
Source: From Alan Abramowitz, Emory University (2012)
Prediction Markets
[One] Electoral College Prediction
Sourced: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
Can STI Policy Make a Difference in
the 2016 General Election Campaign?
• Changing votes in swing states?
• Shaping turnout in swing states?
• Intensity and enthusiasm?
– Financial contributions
– Volunteer time
2016 Senate Prediction
Source: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
House of Representatives Prediction
Source:
cookpolitical.com
A Closing Thought
"Americans can always be counted on to do
the right thing...after they have exhausted all
other possibilities.“
- Winston Churchill
25