But getting the word out about these programs is easier said than done. Each funded hub has local dreams and national demands. We’ve been here before.
Back in 2013, a Senate subcommittee published a blistering retort of a different, Obama-era federal program to incentivize advanced industry development.
Of a coalition to combat climate change, led by a group of Pennsylvania institutions, the Appropriations subcommittee authors wrote: “The Hub was more focused on the economic development of the Philadelphia area rather than developing a national program to improve the energy efficiency of commercial and residential buildings across the United States.”
Rather than a slight against Philadelphia, this represents a general fear of big sums of federal dollars directed toward commercializing technologies in places not already known for doing so. Funny, then, that Philadelphia’s Navy Yard, where that energy-efficiency hub was located, did develop over the last decade.
A new coalition from that region put together a fresh bid for this more recent Tech Hub program focused on precision medicine, proposing a far broader coalition across the workforce and entrepreneurship efforts.
While out of 300 bids, Philly did join 30 other regions in receiving the coveted ‘Tech Hub’ distinction from the EDA. But, like neighboring Baltimore, it was not given one of the first dozen implementation grants.
Takeaways for funded EDA Tech Hubs going forward
The lessons on balancing national outcomes with local impact are worth considering for the dozen awarded funds. In interviews, I pushed each of the three I talked to on the risk.
Hankins of Tulsa Innovation Lab argues that to reach industry goals, you need people goals.
"Industry is cultural," Hankins of Tulsa Innovation Lab told me. “What you build is reflected in your people.”
Hankins is shepherding $51 million to make Tulsa “a global leader” in “commercializing autonomous systems for use cases ranging from agriculture and pipeline inspections.” Or, as Hankins puts it smoothly in her bid’s metaphor-rich marketing language: They’re creating “a new shore” in the "clear blue skies at the rural-urban divide" of Oklahoma.
As wide-ranging as Tulsa’s tech hub bid may already seem — luring entrepreneurs working on automation for planes, poultry and petroleum — their bid, like most all of the designees, includes a hefty focus on workforce development, too. It specifically emphasizes with an emphasis on racial and gender inclusion.
Hankins boasted that they’re “building a federated data system” that will help her group track the connections between their primary, secondary and higher education systems. If kids are falling behind in a critical skill, how can they correct this to shape their future workforce? Far-reaching indeed.
Simpson’s CenterState CEO bid, dubbed NY SMART I-Corridor Tech Hub and awarded $40 million, is ambitious in its own right. It’s the only Tech Hub bid that won implementation for a semiconductor manufacturing, perhaps the most contested bit of technology infrastructure in the world.
Once an American-made innovation, advanced semiconductor manufacturing went abroad, like quantum computing, since concentrating in geographies with fraught political dynamics.
Ninety percent of all semiconductor manufacturing happens on the island of Taiwan, Simpson said, which is just 68 miles off the shore of China – whose leaders have a tense relationship with American elected officials.
“There is a significant economic and national security imperative to bring this industry back to the United States," Simpson told me. "This is our chance to reclaim some of our hard-earned invention heritage and put Americans back to work."
Meanwhile, central Indiana’s $51 million Heartland BioWorks bid led by Kossack’s Applied Research Institute where he is a vice president, is likewise multifaceted.
"Our bid focuses on investing in the workforce pipeline and supporting small, emerging, and scaling-up entrepreneur groups in the biotech sector," Kossack said. "We hope [central Indiana will] become less hidden in the years to come."\
How many big goals are too many big goals for one project?
The challenge with projects that have so many priorities isn’t just that it’s difficult to fulfill them. By definition, not all goals can be the top goal — and it is unlikely everyone involved in a coalition will agree on that priority list.
Does representation in local workforce programs matter more or less than what technology is built? Does producing the technology within American borders matter more or less than the quality or production cost of the technology? Does carbon reduction matter more or less than keeping a wide local coalition engaged?
There are answers to these questions, but it’s uncomfortable and politically difficult to speak about them publicly.
After speaking with representatives from nearly 10 of the Tech Hub bids, including those that were funded, I do not doubt that project bidders take the responsibility of their pitches seriously. What will be prioritized first, and how more Americans can track their progress, is not yet determined.
The most convincing change between the big federal economic development of the past and this Tech Hubs program is the focus on existing regional strengths. Or as Hankins put it “super-charging our assets.”
In this way, the federal government isn’t trying to create a new industry in a new place, defenders argue. Instead, the feds are putting their thumb on the scale to overcome what could be market failures. It is in the national interest to house critical industries and all benefit if we overcome historic inequalities to boost workforce participation.
This is why the outcome of November’s election will determine what happens next for the program. No one fears a clawback of these already awarded implementation grants, but the other dozen designated hubs not awarded funding are waiting.
Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump have weighed in directly on this program.
Another half billion dollars in Tech Hubs funding, and much more within the CHIPS and Science Act, may be on the line. Like upstate New York, Oklahoma and Indiana, these, too, feature big goals to advance technologies, contribute to American economic leadership and reduce inequality.
“These are generational investments,” Hankins said, which is both plausible and worrying for any budget-conscious civil servant. “This industry will be the conduit to … systematic change in that region. We're building a tech jobs community in a new way."
