NYCEDC Innovation Index

2011
NYCEDC Innovation Index

NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
New York City Economic Development Corporation

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Seth Pinsky, President Joshua Wallack, Chief Operating Officer Kyle Kimball, Chief Financial Officer Maria Torres, Chief of Staff
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION Steven Strauss, Managing Director Francesco Brindisi, Chief Economist
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS David Lombino, Executive Vice President Marketing Peyton Sise, Senior Vice President Shelby Hodgen, Vice President Randi Press, Vice President, Creative Director Trista Sordillo, Vice President, Interactive Director Kristin Glick, Assistant Vice President, Art Director Alexis Howland, Interactive Content Manager Alex Ho, Interactive Producer Public Affairs Julie Wood, Vice President Grace Cheung, Communications Associate
This report was authored by: Francesco Brindisi Peter Gratzke Fiona Peach Steven Strauss
FOREWORD
Today we are delighted to announce the release of the first NYCEDC Innovation Index. The Index could not come at a more relevant time. New York City has emerged from the recent financial crisis with enormous momentum and has reaffirmed its leadership role as a center for innovation and growth in the global economy. But recent years have also seen an exciting new trend. The Citys strongest industries, from media to financial services, are attracting a new breed of entrepreneurs that are at the forefront of revolutionary developments in high-tech, engineering and science. This process of combining traditional strengths with future opportunities is at the core of the Citys ability to continuously reinvent itself, and we are witnessing it today once more. The NYCEDC Innovation Index will be a critical tool in tracking this economic transformation and we are proud of our contribution to its development. Sincerely, John Borthwick, CEO and Co-Founder, Betaworks Esther Dyson, investor and entrepreneur Tom Glocer, CEO, Thomson Reuters Alan Patricof, Founder and Managing Director, Greycroft Partners
A MESSAGE FROM SETH PINSKY
If there is one thing that is predictable about New York City, it is its ability to reinvent itself. From its founding, the City has undergone constant transformation driven by the ingenuity, energy and diversity of its people. This essential spirit of New York City has always been strongest when economic challenges have been the greatest. For example, the seeds of the Citys great manufacturing industries of the 19th and 20th centuries took root amongst the bustling quarters of its port, which was a global hub for trade. In the 1970s, as manufacturing experienced substantial decline, the Citys globally dominant finance, professional services, and media industries began to flourish in new and dramatic ways. Today, as some of the Citys traditional industries are experiencing an increasingly competitive landscape, a new seed is once again being planted one that we ultimately hope, when it blossoms, will reveal New York as the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. Anecdotally, there is evidence that New York City is becoming a hot spot for technological breakthroughs that will revolutionize the way we communicate, how we do business, and how we understand the world around us. New York-based tech companies like Foursquare, Tumblr and Meetup are literally changing how we interact and communicate. Meanwhile, New York-based companies like Etsy, ChallengePost and MakerBot are reinventing the marketplace from the ground up. And, at the same time, scientists at the Citys hospitals, universities and R&D incubators including the Audubon Incubator at Columbia University, the Advanced Biotechnology Incubator at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, the Alexandria Center for Life Science at East River Science Park and BioBAT at Brooklyn Army Terminal are making groundbreaking scientific discoveries that will lead to life-changing medical treatments. Recognizing that this anecdotal evidence seemed to indicate a new trend, several years ago, working with leaders in business, science and the arts, we acted to galvanize this process. To this end, in 2010, we created the Center for Economic Transformation. Since then, we have launched over 60 initiatives to create a vibrant innovative environment. These initiatives include the New York City Entrepreneurial Fund, which seed funds early-stage companies, and our business incubators that host a wide range of promising start-ups. We have also initiated a multi-year process to attract a major science and engineering university to the City or catalyze its development by an existing in-City player, an initiative that will be one of the keystones for the Citys future success as a global innovation capital. With the launch of the NYCEDC Innovation Index today, we are now moving our work to the next level. For the first time ever, the NYCEDC Innovation Index will provide hard evidence of the Citys transformation in progress, allowing us to move from the art of anecdote to the science of hard numbers. This, in turn, will allow us to assess the Citys progress and to tailor NYCEDCs future work more closely to meet the needs of the innovators that call our City home. Most significantly though, the Innovation Index will show how the City is changing once more. It is impossible to tell today what the City will look like in the future. But as home to one of the worlds most productive, most creative and most entrepreneurial populations, one thing is certain the Citys future will be bright.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary................................................................................................................1 1. 2. 3. Introduction ..................................................................................................................3 The NYCEDC Innovation Index ......................................................................................4 The Components of the NYCEDC Innovation Index ........................................................5 3.1 R&D ......................................................................................................................7 3.2 Finance....................................................................................................................8 3.3 Human Capital ......................................................................................................9 3.4 Intellectual Property ..............................................................................................10 3.5 High-Tech Gross City Product (GCP) ......................................................................10 3.6 Entrepreneurship and Employment Dynamics ........................................................11 Conclusions..................................................................................................................12
4.
Appendix A: Measuring Innovation ......................................................................................13 Appendix B: Selected Related Recent Publications................................................................15 Appendix C: The Center for Economic Transformation at NYCEDC ......................................17
105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97
105 100 95 90
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
85 80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
FINANCE
The 2011 NYCEDC Innovation Index provides an analytical, The data presented in this years Index and subsequent updates will inform policies geared to unleash New York Citys enormous for innovation.
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT OUTPUT INDICATORS Index measures the growth of inputAND and output indicators and The
comprehensive depiction of innovation activity in New York City. 125

120
highlights key trends in the Citys innovation economy:

I
120
Venture capital (VC) funding in the New York metro area

115 totaled 110
115 potential 110
$1.9 billion in 2010, with firms in the City
accounting for 64% of this activity. Both the number and the rest of the nation between 2003 and 2010.
The 105
100
NYCEDC Innovation Index offers a new approach to

I
value of VC deals increased at a significantly higher rate than

105 in NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators New York Citys small businesses received a total of $30 million 100 Output Indicators 95
innovation measurement in two respects. First, it is focused solely on New York City. Second, it tracks innovation activity over time uncover its trends and characteristics.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
95 to
in federal grant dollars for innovation and research in 2009.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
The value of the grants to the Citys firms more than doubled between 2003 and 2009.
The Index gives us a granular understanding of the drivers of innovation:

I I
The high-tech sectors share of the Gross City Product (GCP) increased by almost 25% between 2003 and 2009. In 2009,
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES GCP per worker in the Citys high tech sectors was more than
HUMAN CAPITAL
115 110 105 100 95
Input Indicators. The Index examines the Citys environment
for innovation along three dimensions: research and development (R&D) spending, finance, and human capital. These input indicators give us insight into, for example, how much universities are spending on R&D or how much venture capital is being invested in the areas firms.
I
$200,000, which was among the highest level of any sector.

120
The Citys universities invested $1.8 billion in R&D in 2009.

115 110
R&D spending at these institutions increased 13% since 2003 and accounted for approximately 3.5% of all academic R&D spending nationally.
Output Indicators. The Index shows the success of innovation investments through the analysis of intellectual property, production in high-tech sectors and entrepreneurship. Measuring these output indicators is critical in order to understand realities. They 2003 2004 whether 2005 ideas 2006become 2007 economic 2008 2009 include, among others, measures on the success of start-ups and the high-tech sectors share of the Citys economy.
95
I
105
In 2009, the Citys universities were home to nearly 27,000

NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey students weights on dusters and post-doctorate in Science and Survey weights on dusters and variables
100 graduate
Engineering (S&E) disciplines. This represented a 3.9% share of all such students in the U.S. and is up from 3.5% in 2003, demonstrating the Citys learning and research institutions growing influence in these fields.
INNOVATION IN NEW YORK CITY
120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY The results of the Index support the premise that New York City
is turning into a center for innovation, particularly with regard

102 101
to high-tech sectors. Overall, innovation-related activity data and estimates suggest persisted in 2010
increased by 12% between 2003 and 2009, a trend that reach 14%. This means that, collectively, entrepreneurs, and leading its economic transformation. The Index also that innovation inputs grew more than outputs over the considered. Because inputs tend to be leading indicators,
100 preliminary 99 to
98 businesses and research institutions are spurring innovation in the 97 City
96 shows 95 period
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 their strong performance indicates that 2008 the Index outputs are
expected to rise in the near future.

* 2010 data are preliminary
HIGH-TECH GCP
130 125 120 115 110
INNOVATION INDEX | 1
With nearly 179,000 people employed in S&E occupations in 2009, the Citys workforce is becoming more concentrated in these jobs. The number of workers increased by 9% between 2003 and 2009, while their share of total private employment grew by 4%.
Capitalizing on the quality of New York Citys labor force and new entrepreneurial initiatives, the Index shows that more innovative small businesses entered the market to ignite and drive growth in the Citys economy. Barriers to firm creation and access to capital appear to have lowered in the past few years, even as the recession took hold of the economy. Accelerating the trend toward economic transformation will be critical to secure the Citys future prosperity and economic growth, particularly given the challenges of competing in the global economy. It is especially important to ensure that the Citys entrepreneurs are able to access the necessary inputs: research institutions, financial and human capital, knowledge and networks.
R&D SPENDING
106 105 104 103 102
There were approximately 1,100 patents awarded to New York City inventors in 2009. This was an increase of 23% from 2003.
In the aggregate, input indicators grew 2.2% annually between 2003 and 2009, led by venture capital and research grants to small businesses. Output indicators showed lower annual growth of 1.7% over the same period, led by GCP in high-tech sectors.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
110 105 100
The Citys policies for innovation should make sure government

101 99
95 90 85
100 98
97 R&D SPENDING 2003 106 105 104 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
80 ENTREPRENEURSHIP 2003 110 105 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
intervention is targeted to alleviate the constraints and market

FINANCE 103
102 101 125 100 120 99 98 115 97 110
100 NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS 95 90

115
120
R&D SPENDING
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 106 105 105
85
failures that limit the creation and survival of innovative firms.

110 80 105
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
110 105 100 2003 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
100 104
103
100
95 FINANCE 102
101 125 100 99 120 98 97
NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS 95

95
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
90 120
115
85 80
R&D 115 SPENDING HUMAN CAPITAL 2003 2004

110 106 115 105 105 104 100 103 110 95 101 105 125 100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
110 NYCEDC INNOVATION SURVEY 2003 2004 INDEX 2005 AND 2006 2007INDEXES 2008
110 105
2009
105 120
FINANCE 102
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
100 100 115
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS

95 95 110
120 90 105 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
99 120 100 98
R&D 115 97 SPENDING

110 HUMAN CAPITAL 106 2003 105 115 104 100 95
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
115 100 ENTREPRENEURSHIP
85 80
110 105
NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES 95 110

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
105 120
100
Cumulative Growth 2003-2009

NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators R&D Finance Human Capital Output Indicators Intellectual Property High-tech sector GCP Entrepreneurship and employment dynamics
* Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
Annual Growth* 2003-2009

1.9% 2.2% 0.8% 3.5% 2.1% 1.7% -0.3% 4.1% 1.0%
R&D SPENDING
106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99
102 95 101 2004 2005 2003 PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL 125 100 105 99 120 102 98 100 SPENDING R&D 115 101 97 2004 100 110 2003 HUMAN CAPITAL 95 106 99 105 115 98 104 100 103 97 95 96 101 2005
FINANCE 110
103
100
2006
2007
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
FINANCE 110 102

100 105 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
95 125
2003
2004
2005 2005
2006 2006
2007 2007
Trend 2009 vs. 2008

2008 2009 95 95
115 NYCEDC
INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS

2008 2009 2010*
INNOVATION NEW2005 YORK 2006 CITY 2007 2003 IN 2004 110

120 90
105 120 85 115 100 115 80 110
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2004 99 2003 120 98 100 102 R&D SPENDING 115 97 101 2003 2004 HUMAN CAPITAL 110 95 106 100
2008
2009
110 95 105 105 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* 120 NYCEDC Innovation Index 105 Input Indicators 100 100 Output Indicators Innovation Index 115 NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT NYCEDC AND OUTPUT INDICATORS Input Indicators 100 95 95 Output Indicators 110 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* INNOVATION IN NEW YORK CITY 120 90 95
2003 2004 INDEX 2005 AND 2006 2007INDEXES 2008 NYCEDC INNOVATION SURVEY 110
NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables 2009
Trendlines 2003-2009
105 85 2003 115 120 100 110 115
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
80
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
HIGH-TECH GCP 104

100 98 103
105 105 99 115
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
95 105 110 105 2003 120

100 100 105 115 NYCEDC
2004 INDEX 2005 AND 2006 2007INDEXES 2008 2003 NYCEDC INNOVATION SURVEY 110
2004 2005 2006 2007
2009
FINANCE 110 102 97

100 105 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 95
95 130 101 96 125 125
INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
12.2% 13.7% 4.8% 23.0% 13.2% 10.7% -1.8% 27.6% 6.3%
98 97 2003 2004
FINANCE
125 120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004
120 99 120 2004 2005 2003 98 115 102 100 115 97 110 101 2003 2004 2005 110 HUMAN CAPITAL 95 105 100 2003 2004 2005 100 105 99 115 95 98 100 HIGH-TECH GCP 2004 2005 2003 FINANCE 97 110 95 130 96 2004 2005 2003 125 105 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 125 95 120 120 2003 2004 2005 102 100 115 115 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 101 110 110 HUMAN CAPITAL 95 100 105 105 2003 2004 2005 99 115 100 R&D SPENDING HIGH-TECH GCP 100 98 95 97 110 2003 2004 2005 95 106 130 96 2003 2004 2005 105 125 105 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 104 95
103 120 2003 2004 102 102 100 115 101 101 110 100 HUMAN CAPITAL 95 100 105 99 2003 2004 99 98 115 100 97 HIGH-TECH GCP 98
110 2003 2004 2008 2009 Output Indicators INNOVATION IN NEW2005 YORK 2006 CITY 2007 90 120
95 10585 115 2003 120 2004 2005 2006
95 95 100
2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators 2010*
2006
2007
2008
2009
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
2006
2007
2008
2009 110
10080
110 115
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2003
2004
2005
2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey weights on dusters Survey variables 2006 weights 2007on dusters 2008 and2009
2006
2007
2008
105 2009 100 2009 95 2009 90 85 2009 80 2003 2004
95 105 110 120
2006 2006
2007 2007
2008 2008
100 105 115 NYCEDC 95 100 95
2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators
Output Indicators INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators 2010*
Output Indicators 110 2003 2004 INNOVATION IN NEW2005 YORK 2006 CITY 2007 2008 2009 120
2006
2007
2008
105 115 120

110 115
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 2008 2009 NYCEDC Innovation Index
2010*
2005100 2006
95 105 110 120
2007
2008
2009 Survey weights on dusters

Survey weights on dusters and variables

2003 2004 2005 2006
2006
2007
2008
2009
NYCEDC INNOVATION
2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 120
115 2009 110 105
2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index ENTREPRENEURSHIP 100 INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS Input Indicators 105 Output Indicators 115 NYCEDC Innovation Index 110 95 Input Indicators 100 Output Indicators 2008 2009 2010* 110 105 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

95 100 105 2003 120 2004 2005 2006
2005
2006
2007
2008
95
100
11590 NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES
2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
100
2005
95 2003 2004 2005 2006 110 97 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 130 96
2007 2007
2008 2008
2009 2009 95
2003 2004 2005
105 125 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 95 2003 FINANCE 100 120 2004 102 115 101 110 125 95 100 105 120 2003 2004 99 100 115 HIGH-TECH GCP 98 95 110 97 2003 2004 130 96 105 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2006 100 110
95 NYCEDC Innovation Index 11085 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* 120 Input Indicators Output Indicators 80 105 115 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NYCEDC Innovation Index 2007 2008 2009 2010* Input Indicators Output Indicators
95 105 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009INDICATORS 2010* NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT 120 NYCEDC Innovation Index 115 120
HUMAN CAPITAL
115 110 105 100 95
100 NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES
Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 120
115
95 110 115
105 110
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
110 105
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 125 95

100 120 102 95 115 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008

2009
100
101 2004 2005 2006 2003 110 2003 2004 2005 1002006 2007 2008 2009 105 99 100 98 HIGH-TECH GCP 95 97 HUMAN CAPITAL 2004 2005 2006 2003 130 96 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 115 125 95 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 2003 2004 2005 120 110 115 110 105 105 100 100 2003 2004 2005 2006
2009
95 2003 2004 2005
NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators 100 105 Output Indicators NYCEDC Innovation Index 95 Input Indicators 100 Innovation NYCEDC Indicators 2003 2004 Index 2005 2006 2007Output 2008 2009 2010* 120 Survey weights on dusters 95 Survey weights on dusters and variables 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* 115
2006 110
105
2007
2008
2009
2010*
2007
2008
2009
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY NYCEDCINDEXES Innovation Index

120 95 115 110
2003 2004 2005 2006 Input Indicators Output Indicators
INNOVATION IN NEW YORK 100 CITY

2007 2008 2009 120
115 110
2007
2008
2009
2010*
105
105
HIGH-TECH GCP
95 95 130 125 2006 120 115 2003 2003 2007 2004 2004 2008 2005 2005 2009 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008
100
100
2009 2009
95
95 2003 2004 2005 2006
2003
2007
2004
2008
2005
2009
2006
2010*
2007
2008
2009
2010*
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
105
110

120
HIGH-TECH GCP
130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005
100 102 95 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 2003 2006 2007 2004 2008 2005 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators
HIGH-TECH GCP
130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2 | INNOVATION INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION
The key to New York Citys success lies in the ability to continuously reinvent itself. From its origins as a hub for trade, through the industrial phase dominated by sugar refining, publishing and the garment trade, to todays role as a center for finance, professional services and creative industries, innovation has always been at the heart of the Citys economic success.1 Diversifying the Citys economic base and being at the forefront of emerging sectors is necessary for sustained growth in the future. Cities and urban areas especially those as vibrant and diverse as New York City are magnets for highly skilled, entrepreneurial talent; they are dense hubs that fuse knowledge, financial resources, firms and markets, and they offer the thriving cultural environment that galvanizes creativity. The 100 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. hold two-thirds of the nations total population, jobs, and research universities, and they account for three-quarters of graduate degree holders, GDP, and patents; four-fifths of research and development (R&D)-related employment; and virtually all venture capital funding.2 Additionally, cities are more likely to produce start-ups, entrepreneurs and small businesses that turn ideas into new products and create new markets. Cities are the perfect breeding ground for innovation. But how successful is New York City at harnessing its innovation potential? The NYCEDC Innovation Index was created for the purpose of tracking the Citys success as a center of innovation and entrepreneurship. To ensure that New York City stays among the most innovative places in the world, there is a clear need for city-level measurement. Tracking innovation activity over time to uncover trends, understanding its drivers, and identifying areas of strength and weakness will also be critical to create a policy and regulatory environment that does not inhibit, but rather unleashes the Citys innovative forces. The NYCEDC Innovation Index, for the first time, gives us the tools to do this. The Index will also provide the evidence necessary to evaluate and improve policies designed to spur innovation and to lay the foundation for the Citys future prosperity. In doing this, the Index also sheds light on the scale and pace of the Citys transformation.
Innovation matters The U.S. Department of Commerces Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century defines innovation as the design, invention, development, and/or implementation of new or altered products, services, processes, systems, organizational structures, or business models for the purpose of creating new value for customers and financial returns for the firm. Innovation is a key ingredient to economic growth because it increases the productivity of firms and provides consumers with new choices. Innovation-driven economies push the boundaries of the technological frontier and successfully exploit commercial opportunities in new markets. This makes innovation a critical element to the competitiveness of advanced economies and this is particularly true for New York Citys knowledge-based growth model.
The success of cities The agglomeration of people in cities provides a fertile environment for the conception, development and implementation of ideas and knowledge. In cities, ideas travel faster and can access the resources and services necessary to become business realities. A scientist or inventor alone may not know how to secure funding, but within a city it is easy to find the expertise that can. An innovative product has little value if it is not commercialized, and cities are home to large markets with highly sophisticated consumers who are typically amongst the first to experiment with new technologies and business models. In an area where talented people are able to get together face-to-face in more informal settings, ideas are more likely to be spread than through communication that is limited to email. Given the benefits of proximity, density and scale, it is no surprise that cities that specialize in the production of knowledge are better able to adapt to and take advantage of technological and economic changes.3
95 90 85 80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2. THE NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX

120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators
Using composite indicators Composite indicators like the NYCEDC Innovation Index and rankings are tools capable of summarizing complex and multi-dimensional information in an easily accessible way. Composite indicators can uncover differences in overall innovation activity across regions or, in our case, trends in innovation activity over time. There are drawbacks to the creation and use of composite indicators. They generally fall short of achieving the level of rigor of other types of quantitative evaluations, and may sometimes resemble an educated art. For this reason, an innovation index should be used carefully and attention should be paid to each of the variables and clusters that comprise the Index.
* 2010 data are preliminary
The NYCEDC Innovation Index is tailored to track the critical aspects of New York Citys innovation economy in two respects. 120 First, the data collected provides a standardized and
115 comprehensive picture of innovation activity associated with the
Some of the most promising candidates for growth are in the technology sector, with many firms developing new products based on advanced science and engineering solutions. Unlike Silicon Valley or Boston, New York City has been slow to attract a vibrant high-tech community. But as the NYCEDC Innovation Index shows, this is changing. The emergence of a New York City tech industry is a critical development towards ensuring its future prosperity and economic growth. While the overall trends in the City point towards higher levels of innovation, the individual Index indicators suggest a more complex view. Investments in innovation, which are inputs like research and development (R&D) and Venture Capital (VC) funding, have increased sharply since 2003. Investments in innovation have uncertain returns that do not necessarily or immediately translate into innovation outputs. Several years may be needed for ideas to be patented or commercialized. But with inputs continuing to rise, there is reason to be optimistic about the Citys future performance.
Citys economic transformation. As a result, the Index captures

110
various aspects of innovation activity to provide its high-level

105 overall trend. Second, the Index components provide insights NYCEDC Innovation Index innovation. on specific trends affecting and resulting from 100 Survey weights on dusters critical to developing aand full underSurvey weights on dusters variables
Both sides of the Index are

2003 2004 2005
standing of innovation in the City. 95

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
The results of the Index show that, within the broader City economy, entrepreneurs are establishing new businesses and more start-ups are securing venture capital and federal funding. This development is eased by the concentration of highly skilled talent across numerous industries, providing an ideal environment to exchange and cross-pollinate ideas. The Citys universities continue to115 be the engine driving research and knowledge creation, as well as training a highly-skilled workforce. Meanwhile, more patents are awarded to the Citys inventors each year.
105 NYCEDC to Innovation Index Overall, the Index documents that the barriers business creation Input Indicators 100 for high-tech and innovative firms are lower than just a few Outputtoday Indicators 110 120
years 95 ago, and continue to decrease as more entrepreneurs are

2005 2006 2007 for 2008 2009 innovation. 2010* attracted2003 to the2004 City and make it a center high-tech
3. THE COMPONENTS OF THE NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX

The data for the Index are collected from a large variety of sources and can be broadly split between innovation inputs and outputs. More details are provided in the technical appendix to this report.4 Within inputs and outputs, the variables are assigned to a cluster. The information used for the construction of the Index is summarized on page 6, where the 32 variables used are listed and assigned to their clusters. Inputs are observable measures of resources invested or available for innovation. They include measures like R&D spending, venture capital investments, federal grants for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) and human capital, as measured by the availability of skilled labor. Outputs are more difficult to measure and somewhat less intuitive. It should be noted at the outset that outputs do not measure the broad economic impact of innovation or innovation policy, which is the subject of a number of research initiatives. Entrepreneurship is perhaps the most difficult aspect to measure, and the Index takes a broad approach: It looks at the dynamic process of business creation and destruction that is spurred by entrepreneurship, for high-tech sectors in particular. Included are measures of the quality and feasibility of the Citys entrepreneurs ideas, which is the success rate of firms securing further financing in VC and SBIR/STTR funding. Similarly, NASDAQ market share of New York City-headquartered firms is meant to capture the success of larger firms that tend to be technology-oriented. Measuring the outcomes of innovation policy The value of production and the share of City value in high-tech The national initiative known as STAR METRICS (Science and Technology for Americas Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science) sets out to measure the outcomes of federal government science investments. During the first phase, which is currently underway, data is collected from universities about the funding received, associated jobs created and costs incurred. The second phase will develop broad measures of the economic impact of federal government science investment, including health outcomes, environmental impacts, workforce outcomes, patents and business creation.
5
Our output measures go beyond simply using counts of patents as a measure of innovation. The Index includes, to our knowledge for the first time, evidence of patents granted to the Citys inventors and assigned to private businesses, including their dispersion across technological fields and firms. We also built indicators of patent originality and generality based on citations made and received in order to gauge their quality.6 Trends in university technology transfers round up the measurement of intellectual property produced in the City.
sectors complete the output variables used in the construction of the Index. While the final Index contains preliminary data and estimates for 2010, the discussion that follows focuses on 2003 to 2009. The variables used in the construction of the index represent dollar amounts, counts, shares, and other types of indicators. To achieve comparability, they need to be expressed in a single unit of measurement and we use growth rates because of their intuitive appeal and their tractability.7
Variables and aggregations Variable

1. R&D spending: R&D spending at NYC institutions (2009$) 2. R&D spending: NYC institutions share of U.S. spending 3. VC: funding amounts in NY metro area (2009$) 4. VC: number of deals in NY metro area 5. VC: NY metro share of U.S. funding amount 6. VC: NY metro share of U.S. total number of deals 7. SBIR/STTR: amounts of grants to NYC firms (2009$) 8. SBIR/STTR: number of grants to NYC firms 9. SBIR/STTR: NYC share of U.S. grant amount 10. SBIR/STTR: NYC share of U.S. total number of grants 11. S&E occupations: employment in NYC 12. S&E occupations: S&E employment share of NYC total private employment 13. Graduate students in S&E disciplines: number of students at NYC institutions 14. Graduate students in S&E disciplines: NYC institutions share of U.S. total number of students 15. Patents: total number issued to NYC inventors 16. Patents: technological diversity index 17. Patents: firm diversity index 18. Patents: patent originality index 19. Patents: patent generality index 20. University licenses: licensing income to NYC institutions (2009$) 21. University licenses: NYC institutions share of U.S. licensing income 22. University licenses: NYC institutions share of U.S. total number of licenses 23. High-tech GCP: GCP per worker in high-tech sector (2005$) 24. High-tech GCP: high-tech sectors share of NYC GCP 25. Employment dynamics: NYC job reallocation in high-tech sectors 26. Employment dynamics: NYC employer churning in high-tech sectors 27. Employment dynamics: NYC share of job creation by new businesses in high-tech sectors 28. SBIR/STTR: 2-year probability of accessing Phase 2 29. SBIR/STTR: share of total amount raised in Phase 2 30. VC: 2-year probability of accessing higher rounds of funding 31. VC: share of total amount raised in higher rounds of funding 32. NASDAQ: average market capitalization share of NYC-headquartered firms Entrepreneurship and employment dynamics High-tech Gross City Product Intellectual Property Composite Indicator Human Capital Finance Inputs
Cluster
R&D
Sub-Index
Index
Outputs
3.1 R&D
R&D SPENDING
106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
to NewENTREPRENEURSHIP York City institutions, and has recognized the need to innovate in order to grow the national economy by appropriating
110 resources under the American Recovery and additional
Reinvestment Act. What the Index does not capture, and 105 would benefit from, is a measure of R&D at private firms.
100 95
Universities and colleges play a major role in the nations basic

90 account for 13% of its total R&D.8 Research at research and
academic 85 institutions is an important driver of innovation in the private sector, though it is difficult to pinpoint the magnitude
80
of the effect because the different through which the 2004 2005 avenues 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 of research is spread.9 To develop the R&D cluster, we combine measures of the amount
NYCEDC INNOVATION INPUT AND OUTPUT of spending at New York CityINDEX, institutions and their share INDICATORS of total
R&D spending is a measure of investment in the creation and development of new ideas. Spending on R&D represents the value 125 of innovation to firms and institutions, but it also supports jobs in 120 these fields which contribute to overall economic vitality.
115
FINANCE
U.S. spending. By including the Citys share of national spending, we are able to gauge its performance relative to the rest of the country.
115 120
Academic R&D expenditures at New York City institutions reached

110 $1.8 billion in 2009, up from $1.6 billion in 2003. However, the
The110 Index measures R&D expenditures in Science & Engineering (S&E) 105fields at academic institutions. These funds are available to academic institutions from government, institutional, and 100 industry channels, which are all captured by our measure. The federal government provides approximately 70% of the funding
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 95
Citys share of national R&D spending actually shrank from 3.6% 105 to 3.5% between 2003 and 2009, contributing to a smaller NYCEDC Innovation Index
Indicators 100 overall increase in the R&D cluster at 4.8%. Input Output Indicators 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
Corporate R&D Corporations have access to the human capital and financial HUMAN CAPITAL resources necessary for R&D that smaller companies lack.
115 However, 110
new goods and services or processes.10 Anecdotal evidence supports the claim that large and established corporations can be leaders 120 in innovation: The top company in Fast Companys 2011 List of the Worlds Most Innovative Companies was Apple. 115 Other long-standing companies included were IBM at number 29 and Pepsico at 33.11 The six New York City 110 headquartered companies appearing on the list were generally
105 younger and represented a wide range of industries from NYCEDC Innovation Index media to fashion: Foursquare (15), Donors Choice (21), Opening Survey weights on dusters 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* Survey on dusters and variables Ceremony (28), Univision (34), FX (49) and weights Madecasse (50).
corporate R&D activity is not available at the city
level because of the difficulty of attributing firm-wide R&D investments to a particular location. latest available data from the national Business R&D and National Science Foundation shows that only 3% of
105 The 100 the 95
Innovation Survey conducted by the Census Bureau and companies performed or funded R&D in 2008. These companies showed higher rates of innovation by introducing
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators INNOVATION INDEX |
90
99 98 97 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
85 80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
3.2 Finance
FINANCE
125 120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
pool of applicants and allow the study of the feasibility of ideas. The most successful firms move to Phase II, where the funding amount jumps. Phase III is commercialization, for which private NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS funding is required. There were 350 VC deals in the New York area in 2010, with a 12 total value 115 of $1.9 billion. This represents 10.7% of the total number of deals in the US and 8.6% of the total value. New York 110 City accounted for 64% of total amount and number of deals in the New York area in 2010. Additionally, 62 New York City small 105 businesses received a total of $30.5 millionNYCEDC in SBIR/STTR funding Innovation Index Input level Indicators in 2009, recorded in 100 which was more than double the Output Indicators 2003. The growth in the number of VC deals in the area was the 95 main driver of the overall increase in the finance cluster.13 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* VC funding received more weight in the cluster because of its relative magnitude and the fact that firms receiving investments are closer to the commercialization stage.
NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES Silicon Alley
120
Financing for new and emerging small firms is critical for their growth. Resources beyond the traditional banking system allow
HUMAN to CAPITAL businesses take bigger risks, providing for bigger payoffs if they
are successful. Growing businesses take on more employees and are more able to create innovative products with this additional human capital.
110 115
We observe financing in two ways: VC funding and federal 105 funding through small business grants.
100
Venture Capital measures cash-for-equity investments by firms in private companies at various stages in their development. VC 95 funding may also provide an additional incentive for firms to grow, 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 as they are responsible for maximizing returns for their investors as well as for themselves. Federal funding through SBIR and STTR grants provides capital for INTELLECTUAL small businesses PROPERTY to create innovative products. SBIR funding is available from 11 federal departments, while five fund the much 102 STTR program. Phase I grants are given to a relatively large smaller
101 100 Financing 99
At the 120end of the 1990s, a wave of entrepreneurs attracting VC investments emerged in the City, located on a relatively narrow 115 corridor on Broadway in the neighborhoods of Flatiron, SoHo, and Tribeca. The moniker Silicon Alley may have aptly 110 described the geography, but less so the focus of the firms, which was 105 mainly in the Citys traditional strengths of advertising and Innovation Index media (notable among them are NYCEDC DoubleClick, MediaMind, Survey weights on dusters and 100 Meetup). Todays start-ups, while still locating close to each Survey weights on dusters and variables other, have grown into an economic reality beyond the confines 95 14 of one small area. Citys 2006 start-ups in social 2003 2004The 2005 2007 2008 media 2009 and 2010* web-based services have risen to particular attention. The World Economic Forums Technology Pioneers 2011 list included 13 companies in Information Technologies and New Media.15 Of the 7 based inIN the U.S., 3 were located in New York City: INNOVATION NEW YORK CITY Foursquare, Knewton, and SecondMarket.
120 115
new and small businesses

110
The availability of venture capital is critical for innovation. 98 Entrepreneurs starting technology-based companies face 97 significant challenges in securing financing to take products from 96 concept to commercialization. Debt-financing is often not 95 available to tech entrepreneurs, because of the high degree of 2003 associated 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 the 2009 uncertainty with early-stage innovations, limited (or non-existent) cash-flow generated by start-ups and the fact that their assets are often intangible (e.g., knowledge) and therefore cannot be collateralized. Venture capital fills this gap. In fact, every dollar spent on venture capital returns three to four HIGH-TECH GCP more dollars worth of patenting than traditional corporate R&D.16 Venture capital is a good indicator to gauge innovative start-ups. 130 Similar arguments apply to federal grants to small businesses for 125 innovation research and technology transfer (SBIR/STTR). Such 120 grants are one step removed from commercialization as they only finance the conception and feasibility study of ideas. 115
110 105
Recent evidence suggests that small firms engage in R&D with 105 the objective of creating new products and capturing market NYCEDC Innovation Index share, whereas larger firms tend to concentrate their R&D efforts Input Indicators 100 a consequence, on improving their existing product lines.17 As Output Indicators new and small firms contribute relatively more to economic growth. 95 The innovation index measures venture capital and SBIR/STTR investments from different angles: by their total annual amount and U.S. share (as innovation inputs), and by the quality of the ideas being funded (as innovation outputs). Proxies for quality are the share of firms successful enough to attract more investment within a span of two years (e.g. a phase 2 SBIR grant or a series B venture capital) and the share of total funding attributable to such later investments.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
8 |100 INNOVATION INDEX

95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006
Input Indicators Output Indicators
2007
2008
2009
2010*
3.3 Human Capital

HUMAN CAPITAL
115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Immigration, innovation and entrepreneurship NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES Immigration is a key factor in sustaining New York Citys 120 innovation advantage. Immigrants contribute a dispropor115 large share of patents in the U.S. and patenting tionately
would increase only further with increased immigration. By

110
one analysis, a one percentage point increase in the share of

105 immigrant college graduates in the U.S. population would NYCEDC Innovation Index increase patents per capita by 6%.18 100 95 Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables
But immigrants do not only stimulate inventions, they are also the high-impact, high-tech companies in the U.S. had one or more immigrants on their founding teams.19 In Silicon Valley,
an important driver for entrepreneurship. Sixteen percent of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
Highly-skilled workers, or human capital, are the lifeblood of

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY innovation because no other inputs matter without the people
more than half (52.4%) of engineering and technology

INNOVATION NEW YORK CITY startups between IN 1995 and 2005 that had achieved more
behind the ideas. It is necessary for New York City to attract and retain human capital if innovative high-tech sectors are to flourish.
100 99 pool of skilled labor results in better matches between A large 98supply and demand. Finding skilled employees quickly is labor 97 desirable for firms and a key factor for their growth. In this regard, 96 we measure the level and share of employment in science and 95 engineering (S&E) occupations in the City. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 101 102
than $1 million in sales or employed more than 20 people had

120 immigrants among their key founders.20
This 115 highlights the enormous stakes for New York City. As a 110 destination point for immigrants from the world over, the City has benefited from newcomers since its founding.
105 the City was home to nearly three million immigrants. In 2009, NYCEDC Innovation Index At 36% of the population, immigrants represented almost half Input Indicators 100 Output Indicators of all entrepreneurs in the City in 2000. Between 1990 and
2000, 95 immigrants accounted for all growth in the Citys entrepreneurial population. While the number of immigrants
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
Graduate and post-doctorate enrollment in S&E disciplines represents the potential workforce that can be tapped by New York Citys innovative firms. While the Citys labor market can import and export human capital and data about origin and destination of graduates is not available, it stands to reason that the student population would be more likely to stay if the right opportunities were available.
125 120 115 110 105 100 95 130
who were self-employed increased by 53 percent, the number of native-born entrepreneurs decreased by 7 percent.21 For innovation to thrive in the future, it will be critical for the City to continue to attract immigrants and provide an environment for them to succeed. International students represented 31.5% of graduate students in S&E disciplines in the Citys universities in 2009 (compared to 28.0% in 2003).
HIGH-TECH GCP
S&E employment in New York City was 178,970 in 2009, up 8.7% from its 2003 level. At the same time, the share of S&E employment in the City rose from 5.7% in 2003 to 5.9% in 2009, in spite of the overall employment decline in S&E between 2008 and 2009. Nationally in 2009, the share of employment in S&E occupations was 5.4%.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
The City added graduate and post-doctorate students in S&E disciplines every year between 2003 and 2009, reaching a total of 26,903. At a nearly 30% growth rate, this trend drove the overall increase in human capital.
95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
95
100
Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables
2003 95
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
2009
2009 2010*
2003
3.4 Intellectual Property

102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
3.5 High-Tech Gross City Product (GCP)

HIGH-TECH GCP IN NEW YORK CITY INNOVATION
130 120 125
115
120 115 110 110 105 100 100 95

95 105 NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
2009
2009
2010*
New ideas are at the core of innovation. Quantifying these ideas, or intellectual property, is therefore essential if we are to accurately gauge innovation activity. We measure intellectual property through patents and university technology transfers, 130 which are lagged measures of R&D investment. 125
120
A measure of the value of high-tech sectors to the Citys economy, both in amount and in significance, is necessary to track its innovative success. The dynamic nature of high-tech sectors forces firms to constantly develop new products; the growth of these sectors is therefore directly linked to the emergence of new products. Our measure of economic activity in the high-tech sectors is Gross City Product (GCP), or the value of production in the Citys economy, which we include on a per capita basis as well as looking at the share of the Citys overall economic activity (total GCP). In 2009, New York City GCP per worker in its high-tech sectors was more than $200,000, up nearly 30% from the 2003 level, and among the highest level of any sector. Over the period, the high-tech share of total New York City GCP increased by nearly 25%. High-tech focus The rationale for focusing on high-tech innovation is powerful: companies within high-tech sectors produce tradable goods and services with enormous growth potential nationally and in global markets.23 Companies that grow at 20% annually for more than three consecutive years are concentrated in high-tech sectors. These high-impact companies account for almost all employment and revenue growth in the U.S., but New York City today has disproportionately few of them.24 Innovation in high-tech sectors also enables innovation across the entire economy (like software or communication technologies), thereby increasing overall productivity and consumer choice. Most importantly, however, the economic diversification high-tech sectors can provide will be critical to the Citys long-term growth prospects.
HIGH-TECH GCP
Patent activity, perhaps the most widely agreed-upon measure of innovation output, is often used as its proxy. Patents are inventions that may be translated into new technologies or products in the market and lead to firm growth. We concentrate on utility patents assigned to private firms where at least one inventor was a New York City resident.22
2003 2004 2005 2006 95 2007 2008 2009 100 105 110 115
University technology transfers represent the transformation of research activity at institutions into marketable solutions. This licensing activity generates income for the university, which can be used as a barometer of the success of inventions and ideas from these institutions. 1,104 patents were awarded to inventors in the City in 2009. This was a nearly 23% increase from the number in 2003. New York City inventors share of U.S. patents was 0.7% in 2009, up 18% from 2003. However, the patents showed a higher concentration across technological categories and firms. The Citys institutions were estimated to receive $488 million in licensing revenue in 2009, or about 8% of the national total. However, this share was down from 11.5% in 2003. Overall the total decline of the intellectual property cluster was approximately 1.8% between 2003 and 2009.
3.6 Entrepreneurship and Employment Dynamics

ENTREPRENEURSHIP
110 105 100 95 90 85 80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
The ability of new businesses to bring new products to the market is dependent on whether they are successful. A measure of new firms lacks the ability to track this, so a proxy for the quality of ideas is the access to further stages of funding from venture capitalists or SBIR/STTR Phase II grants. Successful businesses should receive funding repeatedly (or be acquired by other firms) and at increasing amounts. Therefore, absent more direct indicators of growth such as sales or profits, we calculate the likelihood that the Citys entrepreneurs receive venture capital or SBIR/STTR grants repeatedly (e.g. that they receive Phase II SBIR grant after receiving a Phase I) as well as the ratio of total funding obtained in later funding rounds.25 Finally, as a proxy for the value of larger firms that tend to be technological-oriented, we include average market share of New York City-headquartered firms listed on NASDAQ as a measure of their success. Entrepreneurship shows a complex behavior, declining until 2005, increasing until 2007 and remaining essentially stable between 2007 and 2009. The measures of creative destruction show a negative trend, influenced by the recessionary period. However, the share of job creation due to startups shows an increase after reaching its lowest point in 2006. Overall, the increase in job entrepreneurship between 2005 and 2009 is attributable to the success in securing multiple rounds of financing either from venture capitalists or federal grants.
Several theories of economic growth link innovation to the rate of NYCEDC employers births, deaths, expansions contractions in a INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT ANDand OUTPUT INDICATORS process known as creative destruction.
120
We measure entrepreneurship and employment dynamics

115
by examining these changes in high-tech sectors combined

110 measures of entrepreneurial success and NASDAQ with
market capitalization.
105 100 Employment dynamics in 95 NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators examine high-tech sectors Output Indicators
reallocation, employer churning, and the share of job creation accounted for 2004 by births among small employers in 2010* the City. 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 These indicators, taken together, show as comprehensive as possible a picture of creative destruction as possible.

120 115
Measuring entrepreneurship The importance of small firms for job creation has been confirmed in recent research, in particular highlighting the positive role of business startups.28 Such firms, particularly in the high-tech sector, are also likely to increase productivity and push economic growth. The relationship between innovation and job creation may however not be linear. According to Inc. 2010 rankings, 7 out of the top 10 firms in terms of job creation specialized in business process outsourcing, staffing and third-party business logistics. Arguably, while innovative and productivityenhancing, such organizational changes may lead to job growth at the expense of larger firms internal structures.29 A more direct measure of success is revenue growth. The same rankings showed that the New York City area led the country in this respect, driven by media and advertising, two of the bedrocks of the Citys economy.
Entrepreneurship is a tangible outcome of innovation: the birth, death, growth and failures of businesses in the marketplace. Such a process of creative destruction 110 is at the heart of innovation. However, quantifying 105 entrepreneurship is difficult.
NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey on dusters is often used asweights a proxy for entrepreneurSurvey weights on dusters and variables ship as it covers both employers and non-employers. 95 The Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity measures 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* business creation in the U.S. and smaller geographical areas between 1996 and 2010 using this approach.26 Although the Kauffman Index is not available for subsectors of the economy, its behavior is not dissimilar from the result of INNOVATION IN NEW YORK CITY the entrepreneurship cluster. The number of workers per firm has also been used as a proxy, with a lower average signaling 120 the presence of smaller scale entrepreneurs. This measure too suffers from the lack of distinction between types of firms 115 or industries.27
110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators
100 Self-employment
4. CONCLUSIONS
unique position of uniting on only a few square miles finance, knowledge and a workforce among the most productive and creative in the world. Regulations and policies that keep the City open to inflows of capital, goods and talent are critical for innovation. Additional initiatives that facilitate exchange and interaction among entrepreneurs, scientists, business leaders and bankers can further catalyze innovation activity. 3. Existing barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship must be aggressively confronted and reduced to accelerate innovation, 1. Innovation and economic transformation must be prioritized as the key to New York Citys future growth and prosperity. For the City to flourish in the face of increased global competition and accelerating technological change, the City must remain what it has been since its founding: the ideal environment for entrepreneurs and innovators from around the world to succeed and grow. 2. The Citys strong innovation environment must be leveraged to accelerate its economic transformation. The City is in a globally 4. Innovation policies must be based on robust data and tailored toward solving specific issues. The NYCEDC Innovation Index will contribute to the design of evidence-based innovation policies. ranging from the availability of affordable space to training to the provision of capital, when appropriate.
The NYCEDC Innovation Index provides an analytic, timely and detailed measure of innovation in New York City to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Citys innovation system. Most strikingly, the Index shows the Citys economic transformation and documents its attractiveness and pull on high-tech entrepreneurs around the globe. By linking innovation inputs and outputs, the Index will provide the guidance for prioritizing efforts to support innovative businesses. The results lead to four distinct recommendations for policy-makers:
110 105 100 95 APPENDIX A: MEASURING INNOVATION 90 85
Overall, the variables used for the NYCEDC Innovation Index are broadly in line with past efforts to measure innovation, although few of them
80
were readily available New York A more detailed 2004for 2005 2006City. 2007 2008 2009explanation of the variables, methodology, sources and additional evidence is 2003 available in the technical appendix to this report. Appendix B summarizes some recent related publications. All data used for the Index are available from 2003 to 2009, with some variables available for 2010, albeit subject to revisions.30 To extend our estimates to 2010, we used such preliminary data, as well as estimates based on each variables time trend.
The construction of composite indicators relies on a choice of weights for its components, ideally chosen to be representative of their influence on the object being measured. If data limitations do not allow such an optimal choice of weights, robustness tests can be conducted to assess the results sensitivity. We chose the latter strategy. The Innovation Index is derived by averaging the clusters presented in the 115 report, themselves averages of the underlying variables.31 The results show a steep increase in innovation inputs in 2010, driven by venture capital. The increase in inputs determines the overall increase in the Index between 2009 and 2010.
105 110 120
We also surveyed academic experts in the field Innovation of innovation NYCEDC Index and asked them to provide weights to the clusters and to their sub-components. Therefore, the survey yielded two different sets of results: one looked at average weights assigned to the clusters, while the other applied the Output Indicators average 95 survey weights to construct the clusters and the average survey weights assigned to the clusters. The two alternative scenarios paint
2005 2006 2007 2008in the 2009City. 2010* the same 2003 larger 2004 picture: innovation increased Furthermore, the NYCEDC Index falls between the indexes constructed using the 100 Input Indicators
survey responses, as the following figure shows.

120 115 110 105 100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Survey weights on dusters Survey weights on dusters and variables
The differences between the NYCEDC results and the survey results can be explained as follows. At the cluster level, survey respondents put less weight on Intellectual Property and High Tech GCP and placed a substantially higher emphasis on R&D spending. The higher overall survey weight on inputs is not enough to lift the resulting index above a cumulative growth of 14.6%. Looking at the variable within clusters, the most notable difference is the respondents higher weight on SBIR/STTR grants both within Finance and Entrepreneurship. Using the survey results for the construction of the Index yields essentially the same results as the NYCEDCs weights until 2008 but a higher index in 2009 and 2010, showing 17.8% cumulative growth.
INNOVATION NEW YORK CITY and NYCEDCs weights are reported in the table on page 14. Notice that, for instance, the two variables The average of IN the survey responses
measuring S&E employment collectively receive a weight of 8.35% in the Index (50% of 16.7%) and that each variable receives a final weight of 4.175% (50% of 8.35%). Using the survey weights, each S&E employment variable receives a final weight of 5.43% (20.7% times 52.5% 115 times 50%). Innovation is, by its very nature, difficult to measure. Capturing the novelty of emerging ideas and new technologies requires an adaptable and fluid measurement approach. In future editions, the Index will be refined to respond to arising economic trends and to allow for 105 measurement of the impact of policy initiatives. NYCEDC Innovation Index
100 95 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* Input Indicators Output Indicators 110 120
Weights assigned to clusters and variables

NYCEDC CLUSTERS R&D Finance Human Capital Intellectual Property High-tech GCP Entrepreneurship and Employment Dynamics VARIABLES Finance VC SBIR/STTR Human Capital S&E Employment Graduate and post-doc students in S&E occupations Intellectual Property Patents issued Patent technological/firm concentration Patent originality and generality University Licenses Entrepreneurship and employment dynamics Creative destruction in high-tech industries Flow of start-ups in high-tech industries Access to venture capital funding after the first investment Access to SBIR/STTR Phase II grants Market share of public companies listed on NASDAQ 33.3% 16.7% 22.5% 2.5% 25.0% 25.0% 21.7% 24.2% 17.5% 11.7% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 27.5% 24.2% 26.7% 21.7% 50.0% 50.0% 52.5% 47.5% 90.0% 10.0% 60.8% 39.2% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 27.1% 18.6% 20.7% 10.7% 5.7% 17.1% Survey
APPENDIX B: SELECTED RELATED RECENT PUBLICATIONS

2009 INDEX OF THE NEW YORK CITY INNOVATION ECONOMY, CENTER FOR AN URBAN FUTURE
The first index to quantitatively measure the NYC innovation economy, this report examines the Citys performance relative to other cities and regions in nine science and technology-related areas. In particular, attention is focused on individual academic research institutions. Using data for the latest year available, it does not track trends over time, and while it sheds light on performance in individual variables, it stops short of producing a composite indicator of overall innovation activity. Main findings: New York City has not taken full advantage of the innovative potential of its academic research institutions. It has lagged behind other areas of the country, particularly Silicon Valley and Boston.
STATE NEW ECONOMY INDEX, THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION
The State New Economy Index benchmarks economic transformation across states. Rather than economic performance, the Index aims to answer the question To what degree does the structure of state economies match the ideal structure of the new economy? The indicators of the Index fall into five groups: knowledge jobs, globalization, economic dynamism, transformation to a digital economy, and technological innovation capacity. Massachusetts, Washington and Maryland led the ranking. Main findings for NYS: New York State was ranked 10th overall in 2010, having improved from 16th since 1999. New York performed best in the share of high-wage traded services, which includes employment in the finance and publishing industries; it was weakest in online population, where the state ranked 34th.
STATE TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE INDEX 2010, MILKEN INSTITUTE

This index, published every two years since 2002, ranks each of the 50 states in five categories of technology and science indicators that are often used as innovation measures. As well as comparing states, the Milken index is beneficial in that it addresses how the rankings have changed since the previous release. Additionally, it creates an overall ranking by giving equal weight to each category. Main findings for NYS: Overall, New York ranked 16th in 2010, but ranked 9th in investment in human capital which includes variables like the share of population with advanced degrees.
INNOVATION INDEX, INDIANA BUSINESS RESEARCH CENTER AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY

First published in 2009, this online tool is designed for comparison of different states, metropolitan areas, counties, and other geographies for the latest year for which data are available. Four categories of indicators are included, including an economic well-being sub-index, which includes poverty rate and unemployment rate. By including a wider range of variables, this index adds factors that are important for innovation in the long-term, but that do not necessarily directly measure activity. Main findings for NYC: The index found that NYC performed slightly worse than the U.S. in its composite indicator. An area of positive performance was productivity and employment, which includes job growth and GCP, among other measures.
APPENDIX C: THE CENTER FOR ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION AT NYCEDC
The Center for Economic Transformation (CET) at NYCEDC is at the heart of our effort to change the Citys economy. Created in early 2010, CET conceives and implements policy and programmatic initiatives that address complex challenges faced by the Citys industries. CET uses analysis of current economic trends to understand the needs of the Citys business community, and to develop and implement programs that address and resolve the challenges facing each sector. During the past year, CET has launched more than 60 groundbreaking initiatives. These programs have included measures to help legacy industries like media, fashion, financial services, and manufacturing transition to 21st century business models, as well as tactics to attract and support emerging industries like bioscience, green services, and technology. CET innovation policies focus on easing the process of business creation and entrepreneurship. By offering incubator space, information portals, training, and business competitions, CET aims to attract talented and creative entrepreneurs to New York City and provide the resources and create an environment where they can grow their businesses.
Selected CET initiatives for innovation and entrepreneurship Access to capital and workspaces I NYC Entrepreneurial Fund: a $22 million fund the first of its kind outside Silicon Valley to be managed by FirstMark Capital to provide promising New York City-based technology startup companies with early-stage capital. NYCEDC contributed $3 million to establish the fund, and FirstMark Capital, a leading New York City-based venture capital firm, will contribute up to an additional $19 million.
I
Training I Artists as Entrepreneurs: Equips New York Citys artists with the necessary business and management skills to successfully market their work. Operated by New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA) and the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council (LMCC).
I
Business incubators: lower-cost workspaces combined with mentoring and networking services aimed at startups and designed to increase their opportunities for success.
FasTrac: A business training program to help emerging entrepreneurs start new businesses and existing entrepreneurs run their businesses. Created by NYCEDC, in conjunction with Department of Small Business Services, SUNYs Levin Institute, and the Kaufmann Foundation. JumpStart Initiatives: A series of programs to retrain City talent to work in emerging industries. Created by NYCEDC in partnership with SUNYs Levin Institute. SBIR and Prepare for Success Workshops: Workshops that cover all aspects of National Institutes of Health SBIR and STTR proposal preparation and workshops for technology companies aspiring to launch and grow their businesses in the City. Startup Procurement Workshops: Encourages local startups and established firms to team up on bidding for City IT contracts, while promoting other City contracting opportunities for startups.
Information I NYC Media Lab: A clearinghouse created with a consortium of top universities that connects companies looking to advance new media technologies with academic institutions undertaking related research.
I
NYC Venture Connect: An informational web portal for NYC entrepreneurs that brings together all of the Citys business resources in one place. Promoting Arts Clusters: A program that promotes NYC neighborhood arts clusters by fostering collaboration between businesses and arts organizations to spur economic activity and increase tourism. Urban Technology Innovation Center: Promotes the development and commercialization of green building technologies in NYC, connecting research and academic institutions, companies creating products, and building owners with real-world test sites. World to NYC: Promotes trade and investment between New York City and the global economy by hosting business delegations from cities and regions around the world.
Competitions NYC BigApps: Annual competition for individuals or companies to develop innovative online and mobile applications that utilize official City data. NYC Next Idea: Annual business plan competition with top international business and engineering schools. NYC Venture Fellows: Established with Fordham University to match 20 rising star entrepreneurs from around the world with established business leaders to help them scale their businesses in New York City.
Endnotes
1. Glaeser, Edward I. (2005) "Urban Colossus: Why Is New York America's Largest City?" FRB New York, Economic Policy Review, 11(2) December, pp.7-24. 2. Brookings Institution. (2010) Delivering the Next American Economy, Global Metro Summit 2010, Washington DC. 3. Glaeser E., Ponzetto G. (2010) Did the Death of Distance Hurt Detroit and Help New York?, in Glaeser E. (ed.) Agglomeration Economics, Ch.10, pp.303-37, University of Chicago Press. 4. Available at http://www.nycedc.com.NewsPublications/NYCEconomics/NYCEDCInnovationIndex/Documents/TechnicalAppendix.pdf 5. For more information see http://www.starmetics.nig.gov/ 6. Patents are original when they cite patents from a wide technological spectrum. Patents are general if they are cited by patents from a wide technological spectrum. 7. To this end, all variables were normalized to 100 in 2003 and, except where noted, averaged within their cluster. See Appendix A for a summary of the weights used in the analysis. The technical appendix to this report includes more details on the variables used. 8. National Science Foundation (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010, Washington DC. 9. Mansfield E. (1991) Academic Research and Industrial innovation, Research Policy, 20(1) February, pp.1-12. 10. Data are available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/industry/ and http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11300/ 11. Fast Company (2011) The Worlds 50 Most Innovative Companies. 12. We include VC funding at the Metropolitan Area level due to data consistency and availability issues. However, the VC-related measure included in the entrepreneurship cluster are based on longitudinal data on New York City firms only. 13. VC funding was given more weight than SBIR/STTR funding in the Index due to its much larger magnitude in funding level. 14. Nearly 30% of the Citys firms receiving VC funding in 2010 were located in Chelsea and the Flatiron District. 15. World Economic Forum (2010) Empowering People and Transforming Society: The World Economic Forums Technology Pioneers 2011, Geneva, Switzerland. 16. Hall B.,Lerner J. (2009) "The Financing of R&D and Innovation," NBER Working Paper 15325, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 17. Akcigit U., Kerr W.R. (2010) Growth Through Heterogeneous Innovations, Harvard Business School Working Paper 11-044, October. 18. Hunt, J., Gauthier-Loiselle M. (2009) How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation? American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(2) April. pp.31-56. 19. Acs, Zoltan et al. (2009) High-Tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC. 20. Wadhwa, V., et al. (2007) Americas new immigrant entrepreneurs, Duke University School of Engineering, Durham, NC. 21. Center for an Urban Future (2007) World of Opportunity, New York, NY. 22. Utility patents are also referred to as patents for invention and are issued for the invention of new and useful processes or products. 23. McKinsey Global Institute. (2010) How to compete and grow: A sector guide to policy, San Francisco, CA. 24. Acs, et al. (2008) High-impact firms: Gazelles revisited, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC. 25. Consistently with the calculations for the finance cluster, the venture capital variables receive a weight of 90% in the construction of the entrepreneurial success measure. 26. See Fairlie R.W. (2011) The Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity 1996-2010, Kauffman Foundation, March. 27. Glaeser, E. (2007) Entrepreneurship and the City, NBER Working Paper 13551, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 28. See Haltiwanger J., Jarmin R.S., Miranda J. (2010) Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young, NBER Working Paper 16300, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 29. Inc. (2010) 2010 Inc.500 | 5000, the job creation ranking is available at http://www.inc.com/ss/inc-5000-top-10-job-creators#0 30. The preliminary 2010 data includes all the venture capital and SBIR/STTR variables as well as high-tech GCP estimates. 31. Note that individual variables receive lower final weight the larger the number of variables within a cluster.
Acknowledgements We are thankful for the guidance provided by the Advisory Board throughout the project: John Borthwick (CEO and Co-Founder, Betaworks), Esther Dyson (investor and entrepreneur), Tom Glocer (CEO, Thomson Reuters), Alan Patricof (Founder and Managing Director, Greycroft Partners). We are indebted to Tom Glocer and Thomson Reuters for hosting the Media NYC 2020 CEO Workshop on innovation measurement on July 28, 2010 and to the workshop participants: Mona Bijoor (Founder and CEO, JOOR), Cathie Black (Chairman, Hearst Magazines), Alex Blum (CEO, KickApps), Cristbal Conde (President and CEO, SunGard), Stuart Ellman (Co-Founder and Managing Partner, RRE Ventures), Jenny Fleiss (Co-founder and President, Rent The Runway), Orin Herskowitz (Executive Director, Columbia Technology Ventures), Brendan Hoffman (CEO and President, Lord & Taylor), Jonathan Klein (President, Turner Broadcasting, CNN/US), Josh Koppel (Co-founder and Chief Creative Officer, ScrollMotion), Drew Lipsher (Partner, Greycroft Partners), Susan Lyne (CEO, Gilt Groupe), Steve Markov (Chief Commercial Officer, WGSN), Gregory Miller (Managing Director, Greenhill & Co), Alan Patricof (Founder and Managing Director, Greycroft Partners), Cecilia Pagkalinawan (CEO, StyleTrek), Peter Price (CEO, Premiere Previews), Bill Rudin (Vice Chairman and CEO, Rudin Management), Danny Schultz (Managing Director, DFJ Gotham Ventures), Sir Martin Sorrell (CEO, WPP Group), Dennis Swanson (President of Station Operations, Fox Television Stations), Wade Tinney (Founding Partner, CEO, Large Animal Games), Garrick Utley (President, The Levin Institute), Manny Vidal (President and CEO, The Vidal Partnership), Albert Wenger (Managing Partner, Union Square Ventures), Wen Zhou (CEO, 3.1 Phillip Lim). We would like to thank the Brookings Institution for hosting the Urban Innovation Congress meeting on October 18, 2010 and its participants for helpful discussions and comments: Robert Atkinson (President, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation), Martin Baily (Senior Fellow Economic Studies, Brookings Institution), Jonathan Bowles (Executive Director, Center for an Urban Future), Ernestine Garey (Interim President, Atlanta Development Authority), Jerry Hultin (President, NYU Polytechnic Institute), Barry Johnson (Senior Advisor of Strategic Initiatives, EDA), Amy Liu (Deputy Director and Senior Fellow Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution), Mercedes Mrquez (Assistant Secretary, HUD), Cathy Polasky (Deputy Director of Department of Community Planning & Economic Development, City of Minneapolis), Lance Pressl (President, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce), RoseAnn Rosenthal (President & CEO, Ben Franklin Technology Partners), Duane Roth (Chief Executive Officer, CONNECT), Dane Stangler (Research Manager, Kauffman Foundation), Valerie Santos (Deputy Mayor, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Washington D.C.). The participants to the NYC and the Innovation Economy public/private dialogue held on October 26, 2010 provided extremely valuable feedback and suggestions: Robert Steel (Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, New York City Office of the Mayor), George Campbell (President, Cooper Union), Kenneth L. Davis (President and CEO, Mount Sinai Medical Center), Jose Ferreira (CEO, Knewtown), Chris Flowers (Executive Chairman, JC Flowers & Co.),Victor Ganzi (Chairman, PGA Tour), Robert I. Grossman (Dean, NYU School of Medicine, CEO, NYU Hospital Center), Orin Herskowitz (Executive Director, Columbia University Technology Ventures), Paul Horn (Senior Vice Provost for Research, NYU), Jerry Hultin (President, NYU Polytechnic Institute), Brandon Kessler (CEO, ChallengePost), Lawrence Lenihan (CEO, FirstMark Capital), Heidi Messer (CEO, World Evolved), Peter Price (CEO, Premiere Previews), Andrew Rosen (CEO, Theory), Jonathan Rouner (Head of Mergers and Acquisitions, The Americas at Nomura Securities), Parag Saxena (CEO, New Silk Route/Vedanta Capital), Danny Schultz (Managing Partner, DFJ Gotham Ventures), Garrick Utley (President, The Levin Institute). Useful comments were also gracefully provided by Edward Glaeser (Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Harvard University), Josh Lerner (Jacob H. Schiff Professor of Investment Banking at Harvard Business School, Harvard University), and Stian Westlake (Executive Director of Policy Research, NESTA). Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous respondents to the NYCEDC Innovation Index survey.
Delicious
Flickr
Twitter
Retweet
www.nycedc.com | Find us on:

Delicious Flickr FacebookTwitter MySpace Retweet StumbleUpon Digg
Facebook
MySpace
Slash DotStumbleUpon Mixx
Digg
Skype
Technorati

NYCEDC Innovation Index

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NYCEDC Innovation Index

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2011

NYCEDC Innovation Index

New York City Economic Development Corporation

A MESSAGE FROM SETH PINSKY

105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97

85 80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

comprehensive depiction of innovation activity in New York City. 125

highlights key trends in the Citys innovation economy:

Venture capital (VC) funding in the New York metro area

115 potential 110

$1.9 billion in 2010, with firms in the City

NYCEDC Innovation Index offers a new approach to

value of VC deals increased at a significantly higher rate than

in federal grant dollars for innovation and research in 2009.

The Index gives us a granular understanding of the drivers of innovation:

Input Indicators. The Index examines the Citys environment

$200,000, which was among the highest level of any sector.

The Citys universities invested $1.8 billion in R&D in 2009.

In 2009, the Citys universities were home to nearly 27,000

is turning into a center for innovation, particularly with regard

98 businesses and research institutions are spurring innovation in the 97 City

expected to rise in the near future.

The Citys policies for innovation should make sure government

intervention is targeted to alleviate the constraints and market

100 NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS 95 90

failures that limit the creation and survival of innovative firms.

NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators

NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS 95

R&D 115 SPENDING HUMAN CAPITAL 2003 2004

100 100 115

NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS

NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators

R&D 115 97 SPENDING

115 100 ENTREPRENEURSHIP

NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES 95 110

Cumulative Growth 2003-2009

Annual Growth* 2003-2009

FINANCE 110 102

Trend 2009 vs. 2008

INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS

NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators Output Indicators

INNOVATION NEW2005 YORK 2006 CITY 2007 2003 IN 2004 110

105 120 85 115 100 115 80 110

105 85 2003 115 120 100 110 115

HIGH-TECH GCP 104

105 105 99 115

95 105 110 105 2003 120

FINANCE 110 102 97

95 130 101 96 125 125

INNOVATION INDEX, INPUT AND OUTPUT INDICATORS

12.2% 13.7% 4.8% 23.0% 13.2% 10.7% -1.8% 27.6% 6.3%

NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES

105 2009 100 2009 95 2009 90 85 2009 80 2003 2004

95 105 110 120

100 105 115 NYCEDC 95 100 95

2008 2009 2010* NYCEDC Innovation Index Input Indicators

105 115 120

2007 2008 2009 NYCEDC Innovation Index

2009 Survey weights on dusters

NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES

INNOVATION IN NEW YORK CITY

11590 NYCEDC INNOVATION INDEX AND SURVEY INDEXES

2006 100 110

INNOVATION IN NEW YORK CITY