|
R&D Expenditures Per Capita Compared to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neighboring States and Southeastern Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1995 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
|
Alabama |
$0.39 |
$0.37 |
$0.44 |
$0.40 |
$0.39 |
$0.50 |
$0.52 |
$0.56 |
$0.61 |
$0.62 |
|
Louisiana |
$0.10 |
$0.13 |
$0.12 |
$0.14 |
$0.14 |
$0.18 |
$0.19 |
$0.21 |
$0.22 |
$0.21 |
|
Mississippi |
$0.12 |
$0.13 |
$0.13 |
$0.17 |
$0.18 |
$0.23 |
$0.24 |
$0.53 |
$0.23 |
$0.27 |
|
SE Average |
$0.28 |
$0.29 |
$0.32 |
$0.33 |
$0.33 |
$0.38 |
$0.40 |
$0.46 |
$0.43 |
$0.51 |
|
National Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$0.96 |
$1.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOURCES: |
Data were derived from National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics (NSF/SRS), |
|
|
Survey of Industrial Research and Development, 2005; NSF/SRS, Survey of
Research and Development |
|
|
Expenditures at Universities and Colleges: FY 2005; and NSF/SRS, Survey
of Federal Funds for Research and |
|
|
Development: FY 2005-2007. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. State-level university R&D data have not been adjusted to eliminate
double counting of funds passed through from one |
|
academic institution to another. At the national level, funds passed
through to educational subrecipients account for |
|
3.3% of total R&D expenditures reported by universities and colleges in
FY2005. |
|
|
|
|
2. R&D intensity is ratio of total R&D performed in a state to its
GDP. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. Nonfederal sources of R&D expenditures reported by FFRDCs in FY2005
included state and local governments |
|
($32 million), industry ($129 million), FFRDC institutional funds ($60
million), and other sources ($136 million). |
|
|
4. Industry sources of industry R&D expenditures include all nonfederal
sources of industry R&D expenditures. |
|
|
5. Sum of state totals differ from U.S. sector totals for four reasons:
some R&D expenditures cannot be allocated to 1 of 50 |
|
states or District of Columbia; nonfederal sources of other nonprofit
R&D expenditures could not be allocated by state; |
|
state-level U&C data have not been adjusted to eliminate double counting
of funds passed through from one academic |
|
institution to another; and state-level R&D data are not converted from
fiscal years to calendar years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November |
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|