Feeding the world’s growing population is a critical policy challenge for the twenty-first century. With constraints on water, arable land, and other natural resources, agricultural innovation is a promising path to meeting the nutrient needs for future generations. At the same time, potential increases in the variability of the world’s climate may intensify the need for developing new crops that can tolerate extreme weather. Despite the key role for scientific breakthroughs, there is an active discussion on the returns to public and private spending in agricultural R&D, and many of the world’s wealthier countries have scaled back the share of GDP that they devote to agricultural R&D. Dwindling public support leaves universities, which historically have been a major source of agricultural innovation, increasingly dependent on industry funding, with uncertain effects on the nature and direction of agricultural research. All of these factors create an urgent need for systematic empirical evidence on the forces that drive research and innovation in agriculture. This book aims to provide such evidence through economic analyses of the sources of agricultural innovation, the challenges of measuring agricultural productivity, the role of universities and their interactions with industry, and emerging mechanisms that can fund agricultural R&D. 

Alarmists argue that the United States urgently needs more and better-trained scientists to compete with the rest of the world. Their critics counter that, far from facing a shortage, we are producing a glut of young scientists with poor employment prospects. Both camps have issued reports in recent years that predict the looming decline of American science. Drawing on their extensive analysis of national data sets, Yu Xie and Alexandra Killewald have welcome news to share: American science is in good health.

Is American Science in Decline? does reveal areas of concern, namely scientists’ low earnings, the increasing competition they face from Asia, and the declining number of doctorates who secure academic positions. But the authors argue that the values inherent in American culture make the country highly conducive to science for the foreseeable future. They do not see globalization as a threat but rather a potential benefit, since it promotes efficiency in science through knowledge-sharing. In an age when other countries are catching up, American science will inevitably become less dominant, even though it is not in decline relative to its own past. As technology continues to change the American economy, better-educated workers with a range of skills will be in demand. So as a matter of policy, the authors urge that science education not be detached from general education.

Measuring innovation is a challenging task, both for researchers and for national statisticians, and it is increasingly important in light of the ongoing digital revolution. National accounts and many other economic statistics were designed before the emergence of the digital economy and the growth in importance of intangible capital. They do not yet fully capture the wide range of innovative activity that is observed in modern economies. This volume examines how to measure innovation, track its effects on economic activity and on prices, and understand how it has changed the structure of production processes, labor markets, and organizational form and operation in business. The contributors explore new approaches to and data sources for measurement, such as collecting data for a particular innovation as opposed to a firm and using trademarks for tracking innovation. They also consider the connections between university-based R&D and business start-ups and the potential impacts of innovation on income distribution. The research suggests strategies for expanding current measurement frameworks to better capture innovative activity, including developing more detailed tracking of global value chains to identify innovation across time and space and expanding the measurement of innovation’s impacts on GDP in fields such as consumer content delivery and cloud computing. 

This volume presents studies from experts in twelve industries, providing insights into the future role of innovation and entrepreneurship in driving economic growth across sectors.

We live in an era in which innovation and entrepreneurship seem ubiquitous, particularly in regions like Silicon Valley, Boston, and the Research Triangle Park. But many metrics of economic growth, such as productivity growth and business dynamism, have been at best modest in recent years. The resolution of this apparent paradox is dramatic heterogeneity across sectors, with some industries seeing robust innovation and entrepreneurship and others seeing stagnation. By construction, the impact of innovation and entrepreneurship on overall economic performance is the cumulative impact of their effects on individual sectors. Understanding the potential for growth in the aggregate economy depends, therefore, on understanding the sector-by-sector potential for growth. This insight motivates the twelve studies of different sectors that are presented in this volume. Each study identifies specific productivity improvements enabled by innovation and entrepreneurship, for example as a result of new production technologies, increased competition, or new organizational forms. These twelve studies, along with three synthetic chapters, provide new insights on the sectoral patterns and concentration of the contributions of innovation and entrepreneurship to economic growth. 

The twenty-first century has seen dramatic shifts in the nature of work, including a decrease in economic security and job opportunities for low-skilled workers. At the same time, the nature of families has also changed significantly, including a delay and decrease in marriage and the development of new types of complex family structures. These changes in work and family have contributed to a rise in inequality, with many lower-income families experiencing poverty and economic hardship as a result. Yet, public policy has not adapted to address these issues. In this issue of RSF, sociologists Marcia J. Carlson, and Christopher Wimer, developmental psychologist Ron Haskins, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors examine the growing needs of low-income families and explore both the extent to which public policy effectively serves them and how it can be improved.
 
The nine articles in this issue examine various aspects of contemporary work and family life for low-income families, the challenges they face, and whether current policies help to mitigate these challenges. Sigird Luhr and colleagues find that unpredictable work schedules were associated with increased difficulty arranging childcare, work-life conflict, and missed work for working mothers. Elizabeth O. Ananat and colleagues show that Emeryville, California's Fair Workweek Ordinance decreased working parents' schedule unpredictability, and improved their well-being without reducing worker hours. Pamela Joshi and colleagues find that less than a quarter of low-income, full-time working families earn enough to cover a basic family budget, compared to two-thirds of all full-time working families. Katherine M. Michelmore and Natasha V. Pilkauskas reveal that nearly 60% of children in lower-income families reside in households with a complex family structure that may result in difficulty filing for important tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that can help increase their incomes. Jennifer Randles shows that income and public aid are insufficient for many mothers to cover the cost of one of children’s basic needs - diapers - and suggests policies to help bridge this gap in the face of widespread economic insecurity.
 
This volume of RSF illuminates the many obstacles faced by lower-income families due to changes in the labor market and family patterns as well as the ways in which public policy can better respond to alleviate these obstacles.
 
 

In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic created large-scale disruptions in American society almost overnight. Yet the federal government provided little coordination or guidance in the face of the crisis. State and local governments found themselves primarily responsible for enacting policies and communicating information about the virus with the public,resulting in a wide variety of responses to the pandemic, including in public health recommendations and mandates. In this issue of RSF sociologist Beth Redbird, political scientist Laurel Harbridge-Yong, communications expert Rachel Davis Mersey, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors explore how social and political factors shaped the initial responses to the pandemic and how this impacted individuals and communities.
 
The 11 articles in this issue examine how information about the pandemic was disseminated, the disparate impacts of COVID-19 on different groups, and the government’s response to the pandemic. Courtney Page-Tan and colleagues find that people who relied on information from close social networks and trusted formal institutions, such as the CDC, were more likely to engage in behavior aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, such as staying home and avoiding crowded areas. Laura E. Evans and colleagues find that while Native Americans were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, states in which Native Americans had greater representation and political power in state politics saw fewer COVID-19 cases on tribal lands. They also find that there were fewer COVID-19 cases on tribal lands with strong networks of community-based and tribally controlled health facilities. Claire Kamp Dush and colleagues find that individuals who identify as non-White or non-heterosexual experienced higher levels of COVID-19 stress and racial trauma stress, both of which are associated with poorer mental health outcomes. Sarah James and colleagues find that state variation in the collection and publication of COVID-19 data reflected state capacity. Yet the main driver of variation in state policy response and implementation of mitigation measures was primarily partisanship. Elizabeth Suhay and colleagues find that trust in federal, state, and local government all fell during the first year of the pandemic. However, individuals with more trust in state government and local health officials were more likely to engage in protective health behaviors, while those with higher trust in the federal government were less likely to engage in such behaviors.
 
While the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue for years to come, this volume of RSF begins the investigation into how the pandemic has altered social, cultural, and political dynamics in American society.
 

Wealth – a household’s assets minus its debts – is an important indicator of child well-being. Higher household wealth related to better academic achievement, behavior, and health among children. Yet a sizeable share of American children, including a majority of Black and Hispanic children, grow up in households with very low levels of wealth, and wealth inequality among households with children is rising even faster than among the general population. This volume of RSF, edited by social policy experts Christina Gibson-Davis and Heather Hill, provides the first comprehensive examination of the contours and consequences of wealth inequality for children under the age of 18. An interdisciplinary roster of contributors consider the vast racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and how those disparities affect child well-being. 
 
Contributors Fabian Pfeffer and Nora Waitkus find that child wealth inequality is far worse in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries. Editors Gibson-Davis and Hill show that a relatively small group of American parents—mostly White—control the lion’s share of wealth, with Black and Hispanic parents having only pennies on the dollar for every dollar of White parental wealth. Nina Bandelj and Angelina Grigoryeva show how White parents with above median wealth are more likely than other parents to practice “financially intensive parenting,” saving and borrowing in ways that promote child achievement. After controlling for other measures of family resources and socioeconomic status, Portia Miller and colleagues demonstrate that family wealth is uniquely related to both academic and behavioral development throughout childhood and adolescence and that wealth helps buffer the negative effects of low family income. Jordan Conwell and Leafia Zi Ye find equalizing wealth is not sufficient to eliminate race- and ethnic-based gaps in academic achievement: even among families with the same levels of wealth Black and Hispanic children often have significantly worse scores than Whites.   
 
High levels of childhood wealth inequality are not inevitable; they are the consequence of laws and practices that favor wealth accumulation among few, primarily White, families. Jin Huang and coauthors look at one of the few policy models for increasing savings in low-income child households, Child Development Accounts, which have been shown to increase educational savings and improve maternal mental health, but they have yet to be adopted nationwide. Two studies in this issue, by Margot Jackson and colleagues and by Katherine Michelmore and Leonard Lopoo, find that large-scale income-support programs, the EITC and Medicaid, have positive spillovers onto asset accumulation, but policies designed to fundamentally alter the distribution of wealth among families with children will require more expansive changes to the tax code and program asset caps.
 
This issue of RSF expands our understanding of wealth inequality and its effects on children, and provides important insights into policies and practices that either directly or indirectly boost wealth acquisition among child households.