STRATEGY A COMPARISON OF SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESS MANAGERS'TTITUDES TOWARD INNOVATION AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN PROMOTING TECHNOLOGY'elly C. Strong Michigan Technological University Michael Winchell Illinois State Umvefsity ABSTRACT House Result((io&t 820 calls for the es(eblis(unen& r o(echnvlogy partnersldps, fivtded by (lie federal government, designed specifically tv improve smiill businesses access (v iechnology. Ho(never, goverumen(-imlnstry parrnerships have been cri(icized for crea(ing a governnren(-irssis(ed vrganizativn (v compere tvith dornesric pri va(e secror firms. The critics of such paruierships a&gite ((ia( marker iirfemeniivir by (he government vfren resrilfs in con(pert'(i ve disadvantages for rhe very firniv the partners(iip was iirteirded ir& help. This stud&'ssessed the a(tiurdes of smirfl liitsi ness vwuerv and miinag err toward government directed markeri urerveniions such as rhai prvposed in HR 820. Tire results suggest (har (here are svme impor(aiii drfferences between mamigers ar large corpora(ivns and small businesses on the etc(iveness r&f market inierveniion by (he governmenr, borh iir terms ofjob creatroir aud technvfogy enhancemen(. Wi(hirt the .(ubsiirnple of smag firms, however, there is sharp disagreement oir (he value of government programs such ris those proposer(in H.R. 820. INTRODUCTION Technological innovation is a critical factor in the competitive capabilities of many small firms (Lo Storto, 1994). Since small businesses are sigmficant contributors to the overall strength ol'he U.S. economy (Butler, 1994), thc federal govcrnmcnt is concerned that inaccessibility to leading technologies may cause a competitive disadvantage to small U.S. businesses in the global marketplace. In response to this concern, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced House Resolution 820 I HR 820) which would establish technology centers to assist small businesses in understanding, acquiring, and implementing technological innovations to enhance their compctitivencss. Whether govcrnmcnt intervention via programs such as the technology partncrships described in HR 820 is benclicial to U.S. corporations is open to debate. Government initiated technology partnerships dircctcd at improving thc technological capabilities ol'arge corporations in the U.S. semiconductor industry mct with very limited success and low 'his research was (unded m pan by a grant from thc Graduate Programs and Research Department at Ilhnois State Umversny College o(Buuness The authors also wish to acknowledge the support of the Small Business institute at llinois State Umverstty tn the preparation of tins manuscript 109 participation rates among potential participants (Mills. 19(23). Potential success ol'he small husiness technology partnership outlined in HR g20 is dif'I'&cult to predict hecuusc liulc is kn()wn ahnut how small husincss owners/managers'ttitudes dilyer I'rom the large, husiness executives relating to thc rulc ol'overnment in developing technology and innovation. Thc puiposc of'he cunent research is to I) investigate thc auitudcs of'mall business owners and managers regarding the imponancc nf technological innovation, 2) compare these attitudes to &hose 01'arge husiness cxccutivcs, 3) describe thc general opinions of small husincss owners on thc effectiveness ol'ovcrnmcntal programs in .',purring innovation and resulting joh growth, and 4) provide insight on thc potential impact of'R g20 in light nf'he research I'indings This study will hc presented in four parts. The first section (vill dcsciihc HR II20 and explore hoth sides of'he dehatc over its pntential I'01'uet:Lss. Thc scen(10 section will discuss the research methodology uscxl to investigate husiness owners aml mangcrs'pinions on lhc importance of'technological innovation and thL'ovLI'11&TIL'Ills I'olc i(1 fil'0¬ulg Thc third section will rcpon thc findings of thc research, foll(iwc(l hy a I'inal section outlining thc potential impact ol'R 820 given thcsc I'imling». HR 820: THE NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1993 House resolution II20 was introduced on May 24, 1993 as thc "National Compc&i&ivencss Act of'993" af'ter hcin ~ approved hy thc House Suhc(&mmittcc on Technology, Environment and Aviation on March 30. The hill is also part ol'hc administration's hudget plan for 1994. The introduction of'.R. 820 was hased in part on thc I'inding hy Congress tlult "thc cost of'and dil'Iicuhy in ohtaining invcstmcnt capital for small high technology companies arc signif'icant detcrrcnts to their I'onnation, development, and glowth" (H.R. 1&20, Section 102, Article 6). Thc purpose of'.R. II20 is to improve ihc compctitivcnLss (lf s&TI(III husincsscs thlough il ntlllonwldc tcchnologv out&'Ltlch ping&itin tllnlcd ilt &01plovntg tlcccss 10 lltlol'util&Ion, cxpcrtisc, technology and managcmcnt practices. Onc ol lhc goals of Ihc technology outreach progr un proposed in HR. 1&20 is to assist small busincsscs in thc US, in their efyorts to cxpund aml accclcrate thc usc ol'cost cfycc&ivc, modern manufacturing tcchnologics aml practices. In particular, H.R. 1&20 is aimed at promoting agile m;mul'«cturing I'or 360!,000 small and medium sized U.S, businesses in order to cnhancc &heir glohal competitivcncss. Thc outreach programs cnvisioncd umlcr H.R. 820 aiv. Io hc estahlishcd as a partnership hetwecn the Department of'ommcrce. thc States, thc private sector and other appropriate federal agcncics pioviding technology extension ccntcrs and tcchnical services acloss thc U.S. Un&vcrsitics aml small husincss dcvclopment ccntcrs (among other organizations) will also he involved in thc dcvclopmcnt and opcralion ol'hc technology outreach ccntcrs. Thc outrcuch ccntcrs arc to hc I'undcd through a composite ol'users''ccs, imlustry support, and continued federal investment. The plan outlined in H.R. 820, calling for 17 hillion dollars in federal support over four years (Mills. 1993), has hccn cmhraccd hy Prcsidcnt Clinton as pal( of'is udministrat ion's overall technology pnlicy. Thc Civilian Technology Dcvclopmcnl Act ol'993, which is part 110 of H.R. 820, is pa&x ol'he Clinton admmistration plan to encourage mvestment &n start-ups and other small enterprises (DeMott. 1993; Higgins, 1993). Part of the financing for technology development in small businesses will come through federally provided venture capiml funds piggy-backed on the criuity capital prov&ded by private sector venture capital firms. Ciovcl&1&&lent subsidized technology programs such as this have yielded some breakthroughs such as Apple Computer's Newton portable, which uses a microprocessor developed in the U.K. with European Community funds. (Hudson. 1993) However, many venture capitalists believe that H.R. 820 is much too complex, overlaps existing SBA programs (Saddler. 1993), and comes with too many strings attached I'or the health ol'hc vcnturc capital I'irms and small businesses involved. (Rodgers. 1993) Thc ihrust ol'he technology pohcy outlined in H.R. 820 centers on electromcs and automobile industries, specif'ically thc dcvclopmcnt of thc inl'i&onatii&n super-highway and altcrnat&ve-tuel cars, with a subst&mtial amount of research I'unds divcrtcd I'rom Defense Department research programs. (Davis and Fussy. 1993) Howcvcr, dcfcnse conversion plans, relaxation of expo&x restrictions Icl't over from the cold-war era, and investments in computer networks have not been fo&rheum&ng, leading many small business cxccutivcs and technology industry leaders to criticize thc President's administration I'r unkept promises and a failure to act (Nomani, 1993). Onc ol the hoped I'or cflccts ol'he increase in technology spending by the federal govern&neat is an increase in jobs (Healey. 1993). The cff'cctivencss and compctitivc clTiciency ol'overnment programs such as those proposed in H.R. 820 has been tiucstioncd. Many computer industry executives have voiced concern over thc government subsidized venture capitalism, arguing that the government should not put tax dollars toward potentially had invcstmcnts nor should it insulate stan-up companies I'rom market I'orces. (Higgins, 1993) The presence of U.S. tax dollars may keep the market from opcrat&ng efT&ciently, actually costing more long tc&m jobs in thc global marketplace than the programs provide in the short run Others have expressed concerns that thc vcnturc capital I'und allocation process will become politicized, I'avorin ~ I'irms in the distncts of powerful members of'ongress instead over those with higher likclihoi&d ol'success (Dav&s and Frissy, 1993). M&lls has argued that Sematcch- thc govcrnmcnt and industry consoniurn aimed at spurnng the U.S. semi-conductor industry- has bccn a failure because the majority ol'emiconductor makers decided not to join thc consortium. Thts resulted in onc, organization (the government backed consortium) competing pinhaps unfairly against other organization~ (private U.S. chip makers) in thc global marketplace. (Mills, 1993) This situation sccms unlikely to result in joh growth or incrcascd global competitiveness. Thcrc appears to bc w&dc d&sagreement on the efficacy ol'overnment sponsored &nvestmcnt &n innovations auncd at creating jobs in thc U.S. The July survey by thc National Federation ol'ndependent Businesses rcportcd high levels of cont'idencc in the economy among small business leaders, but only 4e/» rated the President's pol&c&es as "good" or "excellent" and just 1% gave favorable ratings to Congress and &ts policies (Business Week, September 5, 1994). Our study was conducted to dctcnninc ihc auitudcs small business leaders and how their opinions may differ from executives at large companies regard&ng government I I I sponsored assistance programs, the inquence they may have: on innovation, and how govcrnmcnt hacked innovation programs may affect jobs. The following section outlines thc research methodology utilized to investigate these attitudes. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Data for this project were collected using a survey questionnaire. Thc survey items were developed from thc literature on innovation and public policy which idcntilicd I'ivc factors as important in thc economic success of in&a&vations (Strong, 1992). These lactors arc thc uuributcs of thc innovation itself', industry characteristics, organization capabilities, the attitudes ol'hc society in which thc innovation is being devclopcd, and the def'inition ol an innovation's success. Questions werc solicited I'rom a panel ol managcmcnt researchers relating to these I'ive I'actors, and the survey was pilot tea&cd on a sample ol'wenty three executives in an evening MBA program. Variance restrictions and question clarity concerns resulted in thc elimination of several items. Cont'irmatory factor analysis of'hc p&lot sample responses iden&if'icd only four factors, as thc innovation attribute and industry characteristics questions loaded on thc same I'actor. This is perhaps because thc attributes ol'hc inm&vation (e.g. whether they involved intense capital investment or pilot plant construction) werc very closely linked to industry characteristics. Alter condensing the survey I'rom live I'actors to I'our and eliminating items based on pilo& study response, 32 attnbute items and 13 personal and I'inn demographic items remained. Each item asked the &csponden& to &nd&catc Icvcl ol'grccmcntwith statemenus related to innovation, such as "Innovations involve a great deul ol'inancialrisk." Responses werc rccordcd on a five point Likert scale. Six items related to innovation/indusny attributes (lactor I), nine items mcasurcd organization attributes (I actor 2), ten items addressed societal auributes (Factor 3), and scvcn items rclatcd to innovation success mcasuremcnt und attitudes about govcrnmcnt involvement (Factor 4). Thc survey was disiributcd to a sample ol'usiness leaders as discussed in the following section. Sample Thc survey was mailed to strategic managers at 357 firms in an industrialized Midwestern state and 122 usable responses were received for a iusponse rate of 34.2%. Both the response rate and thc sample size el 122 appear adequaie I'or survey research of'his nature. Because ol'hc relatively high response rate, no I'ollow-up survey was generated. The high rcsponsc rate rcduccs thc likelihood ol'rcsponsc bias, so no analytic comparison of'respondents and nonrcspondents was perl'onned. However, observation ol'means, rungcs, and variance statistics I'or both respondents and non-rcspondcnts did not rcvcal any systematic biases in ter&ns of revenue or number ol'employees. Rcspondcnts werc asked to state their attitude regarding scvcraf innovation-related statements as measured using a live point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A demographic and industrial profile of thc respondents is provided in Table 1. 112 TABLE( Demvgrvl&lur nnd indus/rivi Prvfil» r&f Res/&r&nr/e&y/s IN= 1 22) PFRSONAI. DFMOGRAPHICS AiND ATTITUDES ~Ae: Mean=44.27 SD=9.46 Range= 27, 80(in years) 0:* i ". =-050 TD=i ll lit= 3. -ll y "3 Ind Tenure: Mean=14.19 SD=9.51 Ran »=0.5, 55 (in years} C~yo mjM .» = tl 42 5D=0.50 .,=0.5, 5. jl y Gender: Male=99 (82 5%), Female=21 (17.5%) Position/Title. General Manager=78 ( 64. S% ) Owner=21 (17.4%) Other=20 (16 5%) Educator=2 (1.6%) Personal Conce tion of "Innovation" New Product=S2 (46.8%) Other=21 ( 18.9%) Ncw Manul'acturing Process=20 (18.0»/n) New Markets=10 (9 0%) iNew Managcmcnt Systetti=5 (4 5% ) New Distnhution Method=2 ( I 8%) New Orgam&ation Foun=i (1.0'7o) FIRM DFMOGRAPHICS Size. LT SO =19 (15.6%) 51-250 = I ( 9 0%) 251-500 =5 ( 4 1%) 501-999 =14 (11.5"7r ) MT 1000 =73 (59.8%) Revenue: Mean=$ 3.360 MM, SD=7 326 MM. Range.=$ 110 K. $40.4 Miami T~t' Manufacturin =43 (36.1%) Other=38 (31.9%) (Primarily consulting) Fmancc=14 (11.8o/r) Healthcare=IO (8.40/0) Transportation=5 (4 2%) Retail=4 (3.4'/o) Education=4 (3.4%) Government= I (0.8'7o) T ' of Technolo of Primar Im ortance in Industr ". Computer/Inl'ormation=70 (59 8 "7o) Other=14 (12 0%) Machin»=14 (12.0%) Energy=g (6.8%) Commumcation=6 (5.1'/o) Medical=3 (2.5%'I Biologic/Gicneiic= I (O.j/n/nl Transportation= I (0.9'7r ) 113 As can bf'c&'.ll in Table I, the average agc of respondents was slightly »vcr 44 years, with more than 20 years work experience, 14 of'hem in their cunent industry and 10 with their current company. The sample was predominantly males (82.5%) holding a position ol'eneral manager (64.5%). Almost half the respondents thought o( innovation in terms ol'roduct development (46.8%). Analysis of'irm dern»graph&cs reveal that about 60 percent of the linus in the sample employed more than 1000 people, while 40 employed less than 1000. Mean revcnucs were 3.36 million dnllars annually. Over two-thirds ol thc sample, (ir&ns werc involved in either Manufacturing (36.1%)or "Other" (prnnarily consuhing) (31.9%). All&'lost sixty pcrccnt ol'hc I'irma werc involved in either computer or information processing industries. ~S',";I T h The attitudes capiurcd in the I'capel&sea wel'e analyzed using cross-tabs to examine dil'(erenccs across business sii'.cs varying f'rom very large (g&cater than 1000 cmployecs). large (SOO-999) medium (251-499) small (51-250) and very small (50 nr I'cwcr cmployccs). In addition, dcscnptivc statistics werc generated to I'urthcr our understanding o( thc range of'ttitudeswithin each group. Thc results of these statistical analyses are pircscnted in thc next section. RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH Results ol'hc cross-tabs arc summarized in Table 2. C&oss i ah i»atriccs are shown in Table 3 for each of'hc statcmcnts demonstrating signif'&cant dilycrcnces Thc item numbers concspond to thc question numbers on thc survey. Thc l&rst six questions werc related to innovation/industry i»tributes. Of these, only rcsponscs to questions 4 and 6 gcncratedl signil'icant (p(.10) dif )broncos based on s&zc of'usiness.Both of'hcsc questions involve&I thc importance of individuals in thc ililiovatloli process. It appears that exccutivcs in larger I'irma arc mi&rc likely to & icw crea»vc individuals wiihin thc firn& as critical to innovation activities. Employees with ncw ideas arc pcrccivc&l to be the primary drivers ol innovation in large I'il'l&is ils e&)l&&lasted &0.'&1&lllcl busilicsscs. Questions 7 through I S related to organization auributes. Of'hese items, &&nly question 10 achieved statistically signi(icant diff'crenec at the p&.10 level. This question addrcsscd thc role of'urrent sirategy in future innovation capabilities Exccutivcs at small firms appear to view current strategy as a limiting factor in future innovation flexibility. Larger pinna sccm morc coml'ortahle within thc strategic changes that may accompany innovation. Questions 16 through 25 measured attitu&lcs about social attributes. Only responses to question 23 werc significantly (p&.10) dif'Ibrcnt across business: ize. This question dealt with the importance o( consumer judgements of'desirability of'nnovations. Executives at larger I'irma sccmed much more willing to leave judgcmcnts ol innovation desirability in the hands of'onsumers than did their small business countc&parts. 114 TABLE 2 Chi Square Li ketihaatt Tests fttr item Resttmrse Dtffercnces A crass Itttsi ness Stce Classificatiuns ITEM ¹ CHI SQUARE VALUE SIGNIFICANCE (p) Innovation and Industr Anributes: I 16.76 .40 7 15 93 .46 3 18.40 .30 4 36.15 .00 5 11.86 .75 6 25.77 .116 Or anization Attnbutcv: 7 18.34 .11 8 14 77 58 9 I '7 97 .68 Ip 26.22 .05 ll 16.30 .43 12 18.60 79 13 I I 92 .75 14 671 .98 15 20.08 Social Attributes: 16 21.01 .18 17 19.66 74 18 18.52 79 19 18.25 .30 tp 7P 53 .19 21 14 77 .58 22 12.36 7'7 23 26.86 .(14 24 19.75 .73 75 11.22 79 Success Attnbutes: 26 17.08 .Cd 27 24.65 .07 78 21.17 .17 79 8.92 97 Personal Attitudes: 30 22.95 .11 31 25.46 .06 32 35.81 .00 115 TABLE 3 Cross Ta/t Matrices For Sttltemen(s Demons/ra(in¹ Staristiraiiy Si¹nificattt (p&./0) Difjerences ( SD= Strongly Dlsagrce/ D= Disagrcc/ N=No opinion SA= Strongly Ag tel / A=Agl'1 c) [TEM 4 I I I n1 Slac Rcsponscs (¹ o( EMP) SD D N A SA Row Total LT50 5 0 2 II 4 19 51-250 0 6 0 4 I 11 251-499 0 I 0 3 I 5 500-999 0 9 I 3 I 14 &1000 7 19 I 36 10 73 Column Total 12 35 4 54 17 i '1'1 ITEM 6 Firm Size Rcspollscs (¹ ol'MP) SD D N A SA Row Total LTSO 0 4 0 3 12 19 51-250 0 I 0 4 6 11 251-499 0 0 0 2 3 5 500-999 0 0 I 5 I( 14 &1000 I 0 4 36 32 73 Column Total I 5 5 50 61 122 ITFM 10 Finn Size Responses (¹ ol'MP) SD D N A SA Row Total LT50 0 2 2 10 5 19 51-250 0 0 0 6 5 11 251-499 0 2 I 0 2 5 500-999 I 0 0 7 6 14 &1000 3 I I g 37 14 73 Column Total 4 15 11 60 32 122 116 ITEiY 23 Firm Size Responses (¹ ol'EMP) SD D N A SA Row Total LT50 3 6 2 4 4 19 51-250 0 5 0 2 4 11 251-499 0 0 0 3 I 4 500 999 0 3 2 6 3 14 &1000 2 8 5 41 16 72 Column Total 5 22 9 56 28 120 ITEM 27 Finn Size Responses (¹ of EMP) SD D N A SA Row Total LT50 0 14 2 3 0 19 51-250 I 7 0 3 0 11 251-499 0 2 2 0 0 4 500-999 0 10 I 3 0 14 &1000 9 30 13 IS 4 71 Column Total 10 63 18 24 4 119 ITEM 31 Ftrm Size Responses (¹ ol'EMP) SD D N A SA Row Total LT50 3 6 3 4 3 19 51-250 4 I 0 6 0 I I 251-499 I 3 0 I 0 5 500-999 2 I I 6 4 14 &1000 18 22 8 20 3 71 Column Total 28 33 12 37 10 120 ITEM 32 Firm Size Responses (¹ofFMP) SD D N A SA Row Total LT50 4 6 3 2 4 19 51-250 0 5 0 3 2 10 251-499 0 0 I 3 I 5 500-999 I 9 3 0 I 14 &1000 4 16 6 24 21 71 Column Total 9 36 13 32 29 119 117 Questions '26 through 20 mcasurcd attitu&lcs ahout innovation success. Question 27 dealing with returns on RA(3 invcstmcnts yiel&lc&l difli:rcnccs across husincss sixc distrihut(ons signilicant at thc p&.101cvcl. Exccutivcs at small husincsses werc less inclined to mc;&sure an innovation's success in terms of economic returns on RkD cxpcnditures than werc cxecutivcs at larger firms, Questions 30, 31, and 32 dealt spccilically with the role of govranment in job creation an&I innovation hy husincsscs. Responses to (iucstions 31 and 32 werc signif'icantly different (p& 10) across business sixes and responses to &Ines&ion 30 approached signilicance (p=.115). Taken together, responses to thcsc thrcc (lucs(ions suggest that cxccutivc t&t la)get'on)pan)cs view governmcm intcrvcntion in markets less I'avorahly than do cxecutivcs at smaller companies. In addition, large comp;my managers do not appear to view govcn)ment progra)ns as an cf'I'ective means of'nnovation dcvclopmcnt or joh creation, at least when compared to rnanagcrs at smaller l)nns. The results ol'he data analysis suggest that thcrc arc s&une important differences hetwecn the attitudes ol'xccutivcs dcpcnding on company six«. Implications of'hese findings, with an emphasis on thc potential impact on HR g20, will hc discussed in thc following section. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SUCCESS Ok HR 820 Thc results sccm to suggest that cxccutivcs at larger 1(nns look to creativity of their cmpl&&yccs I)or innovations. arc morc likely to consider innovations which extend heyond the finn's current stratcgics, and (&rc con&loltahlc allowing thc invisihlc hand ol'hc marl ctplacc to "choose" Icgitimatc inm&vati(ms. They arc also more likely to internally measure thc success of an innovation in returns on Rcscarch and l)cvcloptnent dollars cxpcn&lc&l. Compositely, tltcsc &csults may rcficct the munilicent resource cnviromncnt I'aced hy large f&nns compared to smaller firms. In other words, large lirms have morc employees to rely on fore&cativc ideas, morc administrative slack to direct at strategic change, aml morc capital to h&vest 0) c(uudhu&tcd Reseal cl'& (uul l)cv('Iopn)cnt fu'ogl'ntrls. Thcsc cll'cun&st(u&ccs (0'c likely to crcatc some level ol'ompetitive;ulvantagc in thc markctplacc, which may explain why large I'irms arc rn«rc inclined to rely on classic 01(ukct opcl(&t)on to dctclnuuc thl. late ol'n innovation. In addition, la&gc I'(rrns would typic;dly exert grcatcr control over thc distrihution channel» an&I hring Other scale-economy pressures to hear on rnarkct actions. Thcrcl'Orc, they may hc Chic to infhlcncc nuu'keks to then'dv;u&tr(gc Ilun'c so than small husincsscs crul. Thc pcrcci vcr market i nil ucncc an&I competitive advantage accruing to firn&s in larger sixc ranges may also explain why thcsc I'irms do not suppon government intcrvm&tion in pron)oth&g )nnovt&t)00 ol')oh cnh(u&ccn)cnt. Attcnlpts hy thc govcrnmcnt to make resources (either capital or technology) morc readily availahlc to small husincsscs could diminish some 01'hc compctitivc advantages currently cnjoycd hy larger organixations. 1)ecausc small husincsscs appear to hc morc favorahly disposed to government involvcmcnt than larger husincsses. (nlall husincsscs'csponsc to a technology assistance program such as that outlined in H.R. I(20 may hc dif'I'crcnt than large businesses'csponsc to similar programs (c.g. Scmatcch). Thc reasoning hchind the programs proposed in H.R. (120 I I II appears sound, but of course, finul judgement must bc suspended until the tricky details of impletnentation are rcsolvcd. Indeed, even though thc opinions ol'small business executives are dtfferent than their large company counterparts, there appears to be much disagreement among small business leaders on the role of govcrnmcnt. Thc range of responses to thc qucsttons about government programs aimed at promoting innovation, the effectiveness of'uch government programs. and thc ability of these programs to create lobs demonstrate that a substanttal number of small business leaders remain unconvinced of thc government's ability to deliver nn promised assistance. For instance, 43% of respondents tn companies ol I'ewer than 250 employees responded either disagree or strongly disagree to question 30 on the appropriateness ol'overnmentinvolvement in innovation development. Similarly, 47% dtsagreed either strongly or somewhat with the statement that govcrnmcnt should be mvolved in job creation programs. Over one-thtrd of small business lcadcrs bclicve that government involvcmcnt reduces the el'fective operation of markets. As a group, small business managers arc morc likely to view govermnent programs favorably than arc large company managers, but there remains a large portion of skeptical small business leaders Whether or not FI.R. 820 can prove beneficial to small businesses tn the face of such skcpttcism remains to he scen. 119 REFERENCES Business Week. (1994) U.S. small businesses see only one dark cloud: Washington. September 5, 22. Butler, R.D. (1994) Enterprise zones and development organizations: Are they the answer to economic problems. Proceedin s of the Small Business Consultin I Confcrcn«c. Stnall Business Institute Directors'ssociation, San Antonio. TX., 77-82. Davis, B. /k M, Frissy. (1993) Clinton plans expanded role on tc«hnology. Wall Strcct Journal, p.A3 DcMott, J.S. (1993) Thc Clinton push on technology. Nation's glusincss, May, 29-32 H".I I I (1993) 31 I pl ph.I%91k "I » Ij I.. C~i ~uartcrl . March 6, 501. Higgins, S. (1993) Congress bill would ensure startup I'un&Is. PC Week. Itch. 15, 115 Hudson, R.L. (1993) Public push. Wall Strcct Journal, Junc 24, R I l. Lo Storto, C. (1994) An analysis of subcontracting relationships based on the sub- ««atra«tor/custon)er technology exchange portfolio; Some empirical I'indings. Procccdin s of thc Small Business Consultin Con(crea«c. Small Business Institute Directors'ssociation, San Antonio, TX., 3-11. MII,M.(1993) H P I PP hill . I . hk: 9 u:. C~l Quuartcrl . April 3, 835. Nomani, A. (1993) High tech industry's infatuation with Clinton turns to I'rustration over unkept vows, inaction. Wall Street Journal. September 2, A14. Rodgers, T.J. (1993) Subsidies- with deathly strings. Forbes. July 19, 20/i. Saddler, J. (1993) SBA, Comtnercc square off on high tech I'inancing. Wall Street Journal. Junc 9, Bl. Strong, K.C. (1992) Innovation, confonuity, and idiosyncrasy. Unpublished manuscript. University ol'olorado. 120