This report is based on a response that Century Foundation senior fellow Andrew Stettner made to a request for input from the Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy on how best to develop a National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. The strategic plan and stakeholder input are required by section 4 of the Revitalizing American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014. The report is structured as a series of answers to questions posed by the Office on how to support “United States manufacturing competitiveness, including advanced manufacturing research and development that will create jobs, grow the economy across multiple industrial sectors, strengthen national security, and improve healthcare.”

The Century Foundation’s High Wage America Project, a part of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative, has been researching innovative strategies to revitalize manufacturing communities. Our goal is to explore viable strategies to restoring manufacturing as a vital driver of regional and national economy and, most importantly, as an avenue to the middle class—particularly for those in distressed communities, young people, the un- and underemployed, and communities of color. We are excited to learn of the administration’s commitment to put into place an advanced manufacturing national strategic plan and offer the following comments gained from our research and our fact-finding activities in the Great Lakes and Midwest region.

Near-and Long-Term Objectives

Question: “In priority order, what should be the near-term and long-term objectives for advanced manufacturing, including R&D objectives, the anticipated time frame for achieving the objectives, and the metrics for use in assessing progress toward the objectives?”

Good-paying jobs at multiple levels: From 2000 to 2010, manufacturing employment in the United States fell from 15.7 percent of all private-sector jobs to just 10.7 percent.1 Yet, manufacturing remains a pivotal source of good jobs, especially for skilled positions that don’t require a four-year college degree. These workers earn $150 more per week in manufacturing than they do in other industries, and a recent econometric study found that the manufacturing hourly wage premium is 13 percent compared to other sectors.2 Luckily, manufacturing has stabilized since 2010, adding back 1.1 million jobs of the 5.7 million jobs lost during the first decade of the century.3 The ultimate measure of advanced manufacturing is its success at continuing manufacturing jobs recovery, both in terms of retention of existing jobs and creating jobs in new advanced industries. This requires an advanced manufacturing strategy that embeds education and strategies at every stage—if not, we will simply invent great technologies that will be produced overseas. An ambitious, but reasonable, goal would be for the advanced manufacturing strategy, along with other efforts to bring trade in manufacturing goods in balance, to bring back 2 million more manufacturing jobs into the U.S. economy by 2025.4

Regional inequities in capital investment and economic development: The nation could develop a successful high-tech, high-wage advanced manufacturing strategy, but do so without benefiting those communities that have suffered the most from the decline of the nation’s industrial base. World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab recently commented on the potential for advanced manufacturing and technologies to widen the gap between rich and poor saying, “…my biggest concern [is that] the fourth industrial revolution will . . . increase the inequality which we have.”5 Indeed, advanced manufacturing represents a pivotal opportunity to even out the development of the U.S. high-technology economy to more parts of the nation, specifically industrial communities in the twenty states in the Great Lakes, Midwest, and Southeast regions that have a disproportionate share of the nation’s industrial strength.6 These states represent 32 percent of the nation’s workforce, but they only represent 20 percent of the nation’s R&D spending, and an effective advanced manufacturing will reduce these inequalities through increases in both private and public R&D spending.

An even more acute challenge for these communities is converting research and development into commercially viable firms. Even technological leaders within the industrial heartland like Pittsburgh are struggling to convert R&D into high-value exports, tax-paying employers, and resulting good jobs.7 Manufacturing states (which represent 32 percent of all employment) only received 9.3 percent of all venture capital investment. An advanced manufacturing strategy must not only focus on technology transfer but the transfer of technology into traditional manufacturing communities as productive jobs.

Figure 1

Inclusion and Industry 4.0: Industry 4.0 is the name of the German industrial policy that is setting the standard for the international discussion on innovation. America needs its own strategy of Inclusion and Industry 4.0—with a commensurate amount of resources and support made available for innovation in social inclusion and human development to ensure that our entire society benefits from the use of technology and the growth of manufacturing. In addition to the geographic dimensions of inclusion mentioned above, a successful manufacturing strategy must address issues of race and gender, as well. Inclusion is critical to the success of the manufacturing sector. The potential of advanced manufacturing to be part of a growing economy won’t be realized unless the sector begins to mirror the nation.

  • The U.S. workforce is become increasingly diverse—among workers over fifty-five, only 24 percent are Hispanic, Black, or Asian; for workers under thirty-five, that percentage is almost 41 percent.
  • Women represent 47 percent of the workforce, yet only 27 percent of those in manufacturing. But these totals include administrative and sales positions—when it comes to middle-skills jobs, women’s share is just 7 percent.
  • African Americans represent 11.9 percent of all workers but only 10 percent of manufacturing. African Americans are particularly under represented in skilled manufacturing occupations like machinists (4.4 percent), welders (7.5 percent), industrial machinery mechanics (7.8 percent), and industrial engineers (5.3 percent).8
  • Latino representation is more equal, with the group representing 16.9 percent of the total workforce and 16.6 percent of manufacturing workers, but only 6.2 percent of industrial engineers.
  • Throughout the country, only 1–2 percent of manufacturing companies are owned by African American or Hispanic entrepreneurs.

The transformation occurring in manufacturing creates the opportunity for a more inclusive sector at multiple levels. Advanced manufacturing is opening up opportunities for highly skilled STEM careers like engineering (which have struggled with diversity), new opportunities for ownership caused by the coming retirement of many aging of owners of small and medium enterprises who need to find a successor, as well as immediate skills gaps among manufacturers. These major changes within manufacturing create a new opening to remake the sector in ways that are more inclusive than it has ever been. Issues of social inclusion can be divisive, but advanced manufacturing stands out as a potential unifier among urban, suburban, and rural communities all seeking to retain and grow technologically advanced good-paying jobs.

Uniquely, manufacturing can also bring high-tech jobs to small towns and rural communities like Phillips, Wisconsin, where Phillips Medisize has developed from an injection mold manufacturer of toy action figures to a worldwide provider of advanced molding and engineering services; to inner-city Chicago, where the decline in good-paying manufacturing jobs has been identified as a cause of tragic levels of gun violence. The U.S. advanced manufacturing strategy should not shy away from including specific goals when it comes to social inclusion and location of new establishments, employment, and ownership.

The U.S. advanced manufacturing strategy should not shy away from including specific goals when it comes to social inclusion and location of new establishments, employment, and ownership.

A strategy for inclusion in advanced manufacturing will require substantial investment in the K–14 educational infrastructure linked to twenty-first-century manufacturing, particularly in inner-city communities. Our youth need to be introduced to the many dynamic careers in manufacturing, including engineering, product development, management, and ownership, as well as production, early in life if we are to have the pool of talent required to compete successfully in the global economy. (Specific recommendations related to education and workforce issues are detailed below.) Commensurate investments need to be made to reach out-of-school and long-term unemployed individuals. For these communities, there is a crucial role for coaching and supportive services to facilitate the entry and inclusion of diverse workers into manufacturing careers. The rigorously evaluated Work Advance program operated by Towards Employment in Cleveland through the federal Social Innovation Fund is an example of such an approach.9

Productivity of the overall manufacturing sector: Some observers have blamed technology for the decrease in manufacturing employment, yet in fact productivity growth has slowed, making U.S. manufacturers less competitive, and employing fewer workers.10 Even with the best trade and regulatory policy, it is only through an aggressive advanced manufacturing strategy that U.S. manufacturing can compete globally against nations whose workers earn less and/or have greater investment in technological prowess. Excluding the computers and electronics sector, the multifactor productivity of manufacturers has been lower than the rest of the economy over the last twenty-five years.11 An advanced manufacturing strategy should have a goal of equalizing the economy-wide productivity levels.

Advanced manufacturing trade deficit: Trade in advanced technology products went from a surplus in 2001 of $4.3 million to a negative $110 billion deficit in 2017.12 The ultimate goal of an advanced manufacturing strategy should be to bring trade in advanced manufacturing back into balance. An interim goal, possible to accomplish by 2025, would be to shave $30 billion off of that advanced manufacturing trade deficit. That would return the advanced manufacturing trade deficit to where it was in 2010, at the bottom of the last economic cycle.

What Federal Government Can Do

Question: “How can federal agencies and federally funded R&D centers supporting advanced manufacturing R&D foster the transfer of R&D results into new manufacturing technologies and United States-based manufacturing of new products and processes for the benefit of society to ensure national, energy, and economic security? What role can public-private partnerships play, and how should they be structured for maximum impact?”

Manufacturing USA is a promising model that should be expanded: Advanced manufacturing is critical to the technological prowess of the economy, its productivity, national security, and to reducing the trade deficit. However, leading industrial nations like Germany, through its Fraunhofer Institute, and China, through its Made in China 2025 program, have done more to identify promising technologies and invest public resources in developing their future than has the United States.13 Befitting the United States’ status as the second-largest manufacturer in the world, Congress sought to “stimulate U.S. leadership in advanced manufacturing and increased production of goods in the U.S.” through the development of the Manufacturing USA institutes (also known as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation), beginning in 2012. As a scholar working with The Century Foundation, Fred Block points out in a 2017 report, “Manufacturing USA represents a best practice model for industrial policy—one that does not pick individual winners and losers in the economy but rather invests in the sub-sectors which show the most promise for maintaining American manufacturing leadership and protecting national security interests.”

There are now fourteen Manufacturing USA Institutes, each institute a public–private partnership. The early results are promising, with 15 percent of all U.S.-based global manufacturing leaders joining one of the institutes by the end of 2016, and already delivering a number of practical research results, such as a new end-to-end carbon fiber production line that allows SMMs to test new technologies.14 Two primary actions are needed in order to harness the potential of the Manufacturing USA institutes:

  • Long-term funding: Congress set up the institutes to be self-sustaining after five years, but this seems like an unrealistic goal. For one, it takes more than five years to take a promising technology to scale. The promise of the institutes is that they push research and collaboration further than the private sector can accomplish alone. A more realistic model for long-term funding of the institutes would be to have core federal support, with prescribed levels of matching funding coming from the private sector and/or state governments to ensure that federal funds go to efforts where there is private-sector buy-in.
  • Additional institutes: Previous plans envisioned that Manufacturing USA would expand to forty-five institutes over time. The administration will, over the next few years, have the opportunity to expand its footprint. While the Department of Commerce manages the network, most of the funding for the institutes themselves come from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The plan should include efforts to expand this commitment and engage other industries and agencies—natural candidates would be the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Transportation.

Education and Training

Question: “How can such federal agencies and centers develop and strengthen all levels of manufacturing education and training programs to ensure an adequate, well-trained U.S. workforce for the new advanced manufacturing jobs of the future?”

Manufacturing has a workforce pipeline problem and a skills gap problem. They are often described as the same challenge but in fact they are two different problems—one of a lack of skilled workers and another the lack of workers interested in manufacturing careers. Clearly, this is in the front of employer’s minds: 80 percent of employers state that workforce shortages will hinder their ability to introduce new technologies.15 From 2012 to 2017, there were more job openings than workers hires in fifty-four of the last sixty months, with manufacturers not able to quickly fill available openings.16 Shortages are most acute among America’s skilled manufacturing workforce of 1.4 million workers who work in jobs that require post-secondary education or moderate to long-term on-the-job training.17 Many of these are in positions like machinist, industrial machinery mechanic, and operator of computer-controlled machine tools, which are forecasted by the Department of Labor to grow faster than the national average even as the number of production workers declines.

A shortage of truly skilled workers is only part of the problem—one recent survey found that between 16 and 25 percent of manufacturing establishments have long-term vacancies among their core production workforce.18 A major part of filling these jobs is the enthusiasm gap. While 64 percent of Americans think a strong domestic manufacturing sector is important to the nation’s economy, only 37 percent think that manufacturing is a good career for their children.19 Equally important to training skilled workers is encouraging young people to give manufacturing careers a try, including production work that can develop into a skilled career. The following federal actions should be taken in order to change these attitudes:

Prioritize the workforce in advanced manufacturing: Workforce development should be an integral part and key priority across federal manufacturing initiatives, including the Manufacturing Extension P and Manufacturing USA. Each of the individual institutes, for example, has workforce development as part of its mandate, but the emphasis for each has been different. Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT), for example, has already completed a workforce analysis that found a shortage of 200,000 workers in lightweight manufacturing and started a new work-study program with an Ohio community college to start filling it. Manufacturing USA institutes, along with other manufacturing initiatives, need to not only have a stated concern for workforce development but also dedicate financial resources to workforce development programs. This requires greater commitment by funding agencies like the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the workforce component of advanced manufacturing, alongside the development of technology. Simply put, the United States won’t be able to become a leading producer of advanced manufacturing technology if it does not foster a workforce capable of producing these technologies.

Mandate should be to design technologies that utilize the best of human capabilities: The workforce should not be an afterthought when it comes to advanced manufacturing, and indeed the goal of the advanced manufacturing plan should be to foster good-paying jobs. Doing this requires Manufacturing USA and other advanced manufacturing efforts to approach technology development with a goal of including both brain work and hand work. The workforce skills required to make the most of advanced technology are different than the skills needed in the past. Front-line advanced manufacturing workers need to be trained in both production and innovation, allowing them to debug new processes and monitor processes closely. For example, Manufacturing USA and other advanced manufacturing programs could foster these skills by funding demonstration apprenticeships or other incumbent worker training programs in debugging automated technology, like industrial robots, as companies develop or adapt to advanced technology. The interaction between workers and technology is an under-researched area, and federal advanced manufacturing initiatives should deepen understanding of best practices among companies maximizing the impact of technology on productivity through worker engagement. This research could find examples of skills-based automation, for example when co-bots produce higher quality production than either a human or a robot could.20

Maximize on sectoral partnerships: Multi-firm sectoral partnerships bring together multiple companies within an industry to work on shared workforce needs they cannot solve on their own. These partnerships have a been particularly successful way for manufacturers to develop a strategy to address their skills gaps. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act made sectoral partnerships a requirement for receiving limited federal training dollars, yet implementation remains uneven. Federal agencies investing in advanced manufacturing like the Department of Commerce, Defense, and Energy should help the Department of Labor ensure that more jurisdictions are setting up sectoral partnerships, and, in manufacturing states, help to develop several manufacturing clusters. Concretely, MEP and the Manufacturing USA institutes should leverage their connections with manufacturers in emerging sectors to stand up sectoral partnerships focused on workforce development, partnering with local workforce agencies in the parts of the country where they are headquartered and where new clusters are emerging. This should be an explicit goal of contracts with and oversight of advanced manufacturing initiatives.

Foster new industry-recognized credentials: The federal advanced manufacturing strategy should promote the increased development and use of industry-recognized skill-based credentials. As advanced manufacturing continues to change job requirements, industry-recognized credentials can provide structure and a training guide for key occupations. And, as workers are less likely to spend their entire career with a single employer, industry-recognized credentials can act as a roadmap for advanced manufacturing careers. Moreover, workers are often more motivated to earn a portable industry credential than engage in company-specific training if they are less confident about their long-term future. The federal government can promote skill standards in numerous ways, making their development an outgrowth of different advanced manufacturing initiatives or through strategic support of industry associations, a good example of which are the NIMS (National Institute for Metalworking Skills) metalworking standards.21 Equally important are strategic efforts to promote the use of skills standards within targeted industries—an example of where all levers of federally supported programs, from MEPs, to Manufacturing USA institutes, to the K–12 system and job training programs, must work together.

Spur apprenticeships: As advanced manufacturing initiatives bring firms together in collaboration and healthy competition, there is a prime opportunity to create new multi-firm apprenticeships. Multi-firm apprenticeships are particularly important for small and medium enterprises who don’t have the resources to set up a program on their own. The current administration has already prioritized apprenticeship, but several issues regarding them are particularly important for advanced manufacturing. One is that unions have a long history of setting up the most successful multi-firm apprenticeships and should be seen as a key partner in apprenticeship efforts. The Department of Labor-funded Industrial Manufacturing Technician apprenticeship program provides a prime example of an effort targeting the specific skill shortage that is becoming more important every year as automation plays a larger role in U.S. manufacturing. The administration’s executive order specifically mentions manufacturing as a target for apprenticeships, and the Department of Labor could set aside a specific percentage of any new grant dollars for manufacturing.

It is critical that as apprenticeship is expanded that quality is maintained, especially if the public oversight of apprenticeship is changed. While the administration explores alternatives to government-registered apprenticeship, it must ensure that quality is not compromised.

Create more work-based learning opportunities and infuse manufacturing into K–12 education: The advanced manufacturing sector’s development must include heavy involvement by the Department of Education to encourage local K–12 systems and community colleges to do more to introduce manufacturing careers to young people. Promising strategies include work-based learning approaches including short-term internships and youth apprenticeships. Manufacturing represents a prime opportunity for career and technical education programs to develop more innovative and sectoral approaches. A prototype is the Manufacturing Connect program which seeks to provide education for the next generation of leaders in all aspects of manufacturing: engineering, product development, production, business development, and ownership. Manufacturing Connect operates three high schools in the predominantly African-American west side of Chicago, working with ninety-six local business companies to develop the initiative and provide paid work experiences to students and full-time work upon graduation. The Department of Education could help more school districts operate such programs through guidance, technical assistance, and through the release of competitive funding to districts who seek to operate such a program.

Expand interagency collaboration: Interagency collaboration will be critical to addressing the workforce challenges facing manufacturers. Critically, federal sponsors of advanced manufacturing research and technology transfer (such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy) need to work closely with the Department of Education, Department of Labor, and other agencies involved in job training in order to develop a comprehensive workforce strategy.

Supporting Small- and Medium-Sized Manufacturers

Question: “How can such Federal agencies and centers assist small and medium-sized manufacturers in developing and implementing new products and processes?”

Small- and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) employ over 70 percent of all manufacturing employees. The ranks of small manufacturers (categorized as manufacturers who employ less than fifty employees) hemorrhaged during the period of major decline (2001–2010) and have recovered more slowly than have larger and medium-size enterprises. This slow recovery creates a challenge for the industry overall, because SMMs form the backbone of America’s supply chains and by definition include all small entrepreneurial start-ups. SMMs often lack sufficient financing, personnel, capacity, capital equipment, expertise, and experience—especially compared to large manufacturers—to improve their competitiveness, in areas ranging from innovation and productivity improvement, to workforce recruitment and training, to business development and modernization, among other needs. The federal advanced manufacturing strategy needs to heed the experiences and role of SMMs.

Sustain and Expand MEP: Several federal programs have been created to assist SMMs, though the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is by far the most important of these. One of MEP’s most important roles is to help small manufacturers master the processes and technologies of advanced manufacturing, such as quality control and the use of sophisticated machine tools. And MEP is increasingly being called on to help small manufacturers solve their workforce shortages. With a budget of just $130 million and a staff of only 1,300 employees, MEP provides critical assistance to small manufacturers they would not be able to afford elsewhere. One study found that every dollar invested in MEP generates an estimated $32 in in economic growth, which translated into $3.6 billion in new sales for the SMMs targeted.22 Through 2011, the MEP program had engaged with over 400,000 SMMs, evidence of the great demand for MEP services.23 No private-sector partner could replace the fifty-state network of MEP centers, each uniquely integrated into that state’s research and manufacturing community. MEP should be sustained and eventually expanded so it can reach a greater share of manufacturers to meet the critical challenges ahead.

Early warning networks and layoff aversion: Layoff aversion programs consist of interventions to save struggling manufacturers, and avoid layoffs. Layoff aversion programs are now a mandatory activity by states receiving federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds to operate rapid response programs for dislocated workers. Unique among rapid response strategies, layoff aversion seeks to prevent workers from being laid off. A pioneering program in this area is the Pittsburgh-based Steel Valley Authority, which has saved nearly 15,000 manufacturing jobs in the last four years.24 Often the installation of new advanced production technologies can be the difference-maker in preserving a SMM through a layoff aversion program. However, while layoff aversion is a required component of WIOA, state implementation has been uneven. The Department of a Labor should do more to promote layoff aversion, and work with NIST and other agencies to help layoff aversion efforts understand the impact that technological innovation can make to save jobs.

Supply chain optimization: Supply-chain optimization emphasizes managing the total supply chain for maximum value.25 More aspects of U.S. manufacturing need to develop a supply-chain strategy that allows firms to work together to make continuous improvement. Technology can help: the vision of Industry 4.0 is rooted in technologically connected firms and processes, with data powering efficient and more productive supply chains—but many small firms have been reluctant to embrace connected production for reasons ranging from a lack of capital to fears of internet security. MEP programs, and others, can do more to spur supply chains ahead. Indeed, MEP should explore ways that more of it’s work can lift the capacity of multiple firms within supply chains. One strategy would be to have national supply chain specific MEPs, helping multiple firms solves different problems.

Assistance with capital: The topic of small manufacturers and advanced manufacturing can’t be left without addressing their distinct challenge in getting private financing to get them to upgrade their technology. The federal government can play a role here. Thomas Mahoney and Sue Helper recommend that the Small Business Administration operate a loan fund specifically for small manufacturers seeking to update their production equipment and information systems.26 Other federal economic development entities like the Economic Development Administration might also set up such funds. Moreover, the research into access to capital and barriers to it for small manufacturers is a topic ripe for federal supported investigation. Lastly, pension guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor should continue to encourage double bottom line investments by pension funds that invest in small manufacturers as a social responsible investment to lift distressed communities.

A successful federal advanced manufacturing strategy will serve those communities and working families who have looked to manufacturing for rewarding and family-sustaining work. We at The Century Foundation and the Bernard Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative commend NIST for understanding the vital role of the workforce in the success of advanced manufacturing, and are excited to see a plan that integrates technical and workforce innovation.


  1. Andrew Stettner, Joel S. Yudken, and Michael Mccormack, “Why Manufacturing Jobs Are Worth Saving,” The Century Foundation, June 13, 2017,
  2. Lawrence Mishel, “Yes, Manufacturing Still Provides a Pay Advantage, but Staffing Firm Outsourcing is Eroding It,” Economic Policy Institute, March 12, 2018,
  3. “All Employees: Manufacturing (MANEMP),” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. Bureau Labor Statistics,
  4. “Job Loss in Manufacturing: More Robot Blaming,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, March 29, 2017, Economist Dean Baker estimates that if the trade deficit fell by 2.0 percentage points of GDP. This would imply an increased manufacturing output of 22 percent, which would be the equivalent of 2.7 million additional manufacturings jobs. Setting a goal of getting at least to 2 million more manufacturing jobs by 2025 is therefore a reasonable target towards this goal.
  5. Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2017).
  6. Andrew Stettner, Joel S. Yudken, and Michael Mccormack, “Why Manufacturing Jobs Are Worth Saving,” The Century Foundation, June 13, 2017,
  7. At the firm level, this is known at “the valley of death,” where firms struggle to get the capital to take a promising advanced manufacturing idea into production and the market.
  8. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2017,
  9. “Project Overview,” MDRC,
  10. Adams Nager, “Trade VS. Productivity: What Caused U.S. Manufacturing’s Decline and How to Revive It,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February, 2017,; Martin Neal Baily and Barry P. Bosworth, “US Manufacturing: Understanding Its Past and Its Potential Future,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, no. 1, Winter, 2014, 3-25,
  11. Susan Houseman, “Understand the Decline in Manufacturing Jobs,” Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, January, 2018,
  12. “Trade in Goods with Advanced Technology Products,” United States Census Bureau, 2018,
  13. Fred Block, “A Strategy for Rebuilding the Manufacturing Sector in the United States,” The Century Foundation, September 20, 2017,
  14. “Manufacturing USA: A Third-Party Evaluation of Program Design and Progress,” Deloitte, January, 2017 available at
  15. Craig Giffi et al, “The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing 2015 and beyond,” Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, 2015,
  16. Jesse Rothstein raises important questions about utility of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ measure of job openings, finding little correlation between changes in job opening and employment.
    Jesse Rothstein, “The labor market four years into the crisis: Assessing structural explanations.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 65(3): March, 2012, 467–500,
  17. Harold Sirkin, Michael Zinser, and Justin Rose, “The U.S. Skills Gap: Could It Threaten a Manufacturing Renaissance?” Boston Consulting Group, August 28, 2013,
  18. Andrew Weaver and Paul Osterman,“Skill Demands And Mismatch In U.S. Manufacturing,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 70(2), March 2017, 275–307,
  19. “National Survey Results,” Mellman Group, Inc. and North Star Opinion Research, November 17, 2016, published by the American Alliance for Manufacturing at; “Manufacturing USA: A Third-Party Evaluation of Program Design and Progress,” Deloitte, January, 2017 available at
  20. Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, “Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality,” Bain & Company, January, 2018,
  21. “About NIMS,” National Incident Management System, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
  22. “The Manufacturing Extension Partnership: Partnering for Manufacturing Innovation and Growth,” National Institute for Standards and Technology, February, 2010,×11.pdf.
  23. “The Manufacturing Extension Partnership: Partnering for Manufacturing Innovation and Growth,” National Institute for Standards and Technology, February, 2010,×11.pdf.
  24. Joel Yudken, Tom Croft, and Andrew Stettner, “Revitalizing America’s Manufacturing Communities,” The Century Foundation, October 16, 2017
  25. Thomas C. Mahoney and Susan Helper, “Ensuring American Manufacturing Leadership Through Next-Generation Supply Chains,” Mforesight, June, 2017,
  26. Thomas C. Mahoney and Susan Helper, “Ensuring American Manufacturing Leadership Through Next-Generation Supply Chains,” Mforesight, June, 2017,