Makerspaces and Local Economic Development

The maker movement has risen from a fringe hobby to a prominent lifestyle with important implications for economic development. In the past, tools have been available only to those working in firms and industry or those willing to pay for their procurement. The maker movement increases access to tools and training, potentially altering the capability of the general public to participate in product development. This study explores makerspaces and how they contribute to economic development through business generation and sustainment. Based on interviews with members and the management of makerspaces, along with local government officials in Georgia, the author finds four principal contributions to economic development: (a) creating a cultural change by encouraging entrepreneurship in the community, (b) supporting small business growth through the provision of services, (c) providing workforce training, and (d) increasing workforce retention. However, in part because of their recent development and small memberships, makerspaces are unlikely to launch many entrepreneurs into their communities anytime soon. As such, governments should avoid making excessive commitments to makerspaces before they provide greater evidence of tangible contributions, but allowing them an expanded role in formal education can enhance their ability to incubate a “maker†mind-set.

[1]  D. Dougherty The Maker Movement , 2012, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[2]  Sonali K. Shah,et al.  The Accidental Entrepreneur: The Emergent and Collective Process of User Entrepreneurship , 2007 .

[3]  Kenneth R. Troske,et al.  The Labor-Market Returns to Community College Degrees, Diplomas, and Certificates , 2014, Journal of Labor Economics.

[4]  M. Hatch The Maker Movement Manifesto , 2013 .

[5]  Neil Gershenfeld,et al.  FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop--from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication , 2005 .

[6]  J. G. Tanenbaum,et al.  Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice , 2013, CHI.

[7]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  Working Alone Together , 2012 .

[8]  Erica Halverson,et al.  The Maker Movement in Education , 2014, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

[9]  E. Hippel,et al.  Lead users: a source of novel product concepts , 1986 .

[10]  E. Hippel,et al.  FROM EXPERIENCE: Developing New Product Concepts Via the Lead User Method: A Case Study in a “Low-Tech” Field , 1992 .

[11]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP? HACKERS, MAKERSPACES, AND CROWDFUNDING , 2014 .

[12]  Jarkko Moilanen Emerging Hackerspaces - Peer-Production Generation , 2012, OSS.

[13]  M. Trimble,et al.  Labor Market Returns to Sub-Baccalaureate Credentials , 2015 .

[14]  Cornelius Herstatt,et al.  User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking , 2005 .

[15]  D. Neumark,et al.  Future Skill Shortages in the U.S. Economy? , 2011 .

[16]  Annouk Lievens,et al.  Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation for innovation , 2012 .

[17]  Sonali K. Shah,et al.  How Communities Support Innovative Activities: An Exploration of Assistance and Sharing Among End-Users , 2003 .