Too bad mediocre grades aren’t rewarded at all levels of government. Maine has a habit of averaging Gentleman C’s on a widely used report card of economic vitality but instead of coasting comfortably finds itself struggling to keep up with others. The report card provides a broad range of reasons for this, but Maine could start by solving one that would, in turn, take care of others.

The Corporation for Economic Development annually uses more than 70 measures to rank states in three areas: performance, business vitality and development capacity. Maine’s grades, respectively, were B, C, D. Not great, but also no reason to panic. The areas ranked are strongly linked. (Infrastructure resources are measured and so is bridge deficiency. University research and development counts and so does the number of

university spin-offs.) This means that taking care of a few areas takes care

of several, bumping up Maine’s performance in all three categories.

Two other reasons not to panic: While Maine’s grades aren’t very good, just a few years ago they were terrible. In 1996, for instance, CFED awarded Maine a D for performance, an F for business vitality and an F for development capacity. These were among the worst in the nation. It moved up to its current rankings a few years ago and seems stuck there. Second, as this year’s report explains, “The Pine Tree state again boasts a strong showing in the Quality of Life sub-index, which can be attributed to its 4th-place ranking in net migration, meaning people prefer to move to and stay in Maine.”

That is, naturally, news to most of Maine, but well-understood in some parts of it and raises the question that if quality of life is high here year after year are the rest of the measures meaningless? On the chance they are not, CFED helpfully lists 14 areas in which Maine is weak. Some are less important than others – urban mass transit, for instance, may have to wait. But a couple are crucial.

The solution to those university measures, plus the category “job growth due to new business” plus “royalties and licenses” can be approached, at first, with a single solution: Maine currently ranks 50th in R&D expenditure at around $40 million a year. It and all other states have demonstrated that increased R&D investments pay off several times over. CFED recognizes this, which is why it lists this important area as a vital part of a state’s economic health.

Instead of $40 million, Maine should be spending $140 million or more: It should have enough money so that universities and the biomedical labs around Maine can make substantial expansions for several years running. Its small high-tech businesses should

be able to compete for sizable state grants. It should ensure there is enough money to make a difference statewide.

Maine coasted for a couple of years after it finally began spending a measurable amount of R&D money starting 10 years ago. But other states aren’t coasting, and if Maine hopes to move mediocre grades into the overachiever level, it must make a much larger commitment to the people and businesses that can get it there.