Comments 7

创新国家

Apr 16, 2015 Mariana Mazzucato

伦敦—当今主流经济学的传统观点是政府没有多少刺激创新的能力。这一观点认为，国家在经济中所扮演的角色应该尽可能小，只在“市场失灵”时出手干预。这远非现实。

事实上，政府应该也确实在刺激创新方面起着关键作用——积极建立新市场而不仅仅是修补它们。诚然，支持政府经济角色应该有限的人认为市场失灵证明有必要为基础设施和基础科学提供一些资金。但这一有限的干预很难解释数十亿美元流向下游应用研究、甚至为公司提供早期融资的现象。事实上，在一些全球最著名的创新枢纽中，国家扮演着重要的“企业家”角色，谋划建立全新领域并提供融资，包括信息技术、生物技术、纳米技术和绿色技术等。

比如，在硅谷，政府通过一个分散的公共机构网络扮演着战略投资者的角色，这一网络包括美国国防部先进研究项目局（Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency）、美国宇航局（NASA）、小企业创新研究计划（Small Business Innovation Research program，SBIR）、国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation）等。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney
Who Should Control India’s Central Bank?

Nov 12, 2018 Jayati Ghosh
Populism's Common Denominator

Nov 9, 2018 Barry Eichengreen
Reclaiming Community

Nov 9, 2018 Dani Rodrik
The Global Impact of a Chinese Recession

Nov 7, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 in all 7 Comments on this article

Nathan Coppedge Apr 25, 2015

Some criticisms: 1. The government-business relationship to some extent is doing what it can, meaning that opportunities grow from human relationships. 2. The bottlenecking of 'private rewards' is partly (ironically) a response to the need to circumvent corruption which emerges from spreading wealth to a large number of parties. There may be a need in the current system for 'incentive economics' where goods and services are exchanged to the highest bidder, but money is saved by not giving money to everyone. Some of these factors emerge because of economic efficiency, not because of a solvable problem.

However, I do think the creative state is a good idea. There is a lot of opportunity to grow efficiency between the citizen and corporation-government roles. Particularly, crowd-sourcing big ideas using the internet to compound piecemeal or free contributions by thoughtful people including students has potential to spur vast differences in perceptible functionality, such as the way we use information. I'm speaking not only about my own work on categorical philosophy, but also the numerous young programmers who have produced apps and games which can be parsed for intellectual content.

There is potential to develop the symbolic layer between citizen and corporate-government by cheaply entertaining citizens in exchange for free ideas. The resulting firestorm of ideas can be used to create a more creative, more enjoyable society. It is not just about investing, but also about the module available to the least common denominator, and what that means for innovation potential.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Val Samonis Apr 20, 2015

Right on the Money!

Val Samonis
Vilnius Uiniversity
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Reb Thomas Apr 19, 2015

It seems challenging to differentiate between the state investing in entrepreneurial roles and investing in "normal" government functions. Are loans for higher education similar to loans for solar energy companies and electric vehicle manufacturers? In each case the state has a goal that it lends funds to accomplish. I agree that states such as the US and the UK should be more entrepreneurial if for no other reason than to stay on a competitive playing field with other states that have greater government support and direction, but ultimately in a "Knowledge Economy" they have to let the "market" make most of the decisions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Manuel G Samuel Apr 18, 2015

Interesting article.
To some extent, political leadership must always have a vision for the future and that implies creating new markets according to economic trends/expectations analysis and market intelligence. If a given government believes that it should invest in ITC, for instance (e.g., the Finish case in the 1980's), through investing in education, infrastructure and subsidizing business, it is then channeling public money for an expected medium to long run return. If the US invests in Tesla, the goal is much broader than the simple business equations around Tesla's competitiveness. Electric cars, if successful, will have a huge overall impact in societies, with multiple gains in multiple fields ranging from energy, to environment, and consequently to public health, to name just a few. Public money is much less averse to risk because political leaders are less prone to respond to public outcries due to bad investments than their peers from the private sector in relation to their share-holders. Thanks Prof. Mazzucato for your inputs on such an important topic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rodrigo Barbosa Apr 17, 2015

HI Mariana!
Congrats for article!
In my opinion, even thought, the governments only intervening in cases of "market failure", because in that cases (Nasa, Tesla, SBIR...etc) the private doesn't have "appetite" for investment in some markets.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Apr 16, 2015

U.S. taxpayers help, through various avenues, to create and maintains a massive pharmaceutical infrastructure here. Their payback is from companies like Gilead Sciences who demand $94,500 for the medication that promises a life-saving cure for hepatitis C. And that's just one example of many that demonstrate the need for serious reform of taxpayer-funded innovation investments.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Apr 16, 2015

Imagine if just the dollars lost to U.S. defence program cost overruns, scrapped projects and (im)pure research had been devoted to inventing practical technologies to provide directly what welfare benefits are spent on in profit motivated markets. For example, you'd have rammed-earth robots (now in 3D!) mass producing energy efficient habitation around the world that would revolutionize and erode the housing industry as we know it, which wouldn't be good for (precious, precious) 'growth' or my Weyerhaeuser stock. Anybody involved in such a benefits regime would 'pay' 'rent' by mastering skills through the interactive media and training systems that have already evolved for free on the internet, but specialized for standardized technology and jobs (not markets).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/txV6uoj/zh;

创新国家

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Who Should Control India’s Central Bank?

Populism's Common Denominator

Reclaiming Community

The Global Impact of a Chinese Recession

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

TB, NCDs, and the Lessons of HIV

India’s Deadly Air

Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Gender and the Arab City

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Who Should Control India’s Central Bank?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register