14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
16<br />
Investors face additional <strong>risk</strong>s when investing in a variety<br />
of new situations — e.g. new technologies, new policy<br />
environments. Some of these <strong>risk</strong>s can be mitigated by<br />
policy (see Part B), but the nature of capital markets,<br />
in which lenders also have to be persuaded of the yet<br />
undemonstrated prospects, mean it is impossible to cover<br />
them all.<br />
• Behaviour different from that embodied in the<br />
standard “rational” representation of individuals in<br />
economic models can limit <strong>innovation</strong>. Our tendency<br />
to focus on the short-term, to dislike <strong>risk</strong> and uncertainty,<br />
and to stick with the status quo can lead to “<strong>innovation</strong><br />
neglect” in public and private institutions alike (see Part B).<br />
• The development of human capital and associated<br />
markets is restricted by its own spillovers. The<br />
education of individuals provides social benefits, by<br />
providing human capital upon which public and private<br />
sectors, and society as a whole 20 , can draw. These benefits<br />
are not fully captured by the educated individual, or by<br />
schools or firms that may educate that individual, so<br />
markets tend to provide less education than is socially<br />
efficient 21 .<br />
• Sustained support for incumbent technologies.<br />
Most energy sectors, for instance, have been historically<br />
designed for fossil fuel use, thus development of low-/<br />
zero-carbon sources of energy may be slowed and many<br />
aspects of the energy system may need to change in<br />
addition to the sources. Existing institutions, infrastructure<br />
and policies that support certain sectors, can result in<br />
sector inertia that provides “barriers to entry for new<br />
technologies” 22 .<br />
It is not just markets that fail. Governments, with good<br />
intentions or otherwise, having different competencies and<br />
facing diverse pressures, can also fail. Attempts to pick<br />
winners sometimes lead to second-guessing markets and<br />
wasted resources 23 . A poorly designed policy, or one that<br />
does not carry credibility, can present a greater threat to<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> than the market failures it was supposed to<br />
resolve 24 . Reasons for government failure include:<br />
• asymmetric information;<br />
• lack of experience or competence in business or science;<br />
• rent-seeking or lobbying by private actors;<br />
• short-term time horizons driven by electoral cycles.<br />
The ‘systems of <strong>innovation</strong>’ approach focuses on how<br />
firms of different types, government actors and other<br />
economic agents, are embedded in ‘systems of <strong>innovation</strong>’<br />
(sectoral, regional, national), or ‘<strong>innovation</strong> ecosystems’ 25 .<br />
The approach emphasizes the importance of interactions<br />
between actors in such systems (which are often non-linear,<br />
involving important feedback loops), and how knowledge is<br />
diffused throughout the economy 26 . In distinction from the<br />
‘market failures’ approach, the <strong>innovation</strong> systems literature<br />
focuses on the importance of both market and non-market<br />
actors, relationships and norms in determining <strong>innovation</strong><br />
behaviour. This expands the possible scope of useful state<br />
intervention 27 , but at the same time provides further<br />
possible sources of government failure. Poor government<br />
policy may, for example, override existing norms (such as<br />
those for openness among academic researchers) and result<br />
in unexpected negative effects on <strong>innovation</strong> 28 .<br />
Both frameworks bring valuable insights to our<br />
understanding of <strong>innovation</strong> and how it can be fostered<br />
to promote growth. From here on, we focus more on the<br />
market failure framework because it has a longer-standing<br />
literature, but we draw on both.<br />
(iii) Innovation, <strong>risk</strong>s and incentives<br />
There is significant potential for policy to boost <strong>innovation</strong>,<br />
and thereby boost economic growth. To design policy<br />
that effectively and efficiently fosters <strong>innovation</strong>, we must<br />
understand how actors along the <strong>innovation</strong> chain respond<br />
to the <strong>risk</strong>s and incentives they face.<br />
“Risk” and “uncertainty” in economic analyses are often<br />
used interchangeably but the American economist Frank<br />
Knight distinguished them along the following lines 29 :<br />
• “Risk” can be thought of as measurable and<br />
quantifiable in terms of probabilities, and is<br />
most useful for describing investment in predictable<br />
advances further along the <strong>innovation</strong> chain. Intel’s<br />
investments in chip technology, for example, produce<br />
incremental improvements that are predicted years in<br />
advance according to Intel’s “tick-tock” model of chip<br />
improvement 30 , where improvements are reliable enough<br />
that the metaphor of a clock fits.<br />
• “Uncertainty” can be thought of as that which is<br />
not easily measurable in terms of probabilities, where<br />
we may even be unsure of what possibilities exist. This<br />
can be the case in complex, chaotic systems composed<br />
of many interacting elements — and along the <strong>innovation</strong><br />
chain, “all of the actors operate under conditions of<br />
uncertainty” 31 . This applies especially in early phases of the<br />
chain, and in <strong>innovation</strong> over the long term. Policymakers<br />
could not have foreseen that studying jellyfish would<br />
found a large part of the biomedical revolution, or that<br />
military packet switching technologies intended to make<br />
military communication systems more resilient in the<br />
event of a nuclear attack would lead to the internet, social<br />
networking and the avalanche of apps spawned in Silicon<br />
Valley.<br />
Private actors face a diversity of <strong>risk</strong>s — financial <strong>risk</strong>s,<br />
career <strong>risk</strong>s, legal <strong>risk</strong>s, and many beyond — when they<br />
choose to innovate. The balance of <strong>risk</strong>s and incentives<br />
determines what choices innovators (entrepreneurs,<br />
investors, inventors, bureaucrats, etc.) will make.<br />
Being exposed to <strong>risk</strong> is part of doing business. But some<br />
<strong>risk</strong>s are appropriate guides to decision-making, while others<br />
may be unhelpfully imposed. Deciding not to proceed with<br />
an <strong>innovation</strong> investment because there is a high <strong>risk</strong> of<br />
insufficient demand is a sensible decision — the kind of<br />
decision that firms make routinely in order to maximize<br />
their value. Deciding not to proceed with a very promising<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> because of the <strong>risk</strong>s imposed by regulatory<br />
unpredictability (e.g. policy <strong>risk</strong>), lack of appropriability (e.g.