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.
energy R&D by oil importing nations following oil price<br />
shocks in the 1970s. As oil prices fell through the late 1980s,<br />
interest in energy <strong>innovation</strong> subsided. By 2000, public<br />
spending on energy R&D had declined to 5-10% of its 1980s<br />
peak as a share of GDP 60 . Because <strong>innovation</strong> investments<br />
can take decades to deliver, and require continuity over<br />
time so knowledge and expertise can accumulate, a steady<br />
commitment to <strong>innovation</strong> is likely to produce substantially<br />
better outcomes per dollar.<br />
Monetary rewards — a type of external incentive<br />
— may displace other motivations and norms in the<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> chain. Internal motivations, like the desire<br />
for knowledge and discovery, play a large role in some<br />
parts of the <strong>innovation</strong> chain. These intrinsic or internal<br />
motivations can be “crowded out” by the imposition of<br />
external incentives 61 . External incentives may be particularly<br />
poorly suited to creative endeavours like scientific research.<br />
In particular, they can displace the “soft” institutions that<br />
drive basic research — the bedrock of trust and institutional<br />
norms, such as academic freedom, openness and knowledgesharing<br />
— with a more opportunistic culture 62 . This may<br />
explain why institutional incentive structures affect basic<br />
research outcomes, as discussed in the previous section.<br />
Better understanding of psychology and behaviour<br />
can itself lead to valuable institutional <strong>innovation</strong>s.<br />
Individual choices — including critically important choices<br />
around savings, insurance, healthcare and education —<br />
can be powerfully shaped by seemingly non-rational<br />
psychological factors, with often immense welfare<br />
implications 63 . Behavioural economists (like those in the UK’s<br />
Behavioural Insights Team) use psychological research to<br />
design simple and low-cost interventions to spur sometimes<br />
dramatic changes in behaviour, which can provide rich and<br />
important examples of <strong>innovation</strong>:<br />
• making organ donor programs opt-out instead of opt-in<br />
(which should have no effect in the standard economic<br />
view) 64 ;<br />
• changing the wording on tax payment forms to prime<br />
social norms 65 ; or<br />
• regulating the possible structures of credit card and<br />
banking fees in order to prevent predatory practices 66 .<br />
One of the most important insights concerns the value<br />
of experimental policy design, where randomized control<br />
trials are used to identify the most effective approaches 67 .<br />
Given the importance of incentives, social norms, and<br />
other complex behavioural factors for <strong>innovation</strong> decisions,<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> policymaking should become behaviourally<br />
literate.<br />
(iv) Governments<br />
Governments have a critical and multifaceted role<br />
to play in <strong>innovation</strong>, especially at the medium and<br />
macro scale. Among other things, there is a strong case<br />
for governments to: shape the formation of human capital<br />
through education and training 68 ; carry out and finance<br />
basic research in universities and research centres; support<br />
institutions to link universities and research institutes with<br />
Psychological factors<br />
shape the decisions<br />
people make about<br />
<strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
industry; uphold an efficient, effective and appropriately<br />
constrained intellectual property regime 69 ; and provide<br />
targeted support for innovative activity, both its supply (e.g.<br />
grants and loans for demonstration and deployment of new<br />
technologies) and demand (public procurement, fiscal policy,<br />
regulations/standards, fostering new social norms/values) 70 .<br />
However, governments are ill suited to intervening<br />
in the micro-details of <strong>innovation</strong> processes, and<br />
should avoid being excessively prescriptive. For<br />
example, specifying outcomes that researchers are to<br />
achieve is usually inappropriate given the impossibility of<br />
predicting them. Similarly, constraining researchers within<br />
rigid timeframes, or within incentive systems that demand<br />
“breakthrough” outcomes or commercialization, is likely<br />
to impair researcher creativity. Once the <strong>innovation</strong><br />
infrastructure has been provided, and, broad national<br />
priorities set, innovators should be allowed substantial<br />
leeway to pursue the questions they believe to be important<br />
in the ways they see fit 71 .<br />
Governments have an especially important role<br />
to play in carrying out and financing basic research<br />
and development. Due to the public goods aspects of<br />
basic research, and governments’ high capacity to tolerate<br />
uncertainty and delayed returns on investment, governments<br />
are uniquely suited to carrying out (e.g. through government<br />
research institutes) and financing (e.g. in universities) basic<br />
research. In the UK, the foremost funders of basic research<br />
are the seven Research Councils, which draw around £4.5<br />
billion, or approximately 0.2% of annual GDP, in annual<br />
government funding. The rate of social return to R&D is<br />
extremely challenging to calculate, but importantly, research<br />
typically finds extremely high rates across a variety of<br />
industries—e.g. from 35-100% is typical 72 . This suggests there<br />
is considerable scope to increase basic research spending<br />
and reap large rewards.<br />
Government funding of <strong>innovation</strong> can usefully<br />
extend beyond “letting a thousand flowers bloom”, and<br />
governments have actively shaped the development of<br />
many of today’s most important technologies. In many<br />
areas it is sensible for governments to focus on facilitating<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> by others. This includes looking to foster<br />
outcomes rather than details of methods or technologies<br />
and avoiding “picking winners” in the form of specific firms<br />
and sectors as much as possible, and taking care to avoid<br />
government failure. Yet sometimes it is impossible to avoid<br />
making judgements about <strong>innovation</strong> support priorities<br />
(e.g. in areas of national priority where the private sector<br />
21