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.
24<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> process, or one sector or set of activities. And<br />
we should be wary of imposing perspectives or policies that<br />
may skew <strong>innovation</strong> priorities in undesirable ways.<br />
Yet, there are data to be studied, rich lessons to be<br />
learned, and more benefits to realize. Nevertheless, policy<br />
has to be made and the <strong>evidence</strong> we have tried to assemble<br />
is, we would argue, helpful and valuable. This chapter has<br />
sought to capture some of the most important <strong>evidence</strong><br />
from economics and other social sciences. Understanding<br />
what has made <strong>innovation</strong> work or fail can play a valuable<br />
role in influencing what can make it work in the future.<br />
Drawing together the conclusions of this chapter, we<br />
identify four pillars or foundations of a first-class ‘<strong>innovation</strong><br />
infrastructure’:<br />
1. The first pillar is a high-quality, merit-based system<br />
of education and training. Its importance is difficult to<br />
overstate. The UK possesses some advantages in toptier<br />
institutions, but there is increasing competitiveness<br />
in universities worldwide, and these advantages require<br />
constant investment to be maintained. Further, the UK<br />
faces a serious <strong>risk</strong> of falling behind rising stars like South<br />
Korea in crucial population-wide competencies. Too many<br />
children experience low-quality schooling, which presents<br />
large economic costs for the long-term. On the national<br />
budget, education should be viewed not as an expenditure<br />
but as one of the highest-return investments available.<br />
2. The second pillar is substantial investment in basic<br />
research. Governments are able to manage levels of<br />
<strong>risk</strong> and time horizons on investment, which the private<br />
sector may find more difficult. This gives governments a<br />
special and indispensable role in supporting basic research.<br />
The UK government should take great care to ensure<br />
that its comparative advantage in basic research is not<br />
overwhelmed or weakened by understandable enthusiasm<br />
for commercialization in universities. By increasing its<br />
support for basic research, the UK government can<br />
expand the horizon of future growth.<br />
3. The third pillar is the system of governmentmanaged<br />
incentives that promote <strong>innovation</strong> via<br />
markets and entrepreneurship. First is an efficient<br />
and effective, and appropriately constrained, system of<br />
intellectual property rights. The system is due for an<br />
evaluation, with sensitivity to industry-specific needs.<br />
Secondary institutions include: systems and incentives<br />
for technology transfer that promote the diffusion of<br />
knowledge; policies to assist small firms to access licensing<br />
patents; regimes of taxes, subsidies and regulations that do<br />
not arbitrarily discriminate in fostering new firms and new<br />
ideas; and state development banks to provide patient,<br />
long-term capital to innovators. The details matter, and we<br />
have tried to indicate how they should be examined.<br />
4. The fourth pillar is the setting of, and investing<br />
in, national <strong>innovation</strong> priorities. One clear priority<br />
is resource management: increasing the productivity of<br />
energy, land and other natural resources, and minimising<br />
greenhouse gas emissions. The design of cities, as drivers<br />
of resource consumption as well as creativity and<br />
economic growth, is especially important. These are areas<br />
where markets and prices alone are unlikely to capture<br />
the interdependence and public nature of many of the key<br />
services and outcomes. They are also areas where benefits<br />
are likely to be fairly long-term. Other priorities should be<br />
determined through assessment of strategic advantages,<br />
engagement with leading innovators, and the generation of<br />
aspirational technology roadmaps.<br />
Finally, we identify four guidelines for the process of<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> policymaking:<br />
1. Take a long-term, systems view of <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
This means avoiding narrow, compartmentalist views of<br />
policymaking that focus on just one sector and/or a short<br />
time horizon. An effective policy mix will take account of<br />
each part of the <strong>innovation</strong> system; will take advantage of,<br />
and be wary of, feedback between system components;<br />
and will appreciate that actions today have critical longterm<br />
implications. This type of approach will help lessen<br />
the scope for government failure that can arise from<br />
bureaucrats and politicians fiddling with processes they fail<br />
to understand. On the other hand, the potential market<br />
failures are so important, and the subject so vital for<br />
growth, competition and living standards, that government<br />
disengagement is not a sensible approach.<br />
2. Consult widely. Innovators’ needs vary widely<br />
across industries and institutions, and across parts of<br />
the <strong>innovation</strong> chain. Innovators may also recognize<br />
the potential for unwanted impacts, or detect them<br />
in practice, before policymakers are able. Ensure that<br />
important voices which may not be sufficiently prominent,<br />
such as those of small firms, teachers and of research<br />
scientists, are given weight.<br />
3. Adopt a learning approach to policy design and<br />
evaluation. This means trialling different approaches, and<br />
improving the collection of data on inputs, processes and<br />
outcomes as well as feedback from key actors. A range<br />
of <strong>innovation</strong> policy problems could benefit from this<br />
approach, including the design of grant application rules<br />
for basic research, of the school system, and of institutions<br />
for fostering university-industry linkages. Accompanying<br />
this should be a sustained investment in research on<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> itself. Such research is not easy given that the<br />
subject is about learning, covers many disciplines, and the<br />
outcomes may be uncertain and long term: but it is very<br />
important.<br />
4. Ensure that <strong>innovation</strong> policies are transparent,<br />
consistent and stable over time and investment.<br />
Innovation will be more likely to proceed where actors<br />
are more confident rather than more confused, and<br />
where evaluations of sovereign and policy <strong>risk</strong> favour<br />
commitment rather than withdrawal. Where future<br />
flexibility may be required, as is often the case for<br />
experimental policy, ensure that processes are specified<br />
in advance. Certainty is not on offer, but unnecessary<br />
uncertainty can be reduced. A fundamental lesson is that<br />
government-induced policy <strong>risk</strong> can be a major deterrent<br />
to both <strong>innovation</strong> and investment.