Innovation Economics

- The Race for Global Advantage -

Cat: ECO

Pub: 2012

#: 1807b

Robert D. Atkinson and Stephen J. Ezell

18520u

Innovation Economics

イノベーション経済

0. Introduction:
1. The race for global innovation advantage:
2. Explaining US economic decline:
3. Learning from the wrong master: Lessons from UK industrial decline:
4. Why do so many refuse to ee US structural economic decline?:
5. What are innovation and innovation policy and why are they important:
6. Crafting innovation policy to win the race:
7. Cheating as a way to win the race: Innovation maercantilism as the strategy of choice:
8. Winning the race for innovation advantage withe the eight "I's" of innovation policy:
9. Why don't we have more innovation and innovation policy?:
10. Can nations overcome the barriers to innovaation?:
11. Creating a robust global innovation system:

0. 序:
1. 世界イノベーション優位化競争:
2. 米国経済衰退の説明:
3. 英国の衰退から学ぶ:
4. なぜ米国は構造的な経済衰退を座視するのか:
5. イノベーションとは何か、イノベーション政策がなぜ重要か:
6. 競争に勝つイノベーション政策とは:
7. イノベーション重商主義の弊害:
8. ８項目のIによるイノベーション競争勝利:
9. なぜもっとイノベーションを追求しないのか:
10. 国はイノベーションの障害を克服できるか:
11. 堅牢なイノベーションシステムを構築する:

; Adversial labor relations; AGCV partners; America First; Big short; Black swan; Bonfire of the vanities; Capitalaized consumption; Change of fixed assets; CIP engine; Cleantech ;Coopetition; Dead wood staff; Eight I's; Factor conditions; Fair competition; Flexicurity; GPT; GSIF; Industrial mutation; Industrial policy; ;Innovation mercantilism; Innovation success triangle; Intelligent demand; IP-TT-MC; ITIF; Lost two decades; Main Street; Manufacturing cap ex; Me now! policy; Military spend; Neoclassic economist; Next two decades; Ponzi scheme; Potate chip or computer chip; Poverty trap; PPSF; R&D tax credit; Recipe for decline; Reluctance of elites; Reverse innovation; Rust nation; ; Single integrated global economy; Smart government; STEM; TPP; Trade balances; Unmeasurable variable; Us, then policy; Washington economic consensus; World Cup of innovation;

English

Reference

>Top 0. Introduction:

• This book examines how US is losing the race for global innovation advantage since 1980s.

0. 要旨:

• 1980年代以降のイノベーション競争

>Top 1. The race for global innovation advantage:

• 2007-09: the Great Recession in US; unemployment rate 8.5%, its GDP fell 4.7%, 5.7M net jobs lost.
  • US housing-market Ponzi scheme.
  • US manufacturing jobs lost 1/3 from 2000 to 2011; 43rd out of 44 nations in innovation-based competitiveness.
    
• Recovery will depend on: 1) lead in the global innovation economy, and 2) sufficient private and public investment in research, plant and equipment, skills, and infrastructure.
  • US: in 1980s and accelerating in 21C, all began to change; US was asleep.
  • 1969 recession: longest since 1949
  • 1974 recession: longest since the Great Depression
• >Top Since mid-1990s, the world have accelerated to lead in innovation; computers and software, aviation, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, machine tools, medical devices, instruments, and clean energy.
• slower growing Midwest and NE (rust belt) and faster-growing South and West.
• Rust belt is now rust nation.
• Santa Fe (New Mexico) has become the Syracuse of its day (NY); Brownsville (Texas) has become the Buffalo of its day. (If the South had won the Civil War...)
• separate national economies in 1970s has evolved into a single integrated global economy in 21C.
• >Top Innovation mercantilism; stealing intellectual property (IP), discriminating against foreign technology firms, requiring to transfer technology for market access, or manipulating currency. (IP-TT-MC)
• CA vs. MA = PC vs. Minicon (Data general, DEC, and Wang)
• Being Boston: advanced IT, biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, and high-level business services.
• Becoming Buffalo: continuing in somnolence about global race for innovation.
• Innovation is bringing new products, processes, services, and functionalities. (PPSF)
• Wall Street - an industry stuck on an autopilot that refused to downsize; misallocation of investment capital, like UK in 1960s-70s.
• challenge status quo thinking; challenging the prevailing thinking.
• innovation is not producing widgets; subject to a large array of market failures.
• beggar-thy-neighbor innovation policies: attract high-wage industries and jobs at the expense of other nations.
• eight I's: Inspiration, Intention, Insight, Incentives; Institutions, Investment, Information Technology, and International.
• Traditionalists are pessimists about the future and optimists about the past.
• US now focused on 'Me, now!' policy; after WWII it had found a way to balance me and us, and today and the future.
• IMF, Word Bank, WTO have failed to create the frameworks to maximize global innovation.
• the success of organization depends on: 1) investing for the future and 2) continually innovation. (in education and infrastructure)
  • Sub-Saharan Africa→level of Latin America; L-Ameirca and China→Korea; Korea→US; US/Jp/EU can achieve 3% growth for 25 years, they can double their real per capita incomes.

1. 世界イノベーション優位化競争:

• Innovation mercantilism: イノベーション重商主義
• ８つのI's: 発想･意思･洞察･動機; 制度･投資･情報通信･国際化

>Top 2. Explaining US Economic Decline:

• Why US financial collapse happen?: 1) usual financial crisis, 2) more akin to the Great Depression, 3) an inflection point in US economic history.
  • Wall Street has focused on maximizing short-term profits, its excess of greed well chronicled The Bonfire of the Vanities.
  • CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligation, not chief destruction officer); made it hard for investors to understand what they were investing in.
    • Capitalized consumption and investment are fundamentally different.: the former doesn't produce future value, while the latter makes poorer today in the hope of becoming richer tomorrow.
  • >Top Why dis housing appear to be such an attractive investment?
    • the demand for capital from the investment side of the economy shrank while the supply of capital (especially from China) surged.
    • 1995-2000: annual corporate investment increased by $537B (73%), while spending on housing increased by $147B (49%)
    • 200-2005: corporate investment increased by just $192B (17%), while spending on housing increase 82%.
      • Decline in capital investment (manufacturing cap ex): Motor vehicles declined 40%; paper 44%; furniture 53%, apparel 69%; even computer & electronics 49%; electrical equipment & appliances 35%.
      • US manufacturers were investing in overseas: GNP increased 9% in 2000-2009, decreasing nearly 50% in domestic.
      • Corporate R&D (1999-2006): US 3%, De 11%, Jp 27%, Fi 28%, Kr 58%, Sp 66%, Hu 90%, Cn 187%.
    • By 2008, six largest US banks' assets equaled 60% of US GDP, significantly more than before the great panic of 1929.
  • >Top US trade deficit exploded from $120B to mid 1990s to around $600B a year by mid 2000s.; this meant that large amount of capital flow back into US financial markets.
    • The Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long.
    • Oversupply of money pushed commercial real estate on the edge.; expansion of the trade deficit almost perfectly matched expansion in spending on housing. (next sucker; Ponzi scheme)
    • Wall Street; Main Street (millions of SMB); Manufacturing Street; Research Park Street; and Office Complex Street.
    • the problem is that in recent years, US has not been as attractive a place in which to make investments in innovation.
    • The Big Short: Wall Street did because most of them believed these were good investment.
    • Housing prices: 1987-2000 were actually fairly stable; but after 2001 prices accelerated. (expanding bubble)
    • In 2005, Ben Bernanke, chairman of Federal Reserve stated that rising home prices "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals."
    • The fundamental mistake was that economists, bankers, and policymakers did not believe housing prices would go down. (Black swan: past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.); Markets might misprice assets.
• America's long-term structural economic decline:
  • This decline has two underlying causes:
    • 1) deterioration domestically of fundamental sources of US competitiveness, from decaying industries and infrastructure to an erosion of US innovation capacity.
    • 2) foreign countries are competing more fiercely and strategically than ever to attain the standards of living.; rebalancing of global economic activity
      • US global GDP share 46% in 1946 to 24% in 2009
      • deterioration of US innovation capacity is evidenced by underinvestment in R&D, education system, math (STEM) field; a decaying physical infrastructure.
      • US has already lost a range of high-tech industries, from PCs to LCDs, batteries, CFL (compact fluorescent lightbulbs); moreover, AI , biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, energy storage, and clean energy production.
      • Decline in US manufacturing employment: 18M in 1989→11.7M in 2011 (Rust nation debâcle)
      • Capacity utilization US factories is nearly as low as it has been in any period since WWII.
      • In 2011, US ceded its tile as the world's leading manufacturer since 1900 to China.
    • Litigiousness of US:
      • Legal services grew at just 36% the rate of overall GDP growth.
• ICT industries:
  • Computer systems services grew 17 times faster than the rate of GDP growth.
  • Information processing grew 12 times faster.
  • But other fast-growing sectors contributed less real value to the economy.
• Financial vehicles:
  • the ration of banking profits to manufacturing profits was generally 20% until late 1970s, after that it grew rapidly to 60% in 1990s, reaching 317% in 2002.
• >Top Manufacturing industries:
  • Since 1980, a different picture has emerged; the change from that peak year to 2009.
  • the capital stock of primary metals industry (steel, aluminum) peaked 1981, and has fallen by 27% since.
  • Other industries peaked later, but saw a similarly steep fall in capital stock.
  • US was losing employment in lobor-intensive, low-tech manufacturing industries; but US manufacturing sector was not restructuring, it was declining.
  • throughout 1980s, Asian players came to dominate production of cassette players, stereos, video recorders, TVs, digital cameras; 80% of machine tools (5 axis machine tools, the most sophisticated) were imported from Jp and De.
    • Rate of change of fixed assets by industry: > Fig.
    • US decline and Cn rise in global manufacturing: >Fig.
  • >Top The same story holds for the next generation of clean energy products.
  • Chinese share of photovoltaics market grew 5% in 2000 to more than 50% in 2011, including no-interest loans, free electricity, free land for factories, and other incentives.
  • China became the world leader of solar panels in 2009, and wind turbines in 2010, and intends to become leader of lithium batteries between 2015-2020.
  • In 2009-2013, China, Japan, & Korea will invest three times more than US in clean technology; investing total $509B, while US invests $172B.
  • US trade balances for manufactured, nonmanufactured, and advanced technology products, 1989-2011: > Fig.
  • What does US manufacture and export these days?
    • Wastepaper and scrap metal: the largest US exporter via ocean container in 2007 was not even an US company but Chinese.
    • 1872 book chronicled the economy of ancient Rome: carrying to Rome the silks, spices of the East, marble of Asia Minor, timber of Atlas, grain of Africa and Egypt; and no return cargo but dungs.
    • US has had a positive trade balance in services; which is smaller than manufactured goods.
• >Top Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) report 2011:
  • The Atlantic Century II: benchmarked 44 nations on 16 core indicators of innovation-based capacity.
  • Indicators include: higher education, researchers per capita, levels of R&D, entrepreneurship, corporate tax levels, and ease of doing business, per capita GDP growth, FDI, productivity, and trade balances.
    • Ranking: Singapore #1, Finland, Sweden, US, Korea ... UK, Canada, Denmark, Holland, and Japan.; In ten short years, US lost its top perch.
    • dramatic erosion of US innovation capacity during 2000s.
    • Rate of change ranking: China #1;
  • particularly in four categories; R&D intensity; shares of scientific publications and scientific researchers; patenting activity; number of bachelors, graduates and doctorates in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math).
    • increasing number of master and PhD in STEM fields; 3/4 of electrical engineering and 2/3 of industrial engineering doctorates are awarded to foreign students.

2. 米国経済衰退の説明:

• なぜWall Streetは近視眼的投資を行ったのか (The Big Short)
• Rate of change of fixed assests by industry:

• US decline and Cn rise in global manufacturing:

• US Trade balances for manufactured, non-manufadctured and advanced technology product (1989-2011):

>Top 3. Learning from the wrong master: Lessons from UK industrial decline:

• Nations do decline if they do the wrong things long enough and fail to do the right things.
  • 1973-1992: UK manufacturing output increase just 1.3%; compared to De 32%, 55% US, and 69% Jp.
    • Déjà vu.; US is making the very same mistake that UK did.
    • GeorgeSantayana; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
• >Top UK's experience (1950s-1970s): just lost two decades
  • the recipe for decline:
  1. ignore the industrial sector in favor of finance
  2. keep current values high relative to other currencies
  3. pretend that you are not in global competition
  4. oppose new technological invasions
  5. skimp on investments in the future
  6. focus on macroeconomic stabilization at the expense of microeconomic policies
  7. fight over the slices of the pie rather than making a bigger pie
• Economic decline:
• manufacturing output share in GDP
• chronic foreign trade deficit: >Fig. (Ratio of US export to Import, 1975-2008)
• slower per capita economic growth
• Comparing UK and US factors of industrial decline:
  • Factor-1: Uneven management quality:
    • British Leyland: poor quality of management.
  • Factor-2: Corporate investment cuts:
    • 1999-2008: US corporate R&D in GDP shares 3%, while Cn 187%, Kr 58%, and Jp 27%.
  • Factor-3: A focus on overseas, rather than domestic, investment:
    • Large UK manufactures may be investing more abroad than at home.
  • Factor-4: Focus on short-term returns, dividend payments, and rate of return ratios.
    • UK & US focused more on financial engineering and short-term calculus.
    • 1991-2008: basic share of corporate R&D in US fell by 3.6%, applied research fell 3.5%. In contrast, development's share increase by 7.1%.
  • Factor-5: Businesses that reject government's role in industrial development.
    • In UK, industrial leaders were deeply suspicious of anything which smacked of state socialism. Many US businesses have exactly the same view.
  • Factor-6: Unions' push for excessive compensation:
    • In UK & US unions often failed to see their obligation to their members' employers or became stakeholders in their long-term health only too late.
  • Factor-7: Union opposition to new technology.
    • UAM (United Auto Workers) set an agenda that called for income protections, including from layoffs associated with new technology or productivity improvements.
  • Factor-8: >Top Adversarial labor relations:
    • Unions and managers in both nations often saw industrial relations as zero-sum.
  • Factor-9: Union focus on short-term gains:
    • All their incentives were to maximize short-term gain at the expense of long-term stability
  • Factor-10: Government saw their main role as preserving macroeconomic stability:
    • They let economic policy be run by their respective Treasury Departments.
  • Factor-11: Policymakers abdicated any role in reversing industrial decline:
    • Government has no role or function in the productive sphere of the economy as such. Its task it to set the scene by a favorable fiscal and financial system and by general legislation.
  • Factor-12: Policies that deter investment:
    • Both nation were quick to cut investment tax credits for industry, especially in times of tight budgets. (like 1986 US Tax Reform Act.)
  • Factor-13: Governments don't distinguish between spending and investment:
    • They both cost the government money and both are on the chopping block when it comes time to wield the budge ax.
  • Factor-14: >Top A focus on military spending:
    • While we built tanks and planes, they (De and Jp) built the machinery with which to achieve their later successes.
  • Factor-15: Policy makers support a strong currency:
    • Policy makers were obsessed with preserving the value of the pound sterling
  • Factor-16: >Top Neoclassical economists call the shots:
    • Neoclassical economists focus principally on price-mediated transactions in market place, which they believe produce the most efficient allocation of goods and services.
  • Factor-17: The political system ignored the most import economic issues:
    • Party debated all issues with only marginal connection or none at all with the issues of growth and decline.
  • Factor-18: A political system focused on redistribution:
    • Both nations have been ties up in issues of distribution rather than growth.
  • Factor-19: A belief that a healthy manufacturing sector is not required for economic success:
    • Many elites believed that manufacturing was unimportant; US role is to feed a global economy based on knowledge and services rather than on making stuff. (Washington economic consensus)
  • Factor-20: >Top Reluctance by elites to admit relative decline:
    • Sputnik moment that will wake America up.
    • We don't even notice anymore when China announced in 2011 that it had build the world's fastest supercomputer.

3. 英国の衰退から学ぶ:

• Ratio of US expoert to Import, 1975-2008:

UK･US工業衰退の共通点:

1. 経営者の品質
2. 企業投資の雪原
3. 海外投資重視
4. 短期収益重視
5. 政府の役割拒否
6. 組合の過大要求
7. 組合の新技術導入反対
8. ゼロサム的に敵対する労使関係
9. 組合も短期収益重視
10. 政府はマクロ経済重視
11. 政治家は工業再生に不熱心
12. 投資抑制的な政策
13. 政府は支出と投資を区別せず
14. 軍事費支出の重し
15. 政府は強い通貨を志向
16. 新古典主義的な政策
17. 政治は最重要経済課題を軽視
18. 政策は分配に注力
19. 健全な工業重視政策欠如
20. エリート層は自国衰退を無視

>Top 4. Why do so many refuse to see US structural economic decline?

• Clarion call:
  • RAND Corp. reviewed key indications to evaluate US S&T competitiveness.
  • Denial of the probe, and the belief that we are doing better than we really are.
• Excuse-1: US always has led in innovation, and always will:
  • NY Times asserts that whether in 2010, 2025, or 2050, US universities lead the world in research and draw many of the best minds from all corners of the earth.
  • US innovation leadership in the past will be sufficient in the future; we can afford to abandon the successful policies of the past, such as robust funding for government R&D the R&D tax credit.
• Excuse-2: We're not really behind; the data's problem:
  • 2010 WEF Global Competitiveness Report: US from 1st in VC to 3rd for corporate R&D out of 133 countries.
• Excuse-3: >Top Countries don't compete; only companies do:
  • neoclassical economists; the notion that nations compete is incorrect. 80% of US economy consists of nontraded goods and services; the growth rate of US living standards essentially equals the growth rate of domestic productivity.
  • International trade is not a zero-sum game; this benefits US by providing with larger export markets and access to superior goods at a lower price.
  • Potato chips, computer chips, what's the difference? Spillover effects from computer chips make potato chip manufacturers more efficient. But the converse is not true.
  • Intel; locates a semiconductor plant in China; which can cost $1 more to build, equip, and operate a factory in US, with 70% by lower taxes, and 90% of the cost difference.
• Excuse-4: We've been challenged before and it all worked out:
  • It is one thing to compete against Germany and Japan, wage levels near or even above US wages.
  • It's quite another to compete with China and India with combined population 2.5B and wage levels less than 10% of US levels; practice innovation mercantilism on an unprecedented scale.
• Excuse-5: Geopolitical aims are more important than economic competitiveness, so we can make trade-offs:
  • Japan in late 1970s-80s; Japan pursued a mercantilist (just as China does today). A number of policies designed to skew trade, to limit US companies' access to Japanese markets, placing high tariffs, import quotas, and onerous regulations, inspections, and standards requirements on US products; limiting US ownership of Japanese enterprises; manipulating yen value; and shutting US companies out of strategic markets, including autos, semiconductors, mainframe computers, all while dumping their products on US markets.
• Excuse-6: The massive US trade deficit is our own fault; we don't save enough:
  • US competitiveness challenge is its chronic trade deficit; 2000-2010 US accumulated $5.5T negative trade balance. Low US savings requires overseas borrowing.
  • If China stopped manipulating their currency, US trade deficit would fall and China would buy less of US government debt. The result would be a rise in both US exports and interest rates. And both would spur more savings.
• Excuse-7: We're doing well on some things, so don't worry about competitiveness:
  • US will continue to maintain a competitive advantage in software innovation; US cultural values of individualism will provide to make up for US falling behind on the hardware innovation.
  • US's past world leader ship in innovation has rested on both US advantages in hardware and software of innovation. US needs both.
• Excuse-8: >Top We are the innovators, they are copiers:
  • Global innovation advantage means producing - not just innovating - advanced products.
  • The greater fallacy is that the countries US competes have moved far beyond the imitative stage. They are innovating too, making new scientific discoveries and their own technical innovations outright.
  • 'Reverse innovation'; which strips down full-featured products originally designed for developed economies to their core features and functions. they then tweak them to meet the needs of citizens in emerging market and sell them at much lower price.
• Excuse-9: US will be okay if it loses manufacturing because it can migrate up the value chain to services sectors:
  • Before the emergence of a globalized economy, shifts in technology life cycles were less likely to shift global competitive advantage between countries.
  • But in an integrated world with increased global trade, domestic transfers of market leadership ware less likely to occur.
  • More global players mean that more potential first movers will come from an increasingly large pool of technology-based economies.
• Excuse-10: Manufacturing losses are a sign of strength, not weakness:
  • It's worth nothing that the neoclassical dogma "we don't need manufacturing" is so strong that US ha even tried to get other nations to follow our favor services industries at the expense of manufacturing.
• Excuse-11: >Top Cleantech will save us:
  • Cleantech economy - including photovoltaic, wind, fuel cell, smart grid, and biofuel industries - grew 8.3% annually form 2003 to 2010.
  • However, long-term potential of the clean energy sector won't be enough by itself to counteract job losses from other sectors and act as the single engine propelling US economy forward.
  • The problem is that green energy producing jobs will mostly displace ones in dirty industries such as oil, gas, and coal. Energy is a commodity. Clean energy does not inherently make the work it performs more productive.
  • Asia's rising clean energy tigers - China, Japan, and Korea - have already surpassed US in the production of all clean energy technologies. 9n 2007-2012.
  • Import of foreign crude and oil products account for half of US trade deficit.

4. なぜ米国は構造的な経済衰退を座視するのか:

• USイノベーションへの警鐘

1. USは一貫してイノベーション推進してきた。問題なし。
2. USのイノベーションデータはそんなに悪くない。
3. 国は競争しない。会社が競争する。
4. USは過去の実績があり今も健全
5. 経済的競争力より地政学的な意味合いの方が大きい
6. それにしてもUS貿易赤字は巨大
7. しかしまでUSには強いものがある
8. USは創造者、他国は模倣者か
9. USの製造業の衰退はサービス産業でカバーできるか
10. 製造業の衰退はむしろUSの強さの反映
11. クリーン技術がUSを救うか？

• Country share of world manufactring output 1970-2008:

>Top 5. What are innovation and innovation policy and why are they important?

• Why is innovation policy?:
  • Since late 1990s, dozens of countries have implemented national innovation strategies.
  • A country's innovation policy aims to explicitly link science, technology, and innovation with economic and employment growth.
    • Finland placed its national agency charged with spurring innovation.
    • UK has made a decision to play innovation at the center of the nation's economic growth strategy.
• >Top Is innovation policy just another name for industrial policy?:
  • The debate in US and most Commonwealth nations is usually framed in terms of two choices; either leave economic growth to the market, or engage in industrial policy to pick specific technologies and or specific firms.
    • The practices of Japan (zaibatsu) and Korea (chabol) after WWII, and the case of French Minitel in 1996 ($11B invest).
    • US in 2009 bailed out to assist GM and Chrysler.
    • In fact, US has a long history of playing a fundamental role in bringing to realization: manufacturing assembly line., microwave calculator, transistor, semiconductor, relational database, laser, jet propulsion, nuclear energy, the Internet, GUI, and GPS, among others.
    • Research support by NIH, NSF, and universities.
    • Free-market advocates will contend that markets will provide what the market needs; "we don't need no innovation policy", they insist.
  • There is a range of activities between these two extreme poles.
• Why do nations need an innovation policy?:
  • Nation without innovation policies are like soccer teams taking to the field without coaches, trainers, or a game plan; they're just a collection of players running around, competing against other players that are well equipped, well coached.
• >Top How the free market acting alone fails innovation.:
  • 1) Because individual firms cannot capture all the benefits of their own innovative activity, they will produce less innovation activity that society needs.
    • Innovation of Apple iPad; while Apple has clearly profited from its innovation, there are now dozens of other companies selling similar tablet computers; in 2011 Las Vegas saw 80 new tablets.
    • These spillovers are not confined to breakthrough products. They are significant spillovers from process R&D.
    • The reality is that not everything can be protected, and even if it could be, there are still significant spillovers that keep firms from appropriating all the benefits from their innovations.
    • This is the key rationale for policies such as R&D tax credit, which is designed to stimulate additional private R&D activity by increasing private rate of return from R&D closer to the public rate of return.
  • 2) High levels of risk, expense, and differing time horizons stifle the development of complex new technology platforms.
    • Private businesses increasingly rely on ubiquitous shared infratechnologies including measurement methods process-control techniques, and science and engineering data.
    • Japan is particularly strong at facilitating cooperation between competing firms and the government in developing and deploying new technologies.
  • 3) Capital market failures have caused private financing of R&D to shift away from innovation-based and entrepreneurial efforts.
    • Companies began paying out more in dividends and engaging in stock buybacks as a way to boost stock prices for short-term investors.
    • Venture capitalist have found it more profitable to invest in larger deals and less risky later-state deals at the expense of smaller, riskier, early stage efforts. (declined from 35% to 24% in 1996-2008)
  • 4) >Top Coordination failures undermine the innovation process.
    • "Coopetiton": competing and cooperation. To do so they need to interact with organization.
    • DARPA (also ARPA-E) orchestrates the involvement of established companies with start-ups and academic experts, sharing between industry competitors through invitation-only workshops.
  • 5) Chicken-or-egg challenges inhibit development of technology platforms.
    • Markets tend to be poor at coordinating actin when multiple parties need to act together synergistically.
    • Near Field Communications (NFC) enable contactless mobile payments, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), health IT platforms, digital signature, and smart electric grid.
    • NFC market is till born unless and until as happened in Japan and Korea.
  • 6) Many industries and firms lag in adopting proven technologies.
    • Innovation represents a direct threat to the professionals; legal, accounting, health-care, real estate, optometry, pharmacy, eduction, professional workers largely control or influence the means of production.
    • Limiting adoption of proven technologies that afflicts industries such as construction and heal care, which have fragmented or atomistic structure.
    • Fragmentation arises because an underdeveloped and not fully competitive marketplace results in inadequate price and quality signals for buyers.
  • 7) The innovation-producing benefits of industry clusters are under-realized.
    • Both creation and diffusion of innovation often occur in geographic clusters like Silicon Valley.
    • Industry clustering has become even more important for productivity growth since 1980s;
  • 8) >Top There are more than one equilibrium at which economics can settle, and by definition, one of them is worse from a societal perspective.
    • "Poverty trap": if they are not enough skilled workers, firms will not adopt advanced technology leading to higher productivity since their workers don't have the needed skills, and if firms don't adopt advanced technologies, workers won't seek out the skills needed to use these technologies.
  • 9) The interests of geographically mobile firms in locating innovation activity may diverge from those of a nation's residents.
    • The potential divergence between the interests of geographically mobile firms and those of the residents of a country.
    • These countries are not content to the market determine how many and what kinds of jobs are created; rather, they work to ensure that they gain more high-paying, high-productivity jobs.
  • 10) There can be a market failure from growth itself.
    • Growth or its lack produces positive or negative externalities.
    • Markets will produce significantly less innovation, productivity, and competitiveness than nations need.
    • This is not a call for some kind of 21C state socialism or heavy-handed regulatory state. In a globally competitive world, the cost of indulging in either free-market or state-directed ideology is something that countries can ill afford.
    • This is why a growing number of nations have put in place robust and strategic innovation policies that balance market and state.
• >Top Why it matters to get innovation policy right:
  • "World Cup" of innovation: most countries are in international economic competition and have developed strategies to compete; there must be rules about what constitutes fair and unfair competition.
  • Fair competition forces countries to put in place the r right policies on science and technology transfer, R&D tax credits, lower corporate tax rates, education policies.

5. イノベーションとは何か、イノベーション政策がなぜ重要か:

• Innovation Policy Continuum:

• Countries' perception of international competition:

>Top 6. Crafting innovation policy to win the race:

• The Innovation Policy Eight "I's":
• 1) Inspiration: Setting ambitious goals:
  • Singapore in late 1990, declared to seek world leadership in life science digital media, and water/environment industries.
  • China aims to be innovation-oriented country by 2020, spending 2.5% of GDP ($1.5T), and become the top five in the world in the number of patent granted; in energy saving, next generation of IT, biotechnology, high-end equipment manufacturing, new energy, new material and EV.
  • Japan committed $27tM in funding for Li-battery research.
  • Finland, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Korea, Netherlands, Sweden...
• 2) Intention: Making innovation-baed competitiveness a national priority:
  • It is one thing to set a goal; it's another thing to achieve it.
  • Finland plummeted 9% in two years; tailspin after Soviet Union broke u in 1991.
  • Switzerland in economic crisis of 2009; Swiss parliament increased R&D funding; launched an innovation voucher program in small businesses.
  • Ireland, Korea, ....
• 3) Insight: Improving understanding of innovation performance:
  • This involves not only providing financial support to research universities but also creating new knowledge about innovation processes, methods, techniques, measurement, and how best to diffuse innovation through an economy.
  • GE Jack Welsh said, "You can't manage what you can't measure." Innovation is such an intangible concept and includes difficult to quantify activities such as changes in business.
  • Traditional metrics such as number of patents, number of scientific publications, or amount of money invest fail to adequately capture "hidden innovation".
  • Since Dec. 2008, UK has issued annual innovation progress report that score the national innovation strategy.
• 4) >Top Incentives: Encouraging innovation production, and jobs:
  • Corporate tax incentives for investment.
  • Large incentives to multinational technology-based companies to move operational to their borders. (Intel: still investing 75% in US, though it sell 75% overseas.)
  • Many countries increase their R&D efficiency by using existing funding for scientific research to incent universities to focus more on technology commercialization.
  • to remove impediments to innovation, such as complex process of starting a business or inefficient regulations. (Smart government)
• 5) >Top Institutional innovation:
  • Nations need to drive institutional innovation ; redesign a wide array of institutions to work more effectively.
  • Reform their education systems; talent is an important source of competitive advantage (like Finnish education system)
  • Reshape how their governments buy goods and services in order to drive innovation through intelligent demand.
    • Public-sector unions have become a heavy anchor on innovation. (overgenerous pensions and overstaffing, or dead wood staff)
• 6) Investment: increased public funding for innovation:
  • Innovation on a per capita basis 1995-2005:
    US R&D intensity in GDP increased by 10.4%; Germany 20.5%; Japan 26.2%; Korea 42.2.%; Taiwan 61%; Finland 65%; Singapore 135%; and China 179%.
• 7) Information Technology:
  • New IT reform strategy: in 2009 i-Japan; in 2004 Korea; UK in 2009 Digital Britain; US in 2010 a plan of broadband infrastructure.
  • Denmark, Finland; national strategy for health IR adoption.
• 8) International: Do countries' Innovation policy work?:
  • European Innovation Progress Report 2009; notes, "by linking investment in innovation clearly to productivity improvement; underscores the central importance of innovation to economic growth.

6. 競争に勝つイノベーション政策とは:

• Eight "I's"

>Top 7. Cheating as a way to win the race: innovation mercantilism as the strategy of choice:

• 1) China and other countries in the mercantilist game:
  How to win enemies and influence industries through systemic mercantilism:
  • Currency intervention:
    In 2011/11, China had accumulated $3.2T worth of foreign currency reserves, a jump of 33% since 2009 and larger than any nation's reserves at any time in history.
    • China strictly controls the flow of capital in and out of the country. China buys everyday about $1B in the currency market, holding down the price of the RMB and maintaining strong competitive position.; spending $30-40B a month to prevent RMB from rising.
    • In 2007, China's global current account surplus soared to $400B and exceeded 11% of GDP.
    • 15 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, South Africa, and Switzerland also intervene in currency markets.
    • In 2010/9, Japan intervened in currency markets to drive down the yen by selling $23B to devalue the yen against the dollar. Also, in 2011/8, japan came back with largest single-day currency intervention at $48B.
  • Intellectual property:
    US International Trade Commission estimate that in 2009 alone Chinese theft of US intellectual property cost almost one million US jobs and caused $48B in US economic losses.
    • Recognition of IP rights remains a contentious issue. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement obligated all WTO members to offer and to honor product and process patents for 20-year terms.
  • But a number of countries that have persuade export-led growth, including Argentina, Brazil, China, and India oppose the TRIPS Agreement as a form of economic imperialism on the part of developed countries.
  • The monopoly rights granted by intellectural property rights are regarded as a instrument to avoid further catching-up based on imitative paths of industrialization.
  • Government procurement:
    
    • Out put of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) still accounts for about 40% of GDP.
    • China also uses government procurement a a mercantilist tool.; a list of products invented and produced in China that would receive preferences in Chinese government procurement.
    • Many nations also favor domestic producers in government procurement; Air France operated 71% Airbus, Lufthansa fleet is 62% Airbus, Alitalia 71%, Iberia 100%.
    • In contrast US airlines 15% of Airbus, there are largely Boeing.
• 2) Why countries pursue innovation mercantilism:
  • Why have innovation mercantilist apractic become so prevalent; because of the following four beliefs:
    • 1) mercantilist policies work.
    • 2) goods, particularly exportable goods, constitute the only real part of their economy.
    • 3) moving up the value chain is the primary path to economic growth.
    • 4) they should become autarchic, self-producing economies.
  • Chinese government in particular is not practicing a policy of comparative advantage or even competitive advantage; it is practicing a policy of absolute advantage.
• 4) Top Why mercantilist strategies are fundamentally flawed:
  • While some innovation mercantilist policies can benefit countries, they represent a fundamentally flawed strategy, hurting overall global economy as well as the countries practicing them.
  • GDP=C+I+G+(Ex-Im): mercantilist countries could grow just as rapidly by pursuing a robust domestic expansionary economy. They don't need trade surpluses to create jobs; expanded domestic activity can maintain full employment.
  • General Purpose Technologies (GPTs) are technology systems that produce spillover effects by enabling new products or services or by enhancing the productivity of downstream industries.
  • The crucial point is that vast majority (80%) of economic benefits from widespread usage, while only 20% come from their production.
  • Most of the sectors have to grow in tandem and the productivity gains have to be widespread and pervasive.

7. イノベーション重商主義の弊害:

>Top 8. Winning the race for innovation advantage with the eight "I's" of innovation policy:

• The lesson learned from UK is that if a nation passes a critical inflection point, it becomes extremely difficult to restore lost industrial innovation capabilities.
• However, leadership is never assured, either for companies or nations. Advantages can become disadvantages, particularly if the environment changes.
• Inspiration: Setting ambitious goals:
  • If US is going to act, it first must overcome its shortsightedness, partisanship, and ambivalence toward innovation.
  • President JFK's audacious goal: "US should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon."
  • In 1990s, US set a goal of sequencing the human genome in a decade combining government support and private sector initiative.
  • Here are five ambitious goals by 2020:
    1. Eliminate the trade deficit and turn $100B surplus in high technology products and services.
    2. Add 2M new jobs in technology industries, expanding tech jobs (IT, biotech, pharmaceutical, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing).
    3. Raise the rate of productivity growth by 50%.
    4. Leverage IT to transform US government, transportation, health care, and education systems.
    5. Develop clean energy sources.
• >Top Intention: Make innovation-based competitiveness a national priority.:
  • Current Washington Economic Consensus:
    1. US is the world leader in innovation-based competitiveness.
    2. Government's job is to ensure that markets are competitive and are not distorted.
    3. Fiscal discipline is the key and in efforts to balance the budget.
    4. Globalization is an unalloyed good for US, even if other nations engage in innovation mercantilism.
    5. Mercantilist nations only hurt themselves.
    6. US role in the global economy is a shining city on the hill.
    7. Government can do little to spur innovation. It's something that just happens.
    8. The best tax code is a simple one, with a broad base and low rates.
    9. Government should support basic "factor conditions," such as science and education.
    10. Government should refrain from "picking winners."
• Insight: Improving understanding of innovation performance.:
  • Components of US innovation and competitiveness strategy should include:
    1. current US competitiveness, including for traded sectors at the major industry level.
    2. current business climate for competitiveness
    3. trade and trade policy issues
    4. education and training
    5. science and technology policy
    6. regional issues in competitiveness
    7. measurement and data issues
    8. proper organization of government to support a comprehensive innovation and competitiveness agenda
• Incentives: Encouraging innovation, production, and jobs in US.:
  • Three type os corporate investment - R&D, investments in new capital equipment, and training frontline workers.
  • Another way would be to restore that tax rates on dividend income; encouraging companies to invest more in their firms, rather than disburse as dividend.
  • Carbon taxes are another source. $15 per ton carbon tax would raise $90B a year.
  • Federal spending is akin to making an over-weight aircraft flight-worthy by removing an engine.
• >Top Investment: More public funding for innovation and productivity.:
  • National Innovation Foundation (NIF) goal would be straightforward:
    1. catalyzing industry-university research partnerships through national-sector research grants
    2. expanding regional innovation promotion through state-level grants
    3. encouraging technology adoption by assisting SMB
    4. supporting regional industry clusters with grants
    5. championing innovation to promote innovation policy within the federal government.
    6. supporting the development of clean energy clusters by academia, government and corporate and venture capital partners. (AGCV partners)
• Institutional innovation: Doing new things in new ways.:
  • Prizes: Most organizations respond to incentives. We should offer prizes.
  • Markets: enabling more competitive markets can help create incentives for change.
  • Information: Open information can change awareness.
  • New kinds of organizations: to create new high schools explicitly focused on STEM education.
  • Funding targeted to innovation: US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO); backlog of more than 700K patent applications will wait at least 3 years for a decision.
  • Innovation impact analysis; there is almost no analysis of how federal actions will affect innovation.
  • Funding tied to performance; States that are unwilling to leverage data and accountability systems to improve measurable performance outcomes.
• Information Technology transformation:
  • There are six key digital platform technologies:
    1. Broadband
    2. 4G wireless
    3. Health IT
    4. ITS
    5. Smart electric grid
    6. contactless mobile payments
• International framework for innovation:
  • High-skill immigration. Talent is a key resource in the global knowledge economy.

8. ８項目のIによるイノベーション競争勝利:

• USへの大胆な目標設定 (月着陸並みの)

• Washington Economic consensusとは

• イノベーション実行への理解促進

>Top 9. Why don't we have more innovation and innovation policy?

• Interests opposing innovation:
  
  • Incumbent opposition:
    • The resistance which comes from interests threatened by an innovation in the productive process is not likely to die out as long as the capitalist order persists.
    • Joseph Schumpeter explained; "It is the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism."
    • Mancur Olson explains, "Stable societies with unchanged boundaries tend to accumulate more collusions and organizations for collective action over time. This collective action to thwart change."
    • It's not just unions that wrap protectionist claims in the mantle of the public interest.
      • US car dealers, travel agents
      • EU requires to maintain brick-and-mortar stores for a certain proportion of sales. France bookstores, Germany and Norway, Australia parallel import restrictions.
      • Japan limiting large supermarkets.
      • India.
  • >Top "Main Street" Welfare:
    • US economic politics is often framed between Main Street vs. Wall Street.
      • Wall Street: greedy financiers, huge end-of-year bonuses, getting rich by manipulation financial deals.
      • Main Street; populated by mom-and-pop businesses owned by red-blooded Americans who work hard.
      • But Neither is a CIP engine. (Competitiveness, Innovation, and Productivity)
        • Industrial Street: manufacturing firms competing in international market.
        • Office Complex Street; technology-based nonmanufacturing companies (software, Internet, Telecom, movies and music, and global engineering services firms.)
      • Majority of US businesses are local-serving: 220K doctors' offices, 166K auto repair facilities, 151K food and beverage stores, 116K gas stations, 111K real estate brokers, 93K landscaping companies, 76 nursing homes, 36K furniture stores, etc.
        • Main Street is not CIP engine; fewer than 500 employees employ 49% of US workers, but account for just 25% of US exports; only invest 19% fund in R&D.
        • National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the leading organization of small and independent business; rather than lobby to reduce the corporate tax rate, it works to lower the top individual tax rate.
        • Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ); a liberal advocacy group; fights fro fair taxes for middle and low income families.
        • Washington economic politics: redistributionist battle ground between NFIBs on the Right to funnel resources to their Main Street (small business) and CTJs on the Left, to their Main Street member (low and middle income Americans)
• Ideological resistance to innovation and innovation policy:
  • Neo-Luddites and Traditionalists:
    • MIT Erik Brynjolfsson warns, in Race against the Machine; workers are losing the race against the machine.
    • OECD review of the impact of technology on jobs; technology both eliminates jobs and creates jobs. Generally it destroys lower wage, lower productivity jobs, while it creates jobs that are more productive high-skill and better paid.
    • The epicenter of the neo-Luddite movement is Europe.
  • Net neutrality; broadband networks should not discriminate among packets; if Big Broadband gets its way, neutralists fear threat the Internet will go the way of cable TV, the vast wasteland.
  • Full-scale surveillance system; "Do we really want a society where one cannot walk down the street without Big Brother tracking our very move?"
  • Resistance to the future has become so pervasive that it has almost become second nature.
    • Many emerging nations put growth first, fewer than half of US, and even smaller proportions of Western Europe and Japan believe that economic growth should be top goal.
  • Businessmen who distrust their state:
    • National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) proclaims that "the private sector generates economic growth that benefits all citizens. Therefore a central objective of federal fiscal policy should be to provide a favorable climate in which the private sector can flourish."
• >Top The Neoclassical economics naysayers:
  • If innovation is so important, why does conventional neoclassical economics ignore it? Akin to the drunk who looks for his keys under the streetlamp, conventional economics ignores innovation because so much of it is in the dark and hard to measure.; Knowledge is an unmeasurable variable. For neoclassical economists,if you can't measure it and put it in a complex mathematical equation, it simply doesn't matter.
  • Innovation drives growth; 90% of per capita income growth comes from innovation.
• Governments that ignore innovation:
  • When tough choices have to be made between promoting innovation and supporting redistribution, Democrats choice is usually for the latter.
    • Congress increase funding for items like farm subsidies, income security, and health care.
    • Their inclination is not to support innovation but to protect Americans from it by erecting regulatory and trade barriers.

9. なぜもっとイノベーションを追求しないのか:

• a

>Top 10. Can nations overcome the barriers to innovation?

• Enabling Individual freedom vs. providing collective support:
  • World Values Survey (WVS); whether government ownership or private ownership of business.
  • US is too extreme on the side of freemarket side, other nations, notably China are as extreme on the side of state control.
• Balancing the interests of the current and next generations:
  • To maximize innovation, nations must also fine the right balance between the interests of present and future generations.
  • Why pay higher taxes to support government investments in research, education and infrastructure when the benefits accrue to t future generations?
  • US's challenge overly focused on individual consumption today, significantly under invests for the future. China is the opposite; it's impoverishing its current generation to prepare for the future.
  • US trade debt is lie any other debt. China, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan are willing to accept pieces of paper (T-bills) now, which are only worth when they are traded fro real goods and services; forcing future generations of US to pay off the current generation's trade debt.
• >Top Balancing employment stability and dynamism:
  • The average age of the government capital stock (roads, bridges, and water systems) has increased by almost 50% since 1970 as the nation has failed to invest adequately to replace aging infrastructure. (>Fig.)
  • It's interesting to note that the average age of nonresidential infrastructure (buildings and machines use by the private sector) also grew during 2000-2010, as US companies cut back investment.
  • Compare to China, spending more than 15% of GDP on domestic infrastructure projects; invested $100B in 23 new projects. Between 2000-2009, China invested $330B in 120 infrastructure projects such as railway, expressways, Internet infrastructure.
  • IF US is all about "Me, now," China is about "Us, then."
  • >Top In Japan, most parents would be extremely worried if their son wanted to go down this path for it the start-up failed, what would he do next? He would likely be unemployed or face a series of low-wage dead-end jobs. Better that he go to work for a large, stable corporation.
    • Elevators in many department stores are still operated by pretty young women, even though most countries phased out elevator operators decades ago.
    • Japan's quest for a humane and stable economy is a recipe for a low-growth economy.
    • Flexicurity (flexible security)l combining flexibility for organization to restructure and to innovate with security for workers.
• >Top The innovation success triangle: (>Fig.)
  • Effective business environment include; vibrant capital markets, but also discourage short-term investing; a population that accepts and even embraces churn and change; high levels of entrepreneurship.
  • Effective regulatory environment features a competitive and open trade regime.
  • Strong innovation policy system; generous support for public investment in innovation infrastructure (science, technology, tech transfer systems, and digital infrastructure, funding industry-university-government research partnership.
• Innovation prospects for the world:
  • No nation has it entirely right.
  • Japan and much of Europe have strong innovation policy systems, but suffer from limited regulatory and business environments.
  • US have good business and regulatory environments, but weak innovation policy environment.
• >Top US: Boston or Buffalo?:
  • Boston, Ma vs. Buffalo, NY.
  • Buffalo: once 350K population, monumental steel mills are largely shuttered.
  • Boston looked like it faced similar prospects. it hosted thriving textile and shoe industries and had long been a commercial trading center. Today boasts a diverse innovation-based economy with biotechnology, IT and financial services.
  • Over the course of the next two decades, US will be like Buffalo and sink further into relative decline or, like Boston, rise again through innovation and economic transformation.
  • US have developed a perverse egalitarianism and anti-elitism that bode ill, for it means that efforts to enable excellence are branded as antidemocratic and elitist.
• Europe: Italy or Finland?
  • Considerable variability within Europe; Northern and Wester European countries outperform in Southern and Eastern Europe.
  • Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and UK are the front of the pack in terms of innovation policy efforts.
  • Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Greece all in the bottom half of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) assessment of the innovation capacity.
  • Baltic nations have performed much better with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
• Southeast Asia: Export mercantilists or Model of balanced, productivity-led growth?
• It's important to point out that Asia and America face almost opposite challenges.
• US has highly productive and innovative domestic services sector. Its hotel, insurance, logistics, and retail sectors are the best in the world. Companies use high levels of IT. But its export sector is in crisis.
• Asian export sectors are vibrant and productive and their domestic service sector languish.
• Latin America: Can government get out of the way?
  • Challenge for most of Latin America is to embrace democratic, rule-of-law regimes combined with free markets and robust innovation policies.
  • Colombia has launched an ambitious innovation strategy called Colombia 2025.
  • Uruguay has developed a national innovation strategy.
  • Chile embraced a democratic path that both respects markets and government in innovation policy.
  • Brazil has developed national industrial strategy on innovation and industrial leadership in pharmaceuticals, aviation, and renewable fuels.

10. 国はイノベーションの障害を克服できるか:

• US aging infrastrucure: Averag ag of capital stock

• Innovation Success Triangle:
• 

>Top 11. Creating a robust global innovation system?

• The failure of global economic institutions:
  • IMF: was charged with overseeing the international monetary system.
    • IMF even views mercantilism as a problem.
    • IMF argue that Chinese growth has spurred growth in the rest of the world because it imports more than it used to and provides low-cost exports.
    • But IMF fail to examine the negative impact of current manipulation on global growth.
    • Min Zhu special advisor to IMF and deputy governor of People's Bank of China says, "advance economies are service-oriented, and emerging economies are manufacturing-oriented ... this complementarity will make the world more productive and more sustainable..."
  • The World Bank is even worse.
    • It not only does almost nothing to pressure innovation mercantilists to shape up, but actively support their policies."
  • WTO: the primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all.
    • Unfortunately, WTO views what is actually systemic innovation mercantilism.
    • WTO opines, "current account imbalances between countries are primarily macroeconomic phenomenon, a sign of international differences in aggregate savings and investment behavior and have little to do with trade policy."
  • Thus, IMF, World Bank, WTO don't work to support sustainable global innovation because it is either not heir mission or not thought to be important.
• >Top A Bretton Woods for the innovation economy?:
  • Developed countries are going to have to abandon the notion the unrepentant mercantilist nations are going to play by the rules if we just play nice with them.
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could provide a model for how to organize such a new trade zone.
  • TPP includes Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, US, (and Japan) crafted a platform for a comprehensive high-standard trade agreement.
  • Global Science and Innovation Foundation (GSIF); the mission would be to fund scientific research around the globe in support internationally collaborative research. It wold commit 0.1% of its GDP in funding and be certified by the GSIF as a nation not committed to innovation mercantilism.
• Moving from resistance and indifference to US innovation policy leadership:
  • Split between liberals and conservatives, business and labor, that limits Washington from developing a national economic development coalition.

11. 堅牢なイノベーションシステムを構築する:

• Why Trump administration had withdrawn TPP just after became the president of US?

Comment

• >Top Anxiousness, position, analysis and sense of crisis regarding US innovation policy are well described here.
• Usually there are elongated inconclusive protracted conventional debates regarding innovation, which are mostly far from innovative mindset.
• The stance of Japan is quite delicate; it is the originator of an innovation mercantilism country as well as an intimate allied member of US. China seems just a follower in ten times scale of Japanese way of mercantilism of pursuing economic growth strategy.
• How to understand President Trump's "America First" policy?

• 米国のイノベーション政策に対する焦り･姿勢･分析･危機感がよく伝わってくる。
• イノベーションに関する従来型の小田原評定がよく行われるが、それは最もイノベーションの態度からは遠いものである。
• 日本の立場は微妙。日本は元祖イノベーション重商主義の国であり、かつ米国の同盟国でもある。中国は日本的重商主義を十倍規模で追従しているように見える。
• トランプ大統領のアメリカ第一主義はどう理解すればよいのだろうか?