Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reengineering Capitalism pp 257–292Cite as

The Role of the Government

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The role of the government is crucial in building an effective science and innovation system—Apple, for example, would most likely never had achieved its success without the active role of the state. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine in the USA claim that “Since the Industrial Revolution, the growth of economies around the world has been driven largely by the pursuit of scientific understanding, the application of engineering solutions, and continual technological innovation.”

Govern a great country as you would fry a small fish: Don’t poke at it too much.

Lao-Tzu

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This bold claim is made by several including The Economist (2013). “The entrepreneurial state.” The Economist 408(8851): pp. 52.

  2. 2.

    See National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC, National Academies Press. p. 592.

  3. 3.

    See van Reenen, J. (2011). “Big ideas: Innovation Policy.” CentrePiece, the magazine of economic performance 16(2 (Autumn)): pp. 2–5.

  4. 4.

    According to West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  5. 5.

    See for example Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  6. 6.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  7. 7.

    See Demeritt, D. (2001). “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2): pp. 307–337.

  8. 8.

    See for example Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  9. 9.

    See Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  10. 10.

    See for example Freeman, C. and L. Soete (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Oxford, Routledge. p. 470.

  11. 11.

    In one survey of 76 major US corporations, most respondents believe that a significant portion of their new products and processes introduced between 1975 and 1985 could not have been developed without fundamental research in the fifteen years prior to the innovations, see Mansfield, E. (1991). “Academic research and industrial innovation.” Research Policy 20(1): pp. 1–13.

  12. 12.

    According to West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  13. 13.

    See West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  14. 14.

    Facts are provided by Furman, J. L., M. E. Porter and S. Stern (2002). “The determinants of national innovative capacity.” Research Policy 31(6): pp. 899–933.

  15. 15.

    See for example Weber, M. (2001). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London, Routledge. p. 320.

  16. 16.

    See for example Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London, Anthem Press. p. 187.

  17. 17.

    According to The Economist (2001). Big Oil and its subsidies. The Economist. 358: pp. 82.

  18. 18.

    The statement came during Earth Day in April 1995, in San Diego, USA.

  19. 19.

    See Olsson, L. E. (1994). “Energy-Meteorology: A new Discipline.” Renewable Energy 5 Part II: pp. 1243–1246.

  20. 20.

    This system is also known as the Acid Rain Program and the SO2 cap-and-trade system.

  21. 21.

    See for example Allas, T. (2014). Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system. London, Department for Business Innovation & Skills. p. 223.

  22. 22.

    See West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  23. 23.

    See Graham, B. (2005). The Intelligent Investor. New York, HarperCollins Publishers. p. 269.

  24. 24.

    See List, F. (2005). The National System of Political Economy—Volume 1: The History. New York, Cosimo Classics. p. 142.

  25. 25.

    See Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London, Anthem Press. p. 187.

  26. 26.

    See The Economist (2014c). The slumps that shaped modern finance. The Economist. 411: pp. 47–52.

  27. 27.

    See Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. U.-N. B. C. f. E. Research. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research: pp. 609–626.

  28. 28.

    See for example Furman, J. L., M. E. Porter and S. Stern (2002). “The determinants of national innovative capacity.” Research Policy 31(6): pp. 899–933.

  29. 29.

    See, for example:

    Allas, T. (2014). Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system. London, Department for Business Innovation & Skills. p. 223.

  30. 30.

    According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government's Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers' Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  31. 31.

    See for example:

    • Dore, R. (1994). Japanese capitalism, Anglo-Saxon capitalism; How will the Darwinian contest turn out? Japanese Multinationals: Strategies and management in the Global Kaisha. N. Campbell and N. Burton. London, Routledge: pp. 9–30.

    • Berger, S. and R. Dore, Eds. (1996). National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Cornell Studies in Political Economy. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. p. 376.

    • Dore, R. (2000). Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism; Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. New York, Ocford University Press. p. 280.

  32. 32.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  33. 33.

    According to Freeman, C. and L. Soete (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Oxford, Routledge. p. 470.

  34. 34.

    According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  35. 35.

    See Hall, B. and J. van Reenen (2000). “Fiscal Incentives for R&D: A New Review of the Evidence.” Research Policy 29: pp. 449–469.

  36. 36.

    According to Griffith, R., S. Redding and J. van Reenen (1999). “Bridging the Productivity Gap.” CentrePiece, the magazine of economic performance 4(3): pp. 14–19.

  37. 37.

    This list is compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers' Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  38. 38.

    According to Porter, M. E. (1992). Capital Choices: Changing the Way America Invests in Industry—a report presented to the Council on Competitiveness and co-sponsored by the Harvard Business School. Washington, DC, Council on Competitiveness. p. 135.

  39. 39.

    According to data from NYSE and quoted by Mortimer, I. and M. Page (2013). Why Dividends Matter. Investment Research Series. London, Guinness Atkinson Funds. p. 11.

  40. 40.

    See studies referred to by The Economist (2014a). Entrepreneurs anonymous. The Economist. 412: pp. 66.

  41. 41.

    According to Mazzucato, M. (2015). “The Innovative State: Governments Should Make Markets, Not Just Fix Them.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 61–68.

  42. 42.

    According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  43. 43.

    See The Economist (2014d). Special report: companies and the state. London, The Economist. p. 16.

  44. 44.

    Quoted by The Economist (2014d). Special report: companies and the state. London, The Economist. p. 16.

  45. 45.

    According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  46. 46.

    As argued by Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  47. 47.

    These two examples are from Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  48. 48.

    See Lazonick, W. (2014). “Profits without prosperity.” Harvard Business Review 92(9): pp. 46–55.

  49. 49.

    According to Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths London, Anthem Press. p. 266.

  50. 50.

    Statement from a report by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology according to The Economist (2014d). Special report: companies and the state. London, The Economist. p. 16.

  51. 51.

    It is well known that the diffusion of the steam engine was significantly delayed by a series of minor improvement in existing water power technologies, see Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. p. 364.

  52. 52.

    See Freeman, C. and L. Soete (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Oxford, Routledge. p. 470.

  53. 53.

    See Technology Strategy Board (2011). Concept to Commercialisation: A Strategy for Business Innovation, 2011–2015. Swindon, Techology Strategy Board. p. 27.

  54. 54.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  55. 55.

    According to Mazzucato, M. (2015). “The Innovative State: Governments Should Make Markets, Not Just Fix Them.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 61–68.

  56. 56.

    According to Alic, J. A., L. M. Branscomb, H. Brooks, A. B. Carter and G. L. Epstein (1992). Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press. p. 400.

  57. 57.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  58. 58.

    See Mazzucato, M. (2015). “The Innovative State: Governments Should Make Markets, Not Just Fix Them.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 61–68.

  59. 59.

    According to LeVine, S. (2015). “Battery Powered: The Promise of Energy Storage.” Foreign Affairs 94(2): pp. 119–124.

  60. 60.

    See Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths London, Anthem Press. p. 266.

  61. 61.

    For more information see Jessen, J. (2015). “The Anti-Innovators.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 55–60.

  62. 62.

    See Litan, R. E. (2015). “Start-up Slowdown.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 47–53.

  63. 63.

    According to Jessen, J. (2015). “The Anti-Innovators.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 55–60.

  64. 64.

    See Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  65. 65.

    See EPA (2000). Innovative Treatment Technology Developer’s Guide to Support Services (Fourth Edition). Washington, DC, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. p. 96.

  66. 66.

    See for example:

    • Allas, T. (2014). Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system. London, Department for Business Innovation & Skills. p. 223.

    • National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC, National Academies Press. p. 592.

  67. 67.

    According to West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  68. 68.

    See Nelson, R. R., Ed. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press. p. 556.

  69. 69.

    According to West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  70. 70.

    See Furman, J. L., M. E. Porter and S. Stern (2002). “The determinants of national innovative capacity.” Research Policy 31(6): pp. 899–933.

  71. 71.

    See Romer, P. (1990). “Endogenous technological change.” Journal of Political Economy 98(5): pp. s71–s102.

  72. 72.

    See Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York, Free Press. p. 896.

  73. 73.

    See Nelson, R. R., Ed. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press. p. 556.

  74. 74.

    Allas, T. (2014). Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system. London, Department for Business Innovation & Skills. p. 223.

  75. 75.

    See PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government's Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers' Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  76. 76.

    Referred to by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government's Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  77. 77.

    According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, see PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  78. 78.

    See PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation. Innovation. San Jose, CA, PricewaterhouseCoopers' Center for Technology and Innovation. p. 65.

  79. 79.

    See Sokoloff, K. L. (1988). “Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846.” The Journal of Economic History 48(4): pp. 813–850.

  80. 80.

    See West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  81. 81.

    See Fransman, M. (1993). The Market and Beyond: Cooperation and Competition in Information Technology. New York, Cambridge University Press. p. 352.

  82. 82.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  83. 83.

    According to Allas, T. (2014). Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system. London, Department for Business Innovation & Skills. p. 223.

  84. 84.

    See van Reenen, J. (2011). “Big ideas: Innovation Policy.” CentrePiece, the magazine of economic performance 16(2 (Autumn)): pp. 2–5.

  85. 85.

    According to Allas, T. (2014). Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system. London, Department for Business Innovation & Skills. p. 223.

  86. 86.

    See for example Romer, P. (1990). “Endogenous technological change.” Journal of Political Economy 98(5): pp. s71–s102.

  87. 87.

    According to West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  88. 88.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  89. 89.

    See Office of Technology Assessment (1994). Assessing the Potential for Civil-Military Integration: Technologies, Processes, and Practices, OTA-ISS-611. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 191.

  90. 90.

    See an unpublished report by Alan Miller, Pamela Wexler, and Susan Conbere titled “Commercializing Alternatives for CFC_113 Solvent Applications”, cited in Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  91. 91.

    See Grove, A. (2010). How America Can Create Jobs. BusinessWeek: pp. July 1st.

  92. 92.

    According to West, J. (2013). Increasing Innovation Through Government Policy. Sydney, Australian Innovation Research Centre. p. 26.

  93. 93.

    According to National Science Foundation, Science and engineering indicators 2006.

  94. 94.

    According to National Science Foundation, Science and engineering indicators 2006.

  95. 95.

    According to Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technology, OTA-BP-ITC-165. Washington, DC, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 96.

  96. 96.

    See for example Freeman, C. and L. Soete (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Oxford, Routledge. p. 470.

  97. 97.

    This is evident from National Science Foundation (1995). National Patterns of R&D Resources. Arlington, VA, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. p. 57–69.

  98. 98.

    According to Sampat, B. N. (2006). “Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole.” Research Policy 35(6): pp. 772–789.

  99. 99.

    According to Litan, R. E., L. Mitchell and E. J. Reedy (2008). Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8. A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner and S. Stern. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press: pp. 31–57.

  100. 100.

    See Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson and J. P. Walsh (2002). “Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D.” Management Science 48(1): pp. 1–23.

  101. 101.

    According to Griliches, Z. (1990). “Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey.” Journal of Economic Literature XXVIII(December): pp. 1661–1707.

  102. 102.

    See for example:

    • Levin, R. C., A. K. Klevorick, R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter (1987). “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 18(3): pp. 783–831.

    • Mansfield, E., M. Schwartz and S. Wagner (1981). “Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study.” The Economic Journal 91(December): pp. 907–918.

  103. 103.

    According to Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) (2002). AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 2001. Northbrook, IL, Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). p.

  104. 104.

    According to Goldfarb, B. and M. Henrekson (2003). “Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property.” Research Policy 32(4): pp. 639–658.

  105. 105.

    See Litan, R. E., L. Mitchell and E. J. Reedy (2008). Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8. A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner and S. Stern. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press: pp. 31–57.

  106. 106.

    Source: World Nuclear Association, IAEA.

  107. 107.

    See Spiegel Online International, April 04, 2011.

  108. 108.

    According to The European Nuclear Society.

  109. 109.

    According to The Economist (2014d). Special report: companies and the state. London, The Economist. p. 16.

  110. 110.

    See Abramowitz, M. (1986). “Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind.” The Journal of Economic History 46(2): pp. 385–406.

  111. 111.

    According to Abramowitz, M. (1986). “Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind.” The Journal of Economic History 46(2): pp. 385–406.

  112. 112.

    See Maddison, A. (1982). Phases of Capitalist Development. New York, Oxford University Press. p. 288.

  113. 113.

    According to Litan, R. E. (2015). “Start-up Slowdown.” Foreign Affairs 94(1): pp. 47–53.

  114. 114.

    See Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. p. 468.

  115. 115.

    See for example Shin, J.-S. (1995). Catching up, technology transfer and institutions: A Gerschenkronian study of late industrialization from the experience of Germany, Japan and South Korea with special reference to the iron and steel industry and the semi-conductor industry. Darwin College. Cambridge, Cambridge University: pp.

  116. 116.

    See Olson, M. (1984). The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. p. 288.

  117. 117.

    Quoted by The Economist (2014b). Free exchange: Green tape. The Economist. 414: pp. 59.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alesund, Norway

    Jan Emblemsvåg

Authors
  1. Jan Emblemsvåg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Emblemsvåg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Emblemsvåg, J. (2016). The Role of the Government. In: Reengineering Capitalism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19689-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19689-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19688-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19689-3

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation