Transcript here - Catallaxy Files

Economics of Science
Address to the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute
Sinclair Davidson
Economics of Science
• Economic interest in Science:
– Science is a source of economic growth.
– This is an argument about innovation and R&D.
– Scientific labour markets.
– Science and the private/public good divide.
– “What goods and services should a community supply publicly through
political-government processes rather than privately through market
processes?” James Buchanan.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
2
Australian Investment
• Source: Health of Science Report
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
3
Australian Investment
• Source: Health of Science Report
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
4
Australian Investment
• Source: Health of Science Report
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
5
Australian Investment
• Source: Health of Science Report
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
6
Australian Investment
• Source: Health of Science Report
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
7
Australian Investment
• Source: ABS Cat. 8112.0
•
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
8
Australian Investment
• Source: ABS 8104.0 (various)
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
9
Australian Investment
• Source: ABS Cat. 8112.0
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
10
Australian Investment
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
293.9
314.4
349.1
406.0
401.0
427.3
433.0
438.6
568.6
577.1
593.9
610.1
663.1
675.8
726.8
780.8
Industry R&D Tax
Concession
665.0
729.0
867.0
1,045.0
1,208.0
1,369.0
1,563.7
1,606.1
Australian Research
Council
399.6
480.9
544.4
570.3
571.8
585.9
664.2
717.2
Performance Based
Block Funding
1,215.2
1,223.7
1,271.2
1,282.4
1,270.4
1,282.1
1,146.9
1,007.9
NHM RC and Other
Health
365.6
371.4
653.3
959.1
620.1
836.9
880.5
1,067.3
2,145.8
1,526.2
1,723.1
1,744.4
1,947.7
1,988.2
2,994.7
3,305.6
5,653.7
5,222.7
6,002.1
6,617.4
6,682.2
7,165.1
8,409.8
8,923.4
2.63%
2.28%
2.48%
2.55%
2.39%
2.21%
2.47%
2.59%
Defence Science &
Technology
Organisation
CSIRO
Other
TOTAL
AUS TRALIAN
GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT
% Total Australian
Government
Expendi ture
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
11
R&D as a Public Good
• Vannevar Bush
– Drove the huge growth in publicly funded science in the US.
– Promoted the linear model.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
12
Francis Bacon and Adam Smith on innovation
• Linear Model (Francis Bacon)
Academic Science → Technology → Wealth
• Adam Smith
Pre-existing Technology → New Technology
→ Wealth
↑↓
Academic Science
– Project Hindsight (1969)
– A US government analysis of 700 ‘research events’ in the development
of 20 weapon systems
– 2 out of 700 were due to basic science.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
13
R&D as a Public Good
• Vannevar Bush
– Promoted the linear model.
– Drove the huge growth in publicly funded science in the US.
• Arrow (1962) associated with market failure.
– Indivisibility.
– Inappropriability.
– Uncertainty.
– Romano (1989), “In the frictionless perfectly competitive market, with
no barriers to the use of information, the market will provide no R&D
investment.”
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
14
R&D as a Public Good
• Public goods have two characteristics:
– Non-excludable (indivisible)
– This is a function of property rights
– Non-rival (inappropriable)
– This is function of technology
– Can be an innate part of the product
– Information is (usually) non-rival
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
15
R&D as a Public Good
Tragedy of the
Commons
Pure Private Good
Pure Public Good
Most R&D
Excludable
Non-Excludable
Rival
Non-Rival
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
16
R&D as a Public Good
• The legal system and intellectual property rights operate to exclude and
protect R&D activity.
– Legal system may be over-excluding: Patent thickets and FTA with US,
EU.
• R&D can be rival.
– “have you cloned an organism recently? Or etched a silicon chip? Nor
have I.”
Terence Kealey
• “Over time progressively fewer references have been made to the empirical
evidence, and more to the standard theorems of welfare economics. Whilst it
might be advantageous in the economics classroom to assume that basic
science is instantly applicable and easily transferable, … such assumptions
are empirically invalid, and have effectively restricted debate.” Keith Pavitt
1993
• R&D is not a public good.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
17
What about uncertainty?
• The impact uncertainty has on the real economy, as opposed to theoretical
analyses is oversold.
• “Actually, most economic actions are taken under conditions of imperfect
knowledge and under circumstances where the outcome cannot be known
with certainty. In this respect applied research does not differ from other
forms of economic activity.” Gordon Tullock 1966.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
18
The modern case for public science
• Science is a public good.
– Science will be underprovided by the market.
– Not Convinced.
• Science has positive externalities (spillover).
– Science is associated with market failure.
– Government can correct that failure by investing in science.
• Public science is an important part of the education system.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
19
Basic Model
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
20
Basic Model
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
21
Basic Model
• How big is the gap?
– William Boumol: 80 percent
– Jones and Williams: 2 – 4 times current investment
• Is this plausible?
– Does the gap represent net or gross investment?
– Are these competitive or monopolistic firms?
• What about social costs?
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
22
Basic Model
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
23
Basic model is flawed
• Hayek’s Information Problem
– “how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of
society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know.”
– It is impossible for government to estimate the societal benefits from R&D
in advance.
– The social benefit curve can only be established ex post.
• Buchanan’s Cost and Choice
– Choice-influencing cost is subjective, “that which the decision-maker
sacrifices or gives up when he makes a choice.”
– “That which happens after choice is made is what economists seem to be
talking about when they draw their cost curves on the blackboards and
what accountants seem to be concerning themselves with.”
– The cost curves cannot be observed.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
24
Basic model is flawed
• Coase’s Black Board Economics
– “The analysis … floats in the air.”
– “This is, of course, blackboard economics, in which with full knowledge of
the curves (which no participant in the actual economic process
possesses), we move factors around (on the blackboard) so as to produce
an optimal situation. This may well be a good way of teaching the tools of
economic analysis but it gives students a very poor idea of what is
normally involved in deciding on economic policy.”
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
25
Basic model is flawed
• Adam Jaffe: “the extreme difficulty of observing the actual spillovers except
anecdotally”.
• Zvi Griliches: “ideas borrowed by research teams of industry i from the
research results of industry j.”
– What does it mean to ‘borrow’ an idea?
– Borrow – ‘obtain the temporary use of’
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
26
Basic model is flawed
Possible Interpretation
Does it Represent an
A More Accurate
of Borrowing an Idea
Externality and hence a
Interpretation
True Market Failure?
 Copy/Imitation of
 No
another firm’s process
 Property Rights
Problem
 Purchase
 No
 Voluntary Exchange
 Purchase at less than
 No
 Pecuniary External
full factor cost
Economy
 Theft of Idea
 No
 Property Rights
Problem
 Gift
 No
 Voluntary Exchange
 Acquisition following
 No
 Property Rights
loss
Problem
 Acquisition following
 No
abandonment
RMIT University © 2012
 Asymmetry in
perceived value
Economics, Finance & Marketing
27
Basic model is flawed
• Adam Jaffe: “the extreme difficulty of observing the actual spillovers except
anecdotally”.
• Zvi Griliches: “ideas borrowed by research teams of industry i from the
research results of industry j.”
– What does it mean to ‘borrow’ an idea?
– Borrow – ‘obtain the temporary use of’
• Richard Nelson: “External economies result from two facts: firstly, that
research results often are of little value to the firm that sponsors the research,
though of great value to another firm, and, secondly, that research results
often cannot be quickly patented.”
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
28
When Should Government Fund Activity?
“… though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society,
[they] are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the
expense to any individual or small number of individuals.” Adam Smith 1776.
– advantageous
– could never repay the expense
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
29
Private Returns
When Should Government Fund Activity?
Private
Private
Funding
Funding
Nobody should
Public Funding
Fund
(Arrow)
Cost of
Private
Funds
Cost of Public Funds
Public Return
Source: Adapted from Kenneth M. Brown (1998, pg. 45).
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
30
What is the cost of public funds?
• Long-term government bond rate
– Should government pay the equity risk premium?
• Cost of private funds scaled up by deadweight costs of taxation.
– Deadweight costs of taxation may be very high!
– Henry Review
– Corporate income tax 40%
– Personal income tax 24%
– The notion that government funding is ‘cheaper’ than private sector
funding is simply wrong.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
31
What is the return to publicly funded research?
• This is a eleven billion dollar question.
• Estimated returns are very high
– Australian Research Council Study
– Top-Down approach = 50 percent pa (?)
– Bottom-Up approach = 39 percent over 4 – 10 years
• Problems
• Look-back Bias & Survivorship Bias
• Crowding out
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
32
What is the return to publicly funded research?
Category of Benefits
Measured Benefits
Building the basic knowledge stock
10.0%
Generation of commercialisable intellectual property
3.0%
Improving the skills base
12.5%
Improved access to international research
7.5%
Better informed policy making
6.0%
Health, environmental and cultural benefit
Not Measured
Source: Adapted from The Allen Consulting Group (2003, pg. 6).
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
33
Can government pick winners?
• Private sector performance:
– Edwin Mansfield et al. success rate = 13%
– Edwin Mansfield et al. success rate = 27%
– Thomas Astebro, median return = -7%
– Private sector is not very good
• Arthur M Diamond Jr.
– Chemistry papers from 1985 Science.
– ‘the most straightforward interpretation is that private funders are more
successful than the government at identifying important research.’
• Brian Jacob and Lars Lefren (2007)
– Look at the impact of US National Institute of Health grants 1980 – 2000
– Result is one additional paper over five years.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
34
Does Public Science lead to economic growth?
• OECD (2003) The sources of economic growth in OECD
countries
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
35
Does Public Science lead to economic growth?
• “The negative results for public R&D are surprising and deserve some
qualification. Taken at face value they suggest publicly-performed R&D
crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private sector,
including private R&D. There is some evidence of this effect in studies that
have looked in detail at the role of different forms of R&D and the interaction
between them.”
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
36
Myths of Public Science
• The Myth of Infinite Return:
– There is a notion that money spent on science and innovation
automatically, at some point, translates into economic growth.
– This is an argument about stocks and flows of knowledge.
• The Myth of Unfettered Research:
– This myth argues that not only will basic research have some long-term
value, but any curiosity-driven research is likely to have some long-term
value.
– This myth rejects any notion that public funding of science be subject to a
cost-benefit analysis – the more public science the better.
• The Myth of Accountability:
– All researchers need do is deliver research that is ‘scientifically sound’. In
other words, scientific excellence is social accountability.
– This myth suggests that because science is a self-regulating selfcorrecting process that it is best left to the scientists.
– This myth has been sorely tested over the ClimateGate emails scandal.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
37
Myths of Public Science
• The Myth of Authoritativeness:
– Contrary to the myth, science cannot resolve political controversy. The
notion that politicians can simply make decision by recourse to ‘the facts’
is nonsense.
– Political controversy revolves around value-judgements and cost-benefit
analysis, not just scientific fact.
– Scientists cannot predict the future any better than economists (who are
pretty bad at it too).
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
38
Myths of Public Science
• The Myth of the Endless Frontier:
– The myth that new knowledge has no moral consequence.
– Science should not push too far against societal mores.
– Greater danger for public science – private science has a profit motive
and must find willing customers.
– Stem-cell research.
– Irrational hypocrites?
– Genetic slavery?
– Informed consent.
– Nelson and the rejected ARC grants.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
39
Conclusion
• Government should only fund R&D as a consumer of research.
• R&D is not a public good.
• The costs of public funds are high.
• The returns to public R&D are low.
• Government is poor at picking winners.
• Public R&D has negative impact on economic growth.
• Standard economic model is flawed.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
40
Conclusion
• This is a huge topic
– I have just scratched the surface
• It is not clear that government can achieve its stated objectives for public
science
• To be blunt; it isn’t really a lot of money
– So should we do nothing?
– Tinker around the edges?
– Stop most of it now?
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
41
Suggested Reading
• Terence Kealey, 1996, The scientific laws of scientific research.
• Terence Kealey, 2009, Sex, science and Profits.
• Thomas Barlow, 2006, The Australian miracle.
• Sinclair Davidson, 2006, Back to basics, Institute of Public Affairs.
• Productivity Commission, Public support for science and innovation (chapter
4)
• Health of Australian Science report, available from
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/health-of-australian-science-report2/
• Daniel Sarewitz, 1996, Frontiers of illusion.
• Daniel Greenberg, 2001,Science, money, and politics.
RMIT University © 2012
Economics, Finance & Marketing
42