MSG Team's other articles

11290 Six Sigma and Quality Management

Six Sigma is a business management strategy which aims at improving the quality of processes by minimizing and eventually removing the errors and variations. The concept of Six Sigma was introduced by Motorola in 1986, but was popularized by Jack Welch who incorporated the strategy in his business processes at General Electric. The concept of […]

12585 Business Process Ownership

Organizations depend upon Business Process Improvement to make changes to the internal operations in order to drive efficiency in the process as well as to impact the business. As the business needs keep changing, the Organizations too need to keep changing at the same speed and frequency to be able to meet up with the […]

8997 DMADV Methodology – Meaning and Rules for Implementing DMADV

DMADV is a six sigma methodology. It is used to design new processes or products where none exist and get it right in the first time. This is a part of the DFSS “Design For Six Sigma” concepts which place focus on creating processes right the first time. The focus of DMADV is on quantifying […]

9508 Growth and Evolution of Organizations

It is very interesting to study how Organizations and Businesses grow, evolve, change, mature and also decline over a period of time. Organizations are very similar to living entities that respond, react and evolve in relation to the external and internal environment that surrounds them. The survival and growth is entirely dependent upon the continuous […]

11992 Why is Sweden Facing a Currency Crisis?

Sweden is not really a country that comes to find when one talks about finance or currency trading. The Swedish Krona is a relatively small and insignificant player in the global market. Trading in Swedish Krona accounts for less than 2% of the global currency trades. However, the Krona is what many call a counter […]

Search with tags

  • No tags available.

Innovation is and has always been at the center of all human endeavors. People those who are able to perform more complex tasks with relatively fewer resources have often captured world markets and gained the maximum wealth.

Every economic textbook acknowledges the value of innovation. It also explains how the printing press made scribes obsolete and now digital technologies are making the press obsolete itself. They correctly conclude that the world and technology are rapidly changing. However, there seems to be confusion.

Mainstream economists believe that market change doesn’t usher innovation. Instead, many economists argue that innovation is the byproduct of government policies.

The Argument for Government Funded Innovation

The argument that government funded innovation is better than market innovation has an underlying assumption. The assumption states that the markets are short sighted. On the other hand, research projects are long term in nature. Sometimes research projects may burn cash for several years before they generate any return. Mainstream economists argue that private parties may just abandon the efforts as they will be unable to wait for so long. Hence, the government should realize matters of strategic importance and take them in their hand.

The example often cited is the widely popular Internet technology. This was not developed by the market but was instead developed by the United States Army for communication purposes. Once the technology gained critical mass, it was released to the markets. This is when the private parties improved upon the underlying technology that was offered by the government.

The result we have today is the life changing mission-critical technology that we have today in the form of the internet. The private behemoths of today i.e. Google and Facebook have been built on a platform that was first designed and developed by the government!

Confusion #1: Technological Innovation vs. Economic Innovation

Mainstream economists are making several mistakes with this argument. The first mistake is that they are confusing technological innovation with market innovation.

Technological innovation is an improvement to the current technology being used. However, the costs of using this advanced technology are so prohibitive that the better technology cannot be put to use in the market.

On the other hand, economic innovation is all about providing better value for money for the consumers.

Technological innovation without any market use is wastage of resources.

For instance, cars can be built with very advanced safety features. However, if these cars are so expensive that no one can buy them, then what is the point of introducing the safety features! Whether the government is better at creating technological innovation is itself a matter of dispute. However, one can be pretty sure that the government cannot accelerate economic innovation. Government innovation is run purely on the basis of grants and has no forces of the market backing it.

Confusion #2: War and Innovation

Economic theory fosters another misconception. This misconception is that war somehow fosters innovation. The logic is that war forces military to find new technologies. A lot of these technologies have widespread civilian applications later. For instance, automobile, telecom, and communication industry is largely influenced by advances in the field that happened during war time. However, this is a fallacy. This is like looking at only one side of the coin. No attention is paid to the incessant costs that are incurred during the war in general as well as to develop specific technologies. The resources, if available to the market could have been utilized much better. This is akin to the broken window fallacy wherein the destruction component is not considered at all whereas the addition to the economy is counted.

Confusion #3: Is All Innovation Good ?

A Government led innovation fosters needless advances in technology. These advances have very little civil application. Also, the government is riddled with corruption. As a result, private parties are able to take over the benefits of government-led innovation for a fraction of the cost. This is what happened with the internet. It is also rampantly going on with the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations use taxpayer money to influence research. Once the research gains critical mass, they take it over. On the other hand, if the research fails the taxpayer bears the cost. This is like privatization of profits and socialization of losses.

The Role of Market Tests

The innovations produced by the government do not face any market test. As such, there is no way to determine if they are as good as they are claimed to be. Also, one needs to consider the massive inputs that were given to create this output. True that private parties did not build the Internet and the interstate highways! However, one can only guess what private parties would have accomplished had that money not been taxed from their hands and provided to the governments to give research handouts to the people.

To sum it up, central planning has always been a failure. It failed the Soviet Union, and it fails us today. The reason it exists is that it allows private corporations to socialize their research expenses. It is a corrupt method of bringing down costs. It is about time that the transfer of wealth from unsuspecting taxpayers to powerful corporations be stopped.

Article Written by

MSG Team

An insightful writer passionate about sharing expertise, trends, and tips, dedicated to inspiring and informing readers through engaging and thoughtful content.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Cultural Aspects of Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

MSG Team

Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Some Recent Trends in this Field

MSG Team

Understanding the China-North Korea Trade Equation

MSG Team