At a time of considerable uncertainty about the future of transatlantic digital commerce, one Europe’s top officials for such issues, Gϋnther Oettinger, visited the United States last week and did little to dispel concerns that the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) may raise new barriers for U.S. companies. Of particular concern for many in the United States is vague language in the DSM that appears to be designed for protectionist purposes. As one of the strategy’s chief architects, Oettinger would have been uniquely well-positioned to offer needed clarification. He didn’t.
The growing list of political, legal, and regulatory cases involving top American technology companies prompted U.S. President Barack Obama earlier this year to call out Europe for protecting domestic competitors. More generally, it has raised serious concerns about the direction that Europe’s regulatory environment is heading as it proceeds through multiple policy initiatives in parallel—the Digital Single Market, the General Data Protection Review, a revision of the U.S.-Europe Safe Harbor Framework, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Any one of these on its own would be a major issue for the transatlantic trade relationship, but taken together, they
During the 2000s, globalization took millions of jobs from the United States. Some have been quick to associate this job loss with the technology that ostensibly made it possible, chiefly the adoption of ICT that allowed for global connectivity. So, would the United States have been better off if it had simply never invested in ICT in the first place?
There are those who would love to somehow put the technology introduced by the ICT revolution back in the box. But a new study shows that doing so would have detrimental impact on the economy. Yes, in some cases ICT investment introduced the tools which allowed companies to outsource jobs. But, as new paper, Does ICT Investment Spur or Hamper Offshoring?, finds, the same ICT investment enabled productivity gains that kept companies at home.
Of course, it is difficult empirically to determine whether ICT investments increase the likeliness of offshoring, as causality is difficult to determine. To address this problem, authors Luigi Benfratello, Tiziano Razzolini, and Alessandro Sembenelli examined small and medium-sized Italian manufacturing firms with varying access to local broadband facilities, a random variable that was used
In recent years, the United States has become less competitive in retaining and attracting globally mobile capital. That’s in large part due to an uncompetitive tax code that features the highest statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries; a worldwide, as opposed to territorial, tax system; and an intermittent research and development (R&D) tax credit that has fallen to just the world’s 27th most generous, behind even Brazil, China, and India.
It’s high time for Congress to begin a serious reexamination of U.S. tax policy and to incorporate innovative approaches that spur greater levels of R&D, innovation, and investment by enterprises operating in the United States. One proposal that ITIF has long championed is the “innovation box” (or “patent box”). So named because it is implemented through a check box on a tax form, the policy provides favorable tax treatment for revenues generated from newly developed intellectual property (IP). As ITIF explained in its 2011 report “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation,” these provisions differ from—and should be seen as a supplement to—R&D tax credits in that they provide firms with
A new NBER paper from Columbia University economist Frank Lichtenberg examines how pharmaceutical innovation correlates to fewer deaths among people with certain types of cancers. Fewer cancer patients died before the age of 75 if their particular type of cancer had experienced more medical innovation.
The basic message here is intuitive—new drugs and treatments save lives—but Lichtenberg does a good job of breaking down the costs and benefits. He estimates that medical innovation saved more than 100,000 years of aggregate life in Canada alone, at a cost of $2,730 per year based on the total spending for drugs to treat those forms of cancer.
Unfortunately, Lichtenberg does not factor in R&D costs for the discovery and development of these drugs. He does estimate the cost if the drugs had been brand name (versus the generics they are assumed to be), which comes out to $11,000. This is still significantly below estimates for the value of a year of life, and it is possible to assume that prices would be set by private companies high enough to recoup their research investments. This leaves only the question of public investments in R&D;
Policymakers around the world have increasingly come to realize that entrepreneurship, particularly high-growth entrepreneurship (HGE), is critical for economic development in nations at all levels of development. That is one reason the United Nations Foundation asked Michael Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Inc., to be the Global Advocate for Entrepreneurship and to work closely with the Foundation and its Global Entrepreneurs Council to help shape and advance a global entrepreneurship agenda.
To inform the Council’s thinking, Michael Dell led a meeting in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2014, hosted by 1776, a cutting-edge “accelerator” to help technology-based entrepreneurs translate their ideas into growing businesses. The meeting participants included tech-based entrepreneurs and policymakers, and I was asked to participate and serve as rapporteur.
Michael Dell opened up the roundtable with a discussion of proposed policy mechanisms to spur high growth entrepreneurship, including ensuring access to capital, technology, talent, and markets. The following is a summary of the themes and recommendations from the discussion.
The Nature of Technology-Enabled Entrepreneurship Opportunities
Policymakers around the world are interested in HGE because they understand that technology opportunities driving this type of entrepreneurship have exploded.
Earlier this year the European Commission released a substantial report on R&D tax credits throughout the EU and several other OECD countries including the United States and Japan. R&D tax credits have been widely adopted across the developed world since the United States introduced the Research and Experimentation tax credit in 1981: only two countries in the EU do not have tax policies intended to encourage R&D.
The report is a thorough meta-study looking at the existing economics literature and available data on R&D-focused tax policy, including the impact of R&D tax policies on R&D expenditure, innovation, employment, productivity, and other factors. It also covers the literature on how corporate tax policy can affect the location of R&D and patents. Finally, the report examines the details of various tax policies and benchmarking them based on what they determine to be best practices.
The report makes a number of facts clear. First, despite a broad range of findings, “the vast majority” of studies surveyed show that R&D tax incentives are effective, with the most recent (and rigorous) studies finding that a 10% in the user cost of R&D results in a
Each year, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) hosts a large conference at the Newseum dedicated to highlighting what is new in creativity, content, and technology around the world. At the most recent confab, held on Friday, April 24, MPAA’s message focused on how creativity and innovation will play an even more integral role in the future than they do today. Indeed, the Creativity Conference is about exploring the critical intersection between technology and the arts, and their capacity to drive invention and economic growth across industries and regions. Bringing together leaders from the worlds of politics, media, business, and the arts, the Creativity Conference engages its audience in an open dialogue on the meaning of creativity, its economic impact across sectors, and the ways in which we can continue to protect and nurture American innovation and innovators.
At the conference, a group of leading, innovative women discussed the ways in which Hollywood and Washington, D.C. intersect. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D – CT), Evan Ryan (Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs), Barbara Hall (Creator and Executive Producer, Madam Secretary) and Lori McCreary (President, Producers Guild of
Innovation is frequently underemphasized in the economics literature because it is qualitative by nature, and qualitative changes are hard to measure. A new NBER paper by three economists, Lakdawalla, Reif, and Malani, makes some progress toward a better measure of innovation, specifically innovation in health care. They show that by ignoring the way medical innovations help reduce risk, previous studies have tended to underestimate the true value of medical innovations—by as much as 30-80%.
To arrive at their estimates the authors use a new way of valuing risk. Our health is inherently risky, which is why we have health insurance for smoothing expenses out over time and between people. Innovation is also risky, which is why investors in startups often expect high returns and we often look to the government to fund basic research. But Lakdawalla, Reif, and Malani show that risks don’t always add up—sometimes they cancel out. Risks taken to innovate and create new health products and treatments can reduce health risks for people, because new innovations help keep us safer and healthier.
When risks taken in health innovation pay off, the reward they bring isn’t just the
A new report from Battelle based on methodology from the Academy of Radiology Research shows how federal R&D funding succeeds in producing patents. The report examines essentially all federal R&D, including not only the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health but also the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and other agencies. It finds that, per patent, public-sector agencies provide a return comparable to private-sector ones—or even cheaper. Recent public sector budget cuts, therefore, can be expected to significantly hurt our scientific progress.
The agencies vary significantly in terms of how productive they are and how successful their patents are. Some agencies in particular, such as the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) have exceptional records for producing research that is widely useful: NIBIB is estimated to spur an additional $578.2 million, or 25 patents, for every $100 million in R&D expenditures. The DoD and NASA, on the other hand, are less efficient at producing patents at only around 2-3 patents per $100 million in R&D expenditures. (although, as the report notes, defense spending is more likely to be classified and thus not
It appears that the global club of those who do not adequately appreciate intellectual property (IP) has gotten a new member: Ecuador. In the past few years the IP environment inside that small South American nation has deteriorated quite significantly, especially with regard to the protection of pharmaceuticals and biologics. And as the situation continues to worsen, those of us around the world paying attention are probably all thinking the same thing: You’re ruining it for everyone else.
Indeed, Ecuador’s weakening life sciences IP situation is just one of a long line of countries doing so around the world, including Canada, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, and South Africa. Ecuador’s decision to weaken its environment for life sciences IP risks perpetuating this global contagion effect. For example, since 2010 the nation’s main IP agency (responsible for ensuring IP rights, including enforcement and promotion) the Ecuadorian Intellectual Property Institute, has granted nine compulsory licenses (CLs) with 12 applications still pending. Six of those nine CLs were issued in 2014 alone, including one for Pfizer’s kidney and gastrointestinal cancer medication, Sutent. According to the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights