SPRU Friday (Freeman) Seminar Series 31 October 2014 Blade Runner Economics Will Innovation lead the Economic Recovery? Professor Daniele Archibugi Italian National Research Council, Rome Birkbeck College, University of London Information and communication technologies Communications Video telephones Audiovisual systems Photo Scanners Voice command systems Visual analysis Diffusion of electronic equipment Kiosks with electronic cashiers Electronic money Space technologies Air travel Flying vehicles Space travel and colonization Colonies Space exploration Biotechnology Replicants Nexus 6 Constructed memories Artificial human components Eyes Toys J.F. Sebastian’s constructed friends Artificial animals Real animal almost exiting Artificial pitons and owels Blade Runner Economics • In the case of biotechnology, none of what was described has happened (although many things are possible) • In the case of ICTs, Blade Runner has under-estimated the pace of technological change (no Internet, no email) • One core message: technological opportunities integral component of societal development • Integration among different technologies (Schumpeterian clusters) is crucial to shape techoeconomic paradigms Is the Information Intensive Techoeconomic paradigm over? • ICTs have changed the economic profile of our economies and guaranteed two decades of development • Some argue that ICTs have exhausted thier potential. Or, more precisely, that are not any longer the driving force of growth • End of the speculative bubble or of technological opportunities? • And, above all, what next? History is dominated by changes in techno-economic paradigms • Dominant technologies extensively used in society • Associated to skills and employment distribution • Based on social acceptance and institutions able to foster them • Interactions among different technical components guarantee the success, or the failure, of the technical system Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age Period Successive TechnoEconomic Paradigms Industrial organisation Typical industries Pavitt's category of firms 17701830 Early Mechanisation Growing importance of small manufacturing firms Textiles, Potteries, Machinery Supplier dominated 18401880 Steam power and Separation been railway producers of capital and consumption goods Mechanical engineering, Steel and Coal Specialized suppliers 18901930 Opportunities associated to scientific discoveries Emergence of large firms Chemicals, Electrical machinery, Engineering Science based 19401980 Fordist and Taylorist revolutions Oligopolistic competition for mass consumption Automobiles, Synthetic products, Consumer durables Scale intensive 19802020 Information and communication Networks of firms, strong user-produces interactions Microelectronics, Telecoms, Software Information intensive Is economic growth historically contingent? • Christopher Freeman (1984): The potential for economic growth is associated to generation and diffusion of knowledge to economic and society through innovation • Robert Gordon (2012): “the rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well turn out to be a unique episode in human history” • Carlota Perez (2013): «There is the possibility of unleashing a golden age bu tilting the playing in field in favour of green growth» Winners and losers in economic crisis • When there is a decline in the business cycle, all companies, industries and countries tend to be affected • But some companies, industries and countries are more affected than others • Marx: capitalism need crisis • Schumpeter: gale of creative destruction Back to the classics Add successively as many mail coaches as you please, you will never get a railway thereby Who does what? Company typologies Business as usual Let wait until it stops raining Reduce costs Including investments Search for new opportunities New markets and new products which could generate sales and profits Looking for the Next Techno-Economic Paradigm • What will be the new industries and business opportunities to generate jobs and profits? • If the technological opportunities are already there, who is going to invest in order to develop and deliver them to the market? Innovation and Economic Downturn • Structural characteristics of National Systems of Innovation, demand (Filippetti & Archibugi, 2011) • The effect of the financial crisis on the convergence in innovation in the European Union (Archibugi & Filippetti, 2011) • Archibugi & Filippetti, Innovation and Economic Crisis, Routledge, 2011 • The impact of the economic crisis on innovation: Evidence from Europe (Archibugi, Filippetti & Frenz) • Economic crisis and innovation: is destruction prevailing over accumulation? (Archibugi, Filippetti & Frenz) Are creative destruction and technological accumulation sensitive to the business cycle? • During economic expansion, innovative firms lead technological change also by increasing their investment in innovation (supporting technological accumulation) • Economic crises generate turbulence and some new entrants are willing to spend more to innovate, also in blue sky explorations (creative destruction) Characteristics of Innovating Firms Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction Large and dominant firms explore new opportunities through R&D labs and design to preserve their market shares. These firms exploit their financial resources and the already existing organizational structure Small firms anticipate and deliver to the market significant innovations. Through only a very few of these firms will be successful, the winners may create the impetus for entire new industries. Economic turbulence may also help to contest market shares to incumbent firms Schumpeter, 1942; Pavitt et al., 1989 Schumpeter, 1911; Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi, 1982; Perez, 2002 Sources of Knowledge Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction Since “firms know more than they do” (Pavitt), they can try to explore their competences also in other product lines The early identification of new markets and new technological opportunities is crucial. Collaboration among different subjects can be very important to identify and explore knowledge. Serendipity plays also an important role Schumpeter, 1942; Pavitt et al., 1989; Granstrand et al., 1997; Antonelli, 1997 Freeman et al., 1982; Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995 Innovation Typology Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction Most innovations are generating a A few radical innovations generating continuous flow of incremental product new industries, often in integration and process innovations. with knowledge already explored for different purposes. Organizational routines dominate the New forms of economic organizations generation of innovations also help to reinforce the generation of innovations Schumpeter, 1942; Pavitt et al., 1989; Methé et al., 1996; Cefis & Orsenigo, 2001 Schumpeter, 1911; Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi, 1982; Perez, 2002 Market Structure Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction High entry barriers also because imitation costs are high and intellectual property rights are well protected. Oligopolistic competition dominates Low entry barriers in new industries. High turbulence, which in turn leads to increase competition Technological discontinuities help to create new markets and new opportunities Schumpeter, 1942; Galbraith, 1952; Chandler, 1977 Schumpeter, 1911; Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi, 1984; Perez, 2002 Forms of Capitalism Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction More likely to occur in coordinated market economies (such as Japan and Germany), where the various public and private institutions are more likely to work together continuously More likely to occur in liberal market economies (such as the United States and the United Kingdom) for their capacity to shift resources from industries with low opportunities to industries with higher opportunities Hall and Soskice (2001) Hall and Soskice (2001) The Innobarometer Survey Innobarometer 2009 (European Commission) – firm level survey on more than 5000 firms across Europe – April 2009 Question no. 1: “Compared to 2006, has the amount spent by your firm on all innovation activities in 2008 increased, decreased, or stayed approximately the same?” Question no. 2: “In the last six months [November 2008 to April 2009] has your company taken one of the following actions [increased, decreased or maintain the innovation spending] as a direct result of the economic downturn?” Question no. 3: “Compared to 2008, do you expect your company to increase, decrease or maintain the total amount of its innovation expenditure in 2009?” Percentages of firms which are reported to have increased, decreased or maintained their innovation expenditures The effect of the crisis on the innovation investment across the European countries 2006 compared to 2009 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Increassed % Firms' innovation expenditures 2006-2008 Decreased % Stayed the same % Firms' innovation expenditures 2009 The balances of firms investing and disinvesting in innovation before and after the crisis The catching-up of the New Member States before the crisis 0.7 Declining Nobility Switzerland 0.7 InnoStruct performance Denmark 0.6 United Kingdom Austria Luxemburg Belgium 0.5 France Netherlands Ireland Estonia 0.1 0.2 0.3 Spain Hungary Latvia Sweden Finland Germany 0.6 0.0 Aristocracy 0.5 0.4 0.5 Slovenia 0.6 Czech rep. 0.4 Norway Portugal Greece Italy 0.4 0.3 0.7 Poland 0.3 Third State 0.2 InnoInv 06-08 performance 0.8 0.9 1.0 Slovakia Lithuania Romania Bulgaria Parvenu Innovation investment during and following on from the crisis Cross-Tabulations of dep. variables Increase During Decrease the crisis (T2) Maintain Total Frequencies Column percentages Frequencies Column percentages Frequencies Column percentages Frequencies Column percentages Following on from the crisis (T3) Decreas Maintai Increase e n 192 73 159 Total 424 32 61 5 812 7 256 10 1,129 10 350 57 544 11 1,832 26 2,726 58 603 38 1,429 82 2,247 64 4,279 100 100 100 100 Innovation expenditure of great innovators and other firms, 2006 and 2008, UK All other firms Great innovators Total n. of firms % Share of Share of Average Averag Change innovati innovati innovati e in on exp. on exp. on exp. innovat average 2006 2008 2006 in ion exp. innovatio £000s 2008 in n exp. £000s 20062008 2,161 87 0.79 0.63 563 413 -0.27 324 13 0.21 0.37 981 1,599 0.63 2,485 100 1.00 1.00 618 568 -0.08 Who is winning? Who is increasing innovation investment in spite of the crisis? Firms that compete with innovation (before, during and after the crisis). If these firms do not innovate they are out of the market. New firms (created after 2001) after, but not during the crisis Firms with internal R&D Departments (before, but also after the crisis) Technological opportunities are coupled by market opportunities (which innovations will we have in the future?) The crisis is making the global landscape more important The Next Wave? A comparison of ICT and Molecular ages A contrasting view: Disruptive Technologies McKinsey Global Institute Four criteria: • • • • Technology is rapidly advancing or experiencing breakthroughs The potential scope of impact is broad Significant economic value could be affected Economic impact is potentially disruptive Criteria to assess societal impact of innovation (based on Freeman) • Large variety of connected products and services with substantial cost reduction • Create a new industry, but also change the operations of most other industries • Social and Political acceptability • Environmental sustainability McKinsey Global Institute TOP SIX to 2025 • Mobile Internet • Automation of Knowledge work • Internet of things • Cloud technology • Advanced robotics • Autonomous vehicles Combined, they account for about 90% of future business opportunities McKinsey Global Institute Seventh to Twelfth 2025 • • • • • • Next generation genomics Energy storage 3D printing Advanced materials Advanced oil and gas exploration Renewable energy What will be the dominant innovations of the XXI Century? Transcendence