Zgornji naslov se bo zdel marsikomu bogokleten in se bo hitro razhudil, vendar dejansko ni nič novega. To idejo je sicer pred leti javno nabolj popularizirala italijansko-ameriško-britanska ekonomistka Mariana Mazzucato v knjigi Podjetna država. V njej je izpostavila primer podjetja Apple, ki ima zelo majhen delež svojih raziskav (kot stroškov glede na skupne prihodke), njegova genialnost je v tem, da obstoječe tehnološke rešitve, ki so splošno dostopne (od interneta do GPS), zapakira v komercialno izjemno dobre produkte. Drugače rečeno, Apple črpa iz rezultatov temeljnih raziskav in jih z rekombinacijo komercializira.

Seveda pa Mazzucatova glede tega ni bila prva, ampak so stvar znane že od bistveno prej. Raziskovalci (Griliches in ostali) so namreč imeli težave, da bi našli signifikanten in močan vpliv lastnih raziskav podjetij na njihove rezultate (rast produktivnosti itd.)*. Ta učinek je bil vedno zelo majhen, če je bil sploh statistično značilen. Zato so prišli na idejo, da je pomemben “družbeni učinek” in ne toliko “privatni učinek” vlaganj v raziskave. Zgodba je v tem, da če država ter vsa podjetja vlagajo v raziskave in razvoj, prihaja do nekaterih novih tehnoloških rešitev, ki morda niso takoj komercialno uspešna za posamezno podjetje, vendar pa predstavljajo pomembno “eksternalijo” za druga podjetja. Ostala podjetja se učijo od drugih ali že razvito idejo / rešitev, ki je nastala drugod, razvijejo naprej, kombinirajo z drugimi rešitvami in nekatera ultimativno pridejo do komercializacije, ki je za eno ali nekaj podjetij lahko zelo donosna. Kdo bo od teh vlaganj “profitiral”, ne vemo, vemo pa, da so ti “spillover učinki” (prelivanja znanja) zelo pomembni.

Paul Romer je to idejo “družbenih učinkov” raziskav in razvoja sredi 1980-ih let uporabil v svojem doktoratu in razvil koncept “endogene rasti”, za kar je pred leti dobil Nobelovo nagrado. Bistvo tega koncepta je, da čim več je podjetij, ki vlagajo v raziskave in razvoj, tem večji bo družbeni učinek teh raziskav, katerih učinki se prelivajo med podjetji, in tem višja bo gospodarska rast. Zato lahko tudi razvite države, ki več vlagajo v raziskave in razvoj, hitreje rastejo in ni nujno, da prihaja do učinka konvergence (zaradi padajoče mejne učinkovitosti fizičnega kapitala), da nerazvite države dohitevajo razvite (kot pravi koncept Solow-Swanovega modela eksogene rasti).

No, do te iste zgodbe so v zadnjem World Economic Outlooku prišli tudi fantje iz IMF, ki so v bistvu postavili trditev, ki sem jo dal v naslov. Pravijo, da rast produktivnosti presenetljivo že desetletja v razvitih gospodarstvih upada, kljub stalnemu povečevanju raziskav in razvoja (R&R), ki je pokazatelj prizadevanj za inovacije. Vendar pa njihova analiza kaže, da je za rast pomembna struktura raziskav in razvoja. Ugotovili so, da temeljne znanstvene raziskave vplivajo na več sektorjev, v več državah in dlje kot aplikativne raziskave (komercialno usmerjene raziskave podjetij), in da je dostop do tujih raziskav še posebej pomemben. Enostaven prenos tehnologije, čezmejno znanstveno sodelovanje in politike, ki financirajo temeljne raziskave, lahko spodbujajo inovacije, ki jih potrebujemo za dolgoročno rast. Torej, države morajo začeti več vlagati v temeljne raziskave in se odpreti za prenos tehnologije – z mednarodnim raziskovalnim sodelovanjem, prehajanjem raziskovalcev med državami itd.

Spodaj je nekaj odlomkov iz povzetka IMF na to temo. Priporočam branje.

Inventions draw on basic scientific knowledge

While applied research is important to bring innovations to market, basic research expands the knowledge base needed for breakthrough scientific progress. A striking example is the development of COVID-19 vaccines, which in addition to saving millions of lives has helped bring forward the reopening of many economies, potentially injecting trillions into the global economy. Like other major innovations, scientists drew on decades of accumulated knowledge in different fields to develop the mRNA vaccines.

Basic research is not tied to a particular product or country and can be combined in unpredictable ways and used in different fields. This means that it spreads more widely and remains relevant for a longer time than applied knowledge. This is evident from the difference in citations between scientific articles used for basic research, and patents (applied research). Citations for scientific articles peak at about eight years versus three years for patents.

Spillovers are important for emerging markets and developing economies

While the bulk of basic research is conducted in advanced economies, our analysis suggests that knowledge transfer between countries is an important driver of innovation, especially in emerging market and developing economies.

Emerging market and developing economies rely much more on foreign than homegrown research (basic and applied) for innovation and growth. In countries where education systems are strong and financial markets deep, the estimated effect of foreign technology adoption on productivity growth—through trade, foreign direct investment or learning-by-doing—is particularly large. As such, emerging market and developing economies may find that policies to adapt foreign knowledge to local conditions are a better avenue for development than investing directly in homegrown basic research.

We gauge this by looking at data on research stocks—measures of accumulated knowledge through research expenditure. As the chart shows, a 1-percentage-point increase in foreign basic knowledge increases annual patenting in emerging market and developing economies by around 0.9 percentage point more than in advanced economies.

Innovation is a key driver of productivity growth

Why does patenting matter? It’s a proxy for measuring innovation. An increase in the stock of patents by 1 percent can increase productivity per worker by 0.04 percent. That may not sound like much, but it adds up. Small increases over time improve living standards.

We estimate that a 10 percent permanent increase in the stock of a country’s own basic research can increase productivity by 0.3 percent. The impact of the same increase in the stock of foreign basic research is larger. Productivity increases by 0.6 percent. Because these are average numbers only, the impact on emerging markets and developing economies is likely to be even bigger.

Basic science also plays a larger role in green innovation (including renewables) than in dirty technologies (such as gas turbines), suggesting that policies to boost basic research can help tackle climate change.

Policies for a more buoyant and inclusive future

Because private firms can only capture a small part of the uncertain financial reward of engaging in basic research, they tend to underinvest in it, providing a strong case for public policy intervention. But designing the right policies—including determining how you fund research—can be tricky. For example, funding basic research only at universities and public labs could be inefficient. Potentially important synergies between the private and public sector would be lost. It may also be difficult to disentangle basic and applied private research for the sake of subsidizing only the former.

Our analysis shows that an implementable hybrid policy that doubles subsidies to private research (basic and applied alike) and boosts public research expenditure by a third could increase productivity growth in advanced economies by 0.2 percentage point a year. Better targeting of subsidies to basic research and closer public‑private cooperation could boost this even further, at lower cost for public finances.

These investments would start to pay for themselves within about a decade and would have a sizeable impact on incomes. We estimate that per capita incomes would be about 12 percent higher than they are now had these investments been made between 1960 and 2018.

Finally, because of important spillovers to emerging markets, it is also key to ensure the free flow of ideas and collaboration across borders.

Vir: IMF

________

* Pustimo ob strani, da ekonomisti ne znamo dobro “izračunati” (oceniti) vpliva raziskav in razvoja na rast. V neoklasično produkcijsko funkcijo lahko ob kapitalu in delu dodamo še delež vlaganj v raziskave in razvoj oziroma “neopredmeten kapital”, vendar je ocenjen koeficient zelo majhen, v primerjavi z vplivom kapitala in dela na rast produktivnosti. Nakar vpliv “tehnologije” poskušamo oceniti iz reziduala produkcijske funkcije, kar imenujemo Solow rezidual (po Robertu Solowu, ki je dobil Nobelovo nagrado za koncept eksogene rasti oziroma neoklasične produkcijske funkcije) oziroma “celotna faktorska produktivnost” (TFP), ki ga nekateri (Abramowitz) imenujejo  “our measure of ignorance”. Namreč ta rezidual je zgolj preostanek variance rasti produktivnosti, ki je ne moremo pojasniti z varianco rasti vložkov dela in kapitala. In če smo slabo izmerili kvaliteto zaposlenih ali kapitala (predvsem pri kapitalu imamo notorične težave, da ga sploh ne znamo, ne na mikro in še manj na makro ravni, pravilno izmeriti), smo dobili popačen rezidual (nepojasnjena varianca rasti produktivnosti) v produkcijski funkciji. In ta ocenjen koeficient TFP (tehnologije) iz reziduala produkcijske nam v bistvu zelo malo pove, sploh pa njegova dinamika v času.