Government, Not the Private Sector, Leads Innovation?

 Mazzucato certainly raises some critical issues, yet tends to overlook the dangers and downsides of government-led innovation.

The state goes through different stages in its industrialization.  The role of state in economic development and innovation may differ accordingly.

Korea has heavily funded chaebols' innovation undertaking.  The bottom line is who has benefited most from this?

A few president including the current one have attempted to nurture SMEs and entrepreneurship, yet failed..  They don't seem to understand that it takes a systemic approach to do so.  It boils down to moral obligation and social responsibility as well as intellectual capacity.

It would be naive to undermine the complexity of political greed and big business interests involved in government-led innovation.

I have a lot to say about the role of state in innovation and entrepreneurship which is one of the major theses in my upcoming book .  I have addressed some on this blog and I'll do it again some other time.

From Naked Capitalism:

This video, in which economist Mariana Mazzucato discusses her book The Entrepreneurial State, explains how most of what you think you know about innovation is wrong. Innovation is not led by the private sector; it lacks the long term horizons and risk appetite to do so. Instead, the most innovative countries and regions have the state playing a very active role, not just in funding basic research or making sure markets work properly, as in limiting anti-competitive practices that can stymie new entrants. Instead, the state plays an active role along the entire value chain. One result of the wide-spread misperception that the private sectors deserves most of the credit is that businesses are able to skim a disproportionate level of the returns for themselves.

From the introduction to this interview with Marshall Auerback at the INET website,
Typically the private sector only finds the courage to invest in breakthrough technologies after a so-called “entrepreneurial state” has made the initial high-risk investments.
This can be seen today in the green revolution, the development of biotech and pharmaceutical industry, and the technological advancements coming out of Silicon Valley. Mazzucato argues that by not giving due credit to the state’s role in this process we are socializing the risks of investing, while privatizing the rewards.
So who benefits from the state’s role in the development of technology? Consider Apple’s iPhone and Google’s search engine. In both cases these extremely popular consumer products benefitted mightily from state intervention. For the iPhone, many of the revolutionary technologies that make it and similar devices “smart” were funded by the U.S. government, such as the global positioning system (or GPS), the touchscreen display, and the voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And for Google, the creation of its algorithm was funded by the National Science Foundation. Plus, of course, there’s the development of the Internet, another government funded venture, which enables the iPhone to be a valuable tool and makes Google searches possible.
But despite the fact that these companies directly benefitted from taxpayer-funded technologies, they and other high tech outfits have strategically “underfunded” the tax purse that helped lead to their success. This is a troubling development.
So how should the government recoup the benefits from the fruits of its research? And what role should the government play going forward in important areas such as clean tech? Mazzucato seeks to address these issues

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/government-private-sector-leads-innovation.html