Have you ever asked yourselves why it is that companies, the really cool companies, the innovative ones, the creative, new economy-type companies -- Apple, Google, Facebook -- are coming out of one particular country, the United States of America? Usually when I say this, someone says, "Spotify! That's Europe." But, yeah. It has not had the impact that these other companies have had.
Jeste li se ikad zapitali zašto poduzeća, stvarno cool poduzeća, inovativna, kreativna, poduzeća novog tipa ekonomije -- Apple, Google, Facebook -- sva dolaze iz jedne specifične države, Sjedinjenih Američkih Država? Obično kad to kažem, netko kaže: "Spotify! Oni su iz Europe!" Jesu, ali... nemaju utjecaj kakav imaju ova ostala poduzeća.
Now what I do is I'm an economist, and I actually study the relationship between innovation and economic growth at the level of the company, the industry and the nation, and I work with policymakers worldwide, especially in the European Commission, but recently also in interesting places like China, and I can tell you that that question is on the tip of all of their tongues: Where are the European Googles? What is the secret behind the Silicon Valley growth model, which they understand is different from this old economy growth model? And what is interesting is that often, even if we're in the 21st century, we kind of come down in the end to these ideas of market versus state. It's talked about in these modern ways, but the idea is that somehow, behind places like Silicon Valley, the secret have been different types of market-making mechanisms, the private initiative, whether this be about a dynamic venture capital sector that's actually able to provide that high-risk finance to these innovative companies, the gazelles as we often call them, which traditional banks are scared of, or different types of really successful commercialization policies which actually allow these companies to bring these great inventions, their products, to the market and actually get over this really scary Death Valley period in which many companies instead fail.
Ja sam ekonomistica i proučavam odnos između inovacija i ekonomskog rasta na razini poduzeća, industrije i države. Radim s kreatorima politika širom svijeta, posebno s Europskom komisijom, a odnedavno i sa zanimljivim mjestima poput Kine. Mogu reći da im je svima isto pitanje na vrhu jezika: Gdje su europski Googlevi? Koja je tajna rasta modela Silicijske doline, za koju smatraju da je drugačija od starog modela ekonomskog rasta? Zanimljivo je da mi često, čak i sada u 21. stoljeću, završimo na idejama poput tržište protiv države. O tome se razgovara na suvremene načine, ali ideja je da, nekako, iza mjesta poput Silicijske doline, stoje tajnovite, drugačije vrste marketinških mehanizama, privatne inicijative, bile one dinamičan sektor ulagatelja kapitala, koji je sposoban financirati takve visoke rizike ili inovativna poduzeća, gazele, kako ih često zovemo, kojih se tradicionalne banke boje, ili različiti načini prikupljanja sredstava koji omogućavaju tim poduzećima da predstave te velike izume, njihove proizvode tržištu i prevladaju zastrašujuće razdoblje u kojem mnoga poduzeća propadaju.
But what really interests me, especially nowadays and because of what's happening politically around the world, is the language that's used, the narrative, the discourse, the images, the actual words. So we often are presented with the kind of words like that the private sector is also much more innovative because it's able to think out of the box. They are more dynamic. Think of Steve Jobs' really inspirational speech to the 2005 graduating class at Stanford, where he said to be innovative, you've got to stay hungry, stay foolish. Right? So these guys are kind of the hungry and foolish and colorful guys, right? And in places like Europe, it might be more equitable, we might even be a bit better dressed and eat better than the U.S., but the problem is this damn public sector. It's a bit too big, and it hasn't actually allowed these things like dynamic venture capital and commercialization to actually be able to really be as fruitful as it could. And even really respectable newspapers, some that I'm actually subscribed to, the words they use are, you know, the state as this Leviathan. Right? This monster with big tentacles. They're very explicit in these editorials. They say, "You know, the state, it's necessary to fix these little market failures when you have public goods or different types of negative externalities like pollution, but you know what, what is the next big revolution going to be after the Internet? We all hope it might be something green, or all of this nanotech stuff, and in order for that stuff to happen," they say -- this was a special issue on the next industrial revolution -- they say, "the state, just stick to the basics, right? Fund the infrastructure. Fund the schools. Even fund the basic research, because this is popularly recognized, in fact, as a big public good which private companies don't want to invest in, do that, but you know what? Leave the rest to the revolutionaries." Those colorful, out-of-the-box kind of thinkers. They're often called garage tinkerers, because some of them actually did some things in garages, even though that's partly a myth. And so what I want to do with you in, oh God, only 10 minutes, is to really think again this juxtaposition, because it actually has massive, massive implications beyond innovation policy, which just happens to be the area that I often talk with with policymakers. It has huge implications, even with this whole notion that we have on where, when and why we should actually be cutting back on public spending and different types of public services which, of course, as we know, are increasingly being outsourced because of this juxtaposition. Right? I mean, the reason that we need to maybe have free schools or charter schools is in order to make them more innovative without being emburdened by this heavy hand of the state curriculum, or something. So these kind of words are constantly, these juxtapositions come up everywhere, not just with innovation policy.
Ono što me posebno zanima ovih dana, zbog onog što se u politici dešava širom svijeta, je priča koja se plete, rječnik koji se koristi, nameće, slike koje se stvaraju, stvarne riječi. Često nam se predstavlja riječima koje oslikavaju da je privatni sektor puno inovativniji jer je sposoban razmišljati kreativno. Dinamičniji su. Sjetite se zaista inspirativnog govora Stevea Jobsa diplomcima Sveučilišta Stanford 2005. kada je rekao da moramo biti gladni i ostati zaigrani da bismo bili inovativni. Dakle ovi tipovi su kao gladni, zaigrani i simpatični, zar ne? I na mjestima kao što je Europa, gdje smo više nepristrani, možda smo i bolje odjeveni i jedemo bolje nego u SAD-u, jedini je problem taj prokleti javni sektor. Malo je prevelik i nije dozvolio takve stvari poput dinamičnog ulaganja kapitala i komercijalizacije kako bi bili još profitabilniji. Pa čak i vrlo cijenjene novine, na neke od njih sam i pretplaćena, riječi koje koriste, znate, država je kao Levijatan. To čudovište s velikim ticalima. Vrlo su izražajni u svojim uvodnicima. Kažu: "Znate, država je nužna da popravi greške tržišta ili kad postoji javno dobro ili različiti tipovi negativnih utjecaja poput zagađenja, ali znate što, koja će sljedeća velika revolucija doći nakon interneta? Svi se nadamo da bi to moglo biti nešto zeleno, ili sva ta nanotehnološka čuda. Da bi se tako nešto dogodilo, oni kažu -- ovo je bilo posebno izdanje u vezi sa sljedećom industrijskom revolucijom -- oni dodaju, "država neka se drži osnova, dobro?" Financirajte infrastrukturu. Škole. Financirajte temeljna istraživanja jer je to široko prihvaćeno. Zapravo, kao veliko javno dobro koje privatna poduzeća ne žele investirati, vi se bavite time, ali znate što? Prepustite ostalo revolucionarima." Ti raznobojni, inovativni mislioci, često ih nazivamo izumiteljima iz garaže, jer su neki od njih nešto i napravili u garaži, iako je većina toga mit. Ono što zaista želim napraviti s vama, o Bože, još samo deset minuta, da još jednom razmislite o toj situaciji, jer ona ima vrlo značajne posljedice veće od politike inovacija, što je područje o kojem često razgovaram s političarima. Ima značajne posljedice, čak i uz čitavu tu ideju koju imamo o tome gdje, kada i zašto bismo trebali smanjiti javnu potrošnju i različite oblike javnih usluga koje su, kao što znamo, sve više izdvojene zbog takvog pogleda na situaciju. Razlog zbog kojeg trebamo besplatno školstvo, škole koje financira država jest da ljudi budu inovativniji, a ne opterećeni teškom rukom kurikuluma ili nečeg sličnog. Takvo korištenje riječi se ponavlja, takvi pogledi na situaciju su svugdje, ne samo u vezi inovacija.
And so to think again, there's no reason that you should believe me, so just think of some of the smartest revolutionary things that you have in your pockets and do not turn it on, but you might want to take it out, your iPhone. Ask who actually funded the really cool, revolutionary thinking-out-of-the-box things in the iPhone. What actually makes your phone a smartphone, basically, instead of a stupid phone? So the Internet, which you can surf the web anywhere you are in the world; GPS, where you can actually know where you are anywhere in the world; the touchscreen display, which makes it also a really easy-to-use phone for anybody. These are the very smart, revolutionary bits about the iPhone, and they're all government-funded. And the point is that the Internet was funded by DARPA, U.S. Department of Defense. GPS was funded by the military's Navstar program. Even Siri was actually funded by DARPA. The touchscreen display was funded by two public grants by the CIA and the NSF to two public university researchers at the University of Delaware. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, she's just said the word 'defense' and 'military' an awful lot," but what's really interesting is that this is actually true in sector after sector and department after department. So the pharmaceutical industry, which I am personally very interested in because I've actually had the fortune to study it in quite some depth, is wonderful to be asking this question about the revolutionary versus non-revolutionary bits, because each and every medicine can actually be divided up on whether it really is revolutionary or incremental. So the new molecular entities with priority rating are the revolutionary new drugs, whereas the slight variations of existing drugs -- Viagra, different color, different dosage -- are the less revolutionary ones. And it turns out that a full 75 percent of the new molecular entities with priority rating are actually funded in boring, Kafka-ian public sector labs. This doesn't mean that Big Pharma is not spending on innovation. They do. They spend on the marketing part. They spend on the D part of R&D. They spend an awful lot on buying back their stock, which is quite problematic. In fact, companies like Pfizer and Amgen recently have spent more money in buying back their shares to boost their stock price than on R&D, but that's a whole different TED Talk which one day I'd be fascinated to tell you about.
Kako bismo to promislili još jednom, a nema razloga da mi vjerujete, razmislite o nekima od najpametnijih, revolucionarnih stvari koje imate u džepovima i ne, nemojte ih uključivati, iako ih želite uzeti u ruku, vaš iPhone. Zapitajte se tko je financirao stvarno fora, revolucionarne, izvan okvira, dijelove u iPhoneu. One koji vaš telefon čine pametnim, za razliku od glupog? Internet, koji omogućava kretanje mrežom bilo gdje u svijetu; GPS, uz pomoć kojeg znate gdje ste bilo gdje u svijetu; ekran na dodir, koji omogućava da svi lako koristimo telefon. To su pametni, revolucionarni dijelovi iPhonea i sve ih je financirala vlada. Stvar je da je internet financirala DARPA, Američko ministarstvo obrane. GPS je financirao vojni Navstar program. Čak i Siri je financirala DARPA. Ekran na dodir su financirale CIA i NSF s dvije potpore dvama istraživačima na javnom sveučilištu Delaware. Vi sad možete pomisliti: "Upravo je puno puta rekla riječi "obrana" i "vojska". Ono što je zaista zanimljivo, to je istina za mnoge sektore, industrije i odjele. Farmaceutska industrija, za koju sam osobno vrlo zainteresirana jer sam imala sreću jako je dobro proučavati, je odličan primjer za pitanje o revolucionarnim i nerevolucionarnim pomacima jer svaki lijek može biti promatran ovisno o tome je li revolucionaran ili je donio samo malu promjenu. Novi molekularni spojevi s vrhunskom ocjenom su revolucionarni novi lijekovi, a male varijacije postojećih lijekova -- Viagra, različita boja, različita količina -- su malo manje revolucionarni. A važno je znati da se čitavih 75 posto novih molekularnih spojeva s vrhunskom ocjenom stvaraju u dosadnim, kafkijanskim laboratorijima javnog sektora. To ne znači da velika farmaceutska poduzeća ne troše na inovacije. Troše. Oni troše za njihovo reklamiranje. Oni troše na dio "razvoj" u "istraživanje i razvoj", troše jako puno na otkup vlastitih dionica, što je prilično problematično. Poduzeća poput Pfizera i Amgena su nedavno potrošile više novca na otkup vlastitih dionica kako bi im podigle cijenu nego na istraživanje i razvoj. To je jedan poseban TED govor koji ću vam jednog dana rado održati.
Now, what's interesting in all of this is the state, in all these examples, was doing so much more than just fixing market failures. It was actually shaping and creating markets. It was funding not only the basic research, which again is a typical public good, but even the applied research. It was even, God forbid, being a venture capitalist. So these SBIR and SDTR programs, which give small companies early-stage finance have not only been extremely important compared to private venture capital, but also have become increasingly important. Why? Because, as many of us know, V.C. is actually quite short-term. They want their returns in three to five years. Innovation takes a much longer time than that, 15 to 20 years. And so this whole notion -- I mean, this is the point, right? Who's actually funding the hard stuff? Of course, it's not just the state. The private sector does a lot. But the narrative that we've always been told is the state is important for the basics, but not really providing that sort of high-risk, revolutionary thinking out of the box. In all these sectors, from funding the Internet to doing the spending, but also the envisioning, the strategic vision, for these investments, it was actually coming within the state. The nanotechnology sector is actually fascinating to study this, because the word itself, nanotechnology, came from within government.
Zanimljivo je da je u svemu tome država, u svim ovim primjerima, radila puno više od samog popravljanja tržišta. Ona ga je oblikovala i kreirala. Ona je financirala ne samo temeljna istraživanja koja su tipično javno dobro, nego i primjenjena istraživanja. Ona je čak, Bože sačuvaj, i ulagač kapitala. Ovi SBIR i SDTR programi, kojima se financiraju mala poduzeća u ranim fazama razvoja, su ne samo izuzetno važni u usporedbi s privatnim ulagačkim kapitalom, nego su postali još važniji. Zašto? Zato što, kao što mnogi od vas znaju, privatni ulagači razmišljaju kratkoročno. Oni žele povrat ulaganja unutar tri do pet godina. Inovacije traju puno duže od toga, 15 do 20 godina. Cijeli taj pojam - u tome je stvar, zar ne? Tko financira zahtjevne projekte? Naravno, to nije samo država. Privatni sektor radi mnogo. Ali način na koji nam se to predstavlja je da je država važna za temeljna istraživanja i nije uključena u visoko rizično revolucionarno razmišljanje izvan okvira. U svim tim sektorima, od financiranja interneta, davanja novaca, ali i osmišljavanja strateške vizije za ta istraživanja, financiranje je radila država. Nanotehnološki sektor je fascinantni primjer za to, jer sama riječ, nanotehnologija je stigla iz Vlade.
And so there's huge implications of this. First of all, of course I'm not someone, this old-fashioned person, market versus state. What we all know in dynamic capitalism is that what we actually need are public-private partnerships. But the point is, by constantly depicting the state part as necessary but actually -- pffff -- a bit boring and often a bit dangerous kind of Leviathan, I think we've actually really stunted the possibility to build these public-private partnerships in a really dynamic way. Even the words that we often use to justify the "P" part, the public part -- well, they're both P's -- with public-private partnerships is in terms of de-risking. What the public sector did in all these examples I just gave you, and there's many more, which myself and other colleagues have been looking at, is doing much more than de-risking. It's kind of been taking on that risk. Bring it on. It's actually been the one thinking out of the box. But also, I'm sure you all have had experience with local, regional, national governments, and you're kind of like, "You know what, that Kafka-ian bureaucrat, I've met him." That whole juxtaposition thing, it's kind of there. Well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy. By talking about the state as kind of irrelevant, boring, it's sometimes that we actually create those organizations in that way. So what we have to actually do is build these entrepreneurial state organizations. DARPA, that funded the Internet and Siri, actually thought really hard about this, how to welcome failure, because you will fail. You will fail when you innovative. One out of 10 experiments has any success. And the V.C. guys know this, and they're able to actually fund the other losses from that one success.
To ima velike posljedice. Prije svega, ja nisam neka staromodna osoba koja zagovara različitost tržišta i države. Ono što svi znamo u dinamičnom kapitalizmu je da trebamo javno privatna partnerstva. No, zato što opisujemo državni dio kao nužan, ali zapravo -- pomalo dosadno i često opasno čudovište Levijatana, mi sprečavamo mogućnost stvaranja javno-privatnog partnerstva na zaista dinamičan način. Čak i riječi koje često koristimo za opravdanje javnog dijela u javno-privatnim partnerstvima služe za smanjenje rizika. Ono što je javni sektor učinio u svim tim primjerima koje sam upravo opisala, a primjera ima puno više, a moje kolege i ja ih proučavamo, oni služe za puno važnije svrhe od smanjenja rizika. Više je to preuzimanje rizika. Suočimo se s njim. To je stvarno razmišljanje izvan okvira. Sigurna sam da imate iskustva s lokalnom, regionalnom i državnom upravom i mislite kao: "Znaš, taj kafkijanski birokrat kojeg sam srela." Takva usporedba nam se nameće pa postoji samoispunjavajuće proročanstvo. Govoreći da je država nevažna, dosadna, mi ponekad oblikujemo javnu upravu takvom. Ono što trebamo raditi je graditi te poduzetničke državne organizacije. DARPA koja je financirala internet i Siri, naporno je razmišljala o tome kako se nositi s greškama jer greške će se dogoditi. Griješite kad ste inovativni. Jedan od 10 pokusa ima nekog uspjeha. I ulagači kapitala to znaju, i sposobni su financirati sve te gubitke iz tog jednog uspjeha.
And this brings me, actually, probably, to the biggest implication, and this has huge implications beyond innovation. If the state is more than just a market fixer, if it actually is a market shaper, and in doing that has had to take on this massive risk, what happened to the reward? We all know, if you've ever taken a finance course, the first thing you're taught is sort of the risk-reward relationship, and so some people are foolish enough or probably smart enough if they have time to wait, to actually invest in stocks, because they're higher risk which over time will make a greater reward than bonds, that whole risk-reward thing. Well, where's the reward for the state of having taken on these massive risks and actually been foolish enough to have done the Internet? The Internet was crazy. It really was. I mean, the probability of failure was massive. You had to be completely nuts to do it, and luckily, they were. Now, we don't even get to this question about rewards unless you actually depict the state as this risk-taker. And the problem is that economists often think, well, there is a reward back to the state. It's tax. You know, the companies will pay tax, the jobs they create will create growth so people who get those jobs and their incomes rise will come back to the state through the tax mechanism. Well, unfortunately, that's not true. Okay, it's not true because many of the jobs that are created go abroad. Globalization, and that's fine. We shouldn't be nationalistic. Let the jobs go where they have to go, perhaps. I mean, one can take a position on that. But also these companies that have actually had this massive benefit from the state -- Apple's a great example. They even got the first -- well, not the first, but 500,000 dollars actually went to Apple, the company, through this SBIC program, which predated the SBIR program, as well as, as I said before, all the technologies behind the iPhone. And yet we know they legally, as many other companies, pay very little tax back.
I to me dovodi do najveće posljedice koja nadmašuje inovaciju. Ako je država nešto više od čuvara tržišnih odnosa, ako, zapravo, oblikuje tržište, i radeći to mora preuzeti taj ogroman rizik, gdje je nestala nagrada? Svi znamo, ako ste ikad bili na financijskom tečaju, prva stvar koju vas nauče je povezanost rizika i nagrade. Neki su ljudi dovoljno ludi ili možda dovoljno pametni pa imaju vremena čekati pa investiraju u dionice koje imaju veći rizik koji će s vremenom donijeti veću nagradu od obveznica, to je čitava priča o nagradi za preuzimanje rizika. Pa gdje je onda nagrada za državu koja je preuzela taj ogroman rizik i bila dovoljno luda da osmisli internet? Internet je bio ludost. Zaista! Mogućnost propasti je bila ogromna. Trebali ste biti potpuno ludi da krenete u to, a srećom su i bili.. Mi niti ne dođemo do pitanja nagrađivanja, osim ako državu ne opišete kao nekog tko preuzima rizik. Problem je što ekonomisti često misle da postoji nagrada za državu i ona je u obliku poreza. Znate, poduzeća će platiti porez, radna mjesta koje će stvoriti će kreirati rast pa će ljudi koji će početi raditi i kojima će narasti plaća će uplaćivati natrag državi kroz porezni mehanizam. Nažalost, to je laž. Laž je, jer se mnoga radna mjesta otvaraju u inozemstvu. Globalizacija je pa je to u redu. Ne bismo smjeli biti nacionalisti. Pretpostavljam da radna mjesta treba pustiti da idu kud hoće. Mislim, o tome možete zauzeti stav, ali ta poduzeća koja su imala ogromnu korist od države -- Apple je odličan primjer. Dobili su prvu -- ne baš prvu, ali 500.000 dolara je dobilo poduzeće Apple kroz SBIC program, koji je prethodio SBIR programu za sve tehnologije potrebne za iPhone. A mi znamo da oni legalno, kao i mnoga druga poduzeća, plaćaju vrlo malo poreza.
So what we really need to actually rethink is should there perhaps be a return-generating mechanism that's much more direct than tax. Why not? It could happen perhaps through equity. This, by the way, in the countries that are actually thinking about this strategically, countries like Finland in Scandinavia, but also in China and Brazil, they're retaining equity in these investments. Sitra funded Nokia, kept equity, made a lot of money, it's a public funding agency in Finland, which then funded the next round of Nokias. The Brazilian Development Bank, which is providing huge amounts of funds today to clean technology, they just announced a $56 billion program for the future on this, is retaining equity in these investments. So to put it provocatively, had the U.S. government thought about this, and maybe just brought back just something called an innovation fund, you can bet that, you know, if even just .05 percent of the profits from what the Internet produced had come back to that innovation fund, there would be so much more money to spend today on green technology. Instead, many of the state budgets which in theory are trying to do that are being constrained. But perhaps even more important, we heard before about the one percent, the 99 percent. If the state is thought about in this more strategic way, as one of the lead players in the value creation mechanism, because that's what we're talking about, right? Who are the different players in creating value in the economy, and is the state's role, has it been sort of dismissed as being a backseat player? If we can actually have a broader theory of value creation and allow us to actually admit what the state has been doing and reap something back, it might just be that in the next round, and I hope that we all hope that the next big revolution will in fact be green, that that period of growth will not only be smart, innovation-led, not only green, but also more inclusive, so that the public schools in places like Silicon Valley can actually also benefit from that growth, because they have not.
Stoga trebamo razmisliti treba li nam možda mehanizam povrata novca koji je puno izravniji od poreza. Zašto ne? To može biti udio u vlasništvu. To u zemljama koje o tome strateški promišljaju, zemljama poput Finske u Skandinaviji, ali i Kini i Brazilu, one zadržavaju vlasništvo u tim investicijama. Sitra je financirala Nokiu, zadržala udio u vlasništvu, zaradila puno novca, to je javna agencije za financiranje, koja je onda financirala novu generaciju Nokija. Brazilska razvojna banka, koja danas daje na raspolaganje velika sredstva za čistu tehnologiju, upravo je najavila program vrijedan $56 milijardi u tu svrhu i zadržat će udio u vlasništvu u tim investicijama. Da to postavim provokativno, je li Vlada SAD-a mislila o tome da vrati dio novca kroz neki inovacijski fond? Možemo se kladiti da bi samo 0,05% profita od onoga što je proizvedeno zahvaljujući internetu koje bi se vratilo u taj inovacijski fond, iznosilo toliko puno novca kojeg bi mogli potrošiti na zelenu tehnologiju, umjesto da to financiramo iz državnog proračuna koji u teoriji pokušava to učiniti unutar svojih ograničenja. I nešto, možda, još važnije, čuli smo prije za taj jedan posto i 99 posto. Da je država o tome mislila na strateški način kao jedan od ključnih igrača u mehanizmu stvaranja vrijednosti, jer o tome se zapravo radi, zar ne? Tko su različiti igrači u stvaranju vrijednosti u nekoj ekonomiji i je li uloga države postavljena da ona bude rezervni igrač? Ako imamo širu teoriju kreiranja vrijednosti i dozvolimo si priznati što država radi i da bi trebala od toga nešto dobiti, možda ćemo u sljedećem krugu, i nadam se da se svi nadamo da će sljedeća velika revolucija biti zelena, da će to razdoblje rasta biti ne samo pametno, vođeno inovacijama, ili zeleno, već i uključujuće, tako da će škole u mjestima kao što je Silicijska dolina imati pogodnosti od tog rasta,
Thank you.
jer sad nemaju.
(Applause)
Hvala vam.