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.
在座的各位有沒有問過自己, 為什麼那些 很酷的公司, 那些有創意、懂創新的 新經濟型的公司 — — 蘋果、 谷歌、臉書— — 都來自同一個國家 美國呢? 通常當我談到這一點時,有人會說, "Spotify!那是歐洲的公司。” (註:Spotify是瑞典起源的線上音樂平台) 但,不如剛才的那幾個公司有影響力
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.
我是一名經濟學家, 我所研究的是 在公司、 業界和國家層面上 創新和經濟增長之間的關係。 我與各國的政策制定者合作, 特別是歐盟委員會, 最近是在有趣的地方,如中國 我可以告訴你,我一開始問的那一問題 他們也都同樣問過 歐洲的谷歌在哪裡? 矽谷經濟模型的秘密是什麼? 他們的做法和 舊的經濟模型有何不同? 有趣的是, 即使我們現在處於 21 世紀, 我們多少會得出 市場和政府相對抗的思維。 這被認為是現代(市場運作)方式。 然而像矽谷的地方, 秘密反而是不同的市場開拓機制。 私人融資,不管這個是否 關於動態風險投資範疇, 實際上這些創新型公司 都能夠得到高風險融資。 被稱為「羚羊企業」的這些領軍公司所需要的融資 是那些傳統銀行所害怕接手的。 另外,不同類型的一些頗有成效的 商業化政策實際上允許這些公司 把他們絕妙的發明、他們的產品 直接推向市場,實際上得以 安然度過可怕的「死亡谷」時期。 其他的很多公司卻在這個時期一敗塗地。
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.
特別是現在, 源於世界上的政治動向, 真正讓我感興趣的是 (商業中)使用的語言、敘述方法、 話語、 圖像和實際使用的詞彙。 所以我們常常聽到 諸如私營部門之類的詞彙 都是更有新意的,因為它能 跳出慣常的思維, 更具有活力。 回想史蒂夫 · 賈伯斯 於2005年在史丹佛大學給畢業生做的演講。 他當時說: 要有創新精神, 求知若飢,虛心若愚。 對吧?這些人都是些如饑似渴、 懵懵懂懂又個性鮮明的傢伙,對吧? 在像歐洲這樣的地方 社會更公平, 甚至比美國人穿得更講究, 吃得更好。 但問題是討厭的公共部門。 它們太龐大了,它實際上沒法讓 像動態風險資本 和商業化這樣能夠結出 商業碩果的事物存在。 即使那些很受人推崇的報紙, 有些我也有訂閱, 你知道的,他們把 美國形容成「利維坦大怪獸」。對吧? (譯註:利維坦是聖經中的一種獸) 有著巨大觸角的怪獸。 他們在社論裡非常明確地這樣說。 他們說,"你知道,美國有必要 去修復這些小小的市場失靈。 當你擁有公共物資 或那些負面的外部因素比如污染時。 你知道嗎,在資訊網絡之後 下一次的大革命是什麼嗎? 我們都希望它可能是一場綠色的革命。 或者是奈米技術,而要成功達成" 這是關於下一次工業革命的特殊議題 — 他們說,"政府就是要專注於基礎,對吧? 投資於基礎設施和學校建設 也投資於基礎科學研究,因為這是 公眾的共識。事實上,私人公司不想為 大型的公共設施投資。 這是國家需要做的,你知道嗎? 然後把剩下的(市場)留給革新者。" 那些個性鮮明、不拘一格的革新家, 通常被稱為車庫發明家。 因為他們中確實有人是在車庫裡工作的, 即使這些故事都被傳成神話了。 所以我想和你們講的是,天哪, 只剩10 分鐘了! (我要講的)是我們要再考量(政府和市場的)並行 因為這種並行有非常非常巨大的影響力, 甚至超越了在某些地區 我合作的決策者 的創新政策之上。 它有非常巨大的影響,甚至影響到整個國家的決策 我們在何時、何地、為什麼 要削減公共開支 和其他公共服務部門的開支。 當然,正是由於這種並行,一些公共服務部門的工作 已經被更多的外包出去了。 對吧?我是說,我們需要有公立學校或特許學校 通過國民必修課程等重要手法 把孩子們培養成為創新型人才。 所以這些詞彙的出現都是有一致性的, 不僅與創新政策有關, 這種並行簡直無處不在。
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.
所以,再回過頭來想, 你們不需要相信我, 就想想你口袋裡的一些最絕妙的 創新產品吧。 不要打開開關喲。你就拿出來看看你的iPhone吧。 你會問到底是誰給iPhone那些非常酷的 革新性、突破性的 技術投資的。 到底是什麼讓你的電話 基本上成了智慧手機, 而不僅僅是一個粗劣的手機呢? 通過網際網路,你可以在世界上的 任何地方上網。 通過GPS,你可以明確地知道 自己在世界的某個地方。 觸控螢幕,使手機真正變成 任何人都可以輕鬆學會使用的手機。 iPhone 這些非常巧妙的、革新性的部分 其實全部都是由政府資助的。 也就是,網際網路是由 DARPA 美國國防部資助的。 全球定位系統(GPS) 是由軍方的 Navstar專案出資的。 甚至語音控制功能(Siri) 都實際上是由 DARPA資助的。 觸屏顯示是 由兩個國家部門: 中情局(CIA) 和國家科學基金會(NSF) 資助美公立大學特拉華大學 的兩位科研人員而開發出來的。 現在,您會想,"好吧,她只不過是講了好幾遍的 '國防' 和 '軍事' 什麼的。" 有趣的是,這些都是事實。 就是由國家的一個又一個的部門, 一個又一個的直屬單位來做的。 我個人對製藥業非常感興趣。 因為我比較幸運地能夠 深入地研究了這一行。 一個很有趣的問題是關於 革新型和非革新型的藥物。 因為每種藥物都實際上可以 被分為革新型或者改進型。 有優先等級的新分子藥物 是革新型藥物。 而對原有藥物進行細微改進的— 比如威而鋼,改變藥物顏色、 改變藥物劑量 — 這就屬於非革新型藥物了。 結果足足 75%的 優先評級的新分子藥物 都實際上是由,老掉牙的 Kafkian 公共部門實驗室提供資金。 這並不意味著大型製藥公司 不把錢花費在創新上。 他們也這樣做。 他們也往市場行銷這一部分投錢。 他們往 R&D(研究發展) 的 D 部分(發展)投錢。 他們花費相當多的資金來購回自己的股票, 這是很有問題。 事實上,輝瑞和安進這樣的大公司 最近為了抬高他們的股票價格, 花在購買他們自家股票的資金 遠遠超過他們花在研發上的資金。 這涉及了一個完全不同的 TED 演講主題, 有一天我會很高興講給你們聽的。
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.
現在,在所有新研發的例子裡,最有趣的是 美國這個國家, 所做的要比單純修復市場失靈多得多。 它實際上是在塑造和創造市場。 它不僅給基本研究投資, 那是典型的公共利益。 也給了應用研究投資。 而且天吶,它甚至成了風險資本家。 這些小型企業研發資金專案(SBIR和SDTR) 給小型公司提供早期的財政支援。 跟私人風險資本來投資比起來, 對於小企業這是非常非常重要的。 而且變得越來越重要。 為什麼呢?因為,我們很多人都知道, 私人風險投資(V.C.) 實際上是相當短期的行為。 他們想在三至五年內得到回報。 可是創新需要比那更長的時間, 15 到 20 年。 這就是整個的概念 — 這是重點,對吧? 誰實際上在給研發難題提供資金? 當然,不僅僅是政府。 私人部門也做了很多。 但是事實總是告訴我們 政府對於奠定研發的基礎非常重要。 但是它並不是那種高風險的 革新性創意本身。 所有這些公共部門,他們從資助網際網路 到負擔期間的花費。他們甚至提供預想階段和 戰略設想階段的資金支援。 這些資金實際上都是來自於政府。 奈米技術部門很醉心於 這項研究,因為奈米技術這個詞彙本身 就是政府部門取的。
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.
當然它會帶來巨大的影響。 首先,當然我不是那些 守舊的認為「市場和政府相對抗」的人。 我們對動態資本主義的理解就是 我們確實需要「公共與私人」這樣的夥伴關係。 但問題是,政府部門通常被描述成 一個必要的存在, 但實際上 (噗) 這有點呆板 而且是一個會帶來危險的利維坦。 我想我們真的被阻擾 以一種真正動態的方式 去建立「公共-私人」夥伴關係的可能性。 我們經常為 "P" 的部分辯解,公共(public) 其實,如果說到去風險化, 這可是兩個 P 公共(public)私人(private)夥伴關係。 在我給大家的講的這些例子裡,以及其他更多的領域裡 公共部門的作用 是我和其他的同事都很關心的。 公共部門的作用不僅僅是去風險化這一點作用。 公共部門也在承擔風險,勇往直前。 它實際上也成了創新科技的一部分。 但同時,我確定你們都和 地方級、 區域級以及國家級的政府打過交道。 你會說,"你知道吧,我見過那個Kafkian的官僚。“ 整個並行的關係其實一直都有的。 那麼,有個自我實現的預言 是在講國家是不相干的, 有時是無趣的 是我們自己把這些組織機構搞成這個樣子的。 所以我們現在要做的就是 把這些國家政府機構建成創業型機構。 資助網際網路和語音控制系統 Siri 的 DARPA 實際上對風險投資深思熟慮過, 如何迎接失敗呢,因為你總會有失敗的。 你如果勇於創新,肯定有失敗的時候。 10次實驗中的一次也許會有成功。 搞風險投資的人當然知道這些。 他們其實願意為那些有過一次成功的 失敗者提供資金。
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.
而這實際上讓我覺得 有非常大的意義。 這個意義已經超過了創新科技的巨大影響。 國家政府不僅僅有市場修復的功能, 而且有塑造市場的功能。 因此,政府需要在創新科技上冒大險 那麼回報是什麼呢? 如果你上過金融課,你會知道 你學到的第一課 就大概是風險與報酬的關係, 因此有些人愚蠢至極 或者說聰明至極,他們把時間花在 投資股票上,因為股票的風險高 所以隨之而來的報酬也自然高。 這就是所說的風險報酬的關係。 政府在創新科技上 冒了如此大的風險,那麼報酬在哪裡? 政府搞什麼網際網路,是不是傻過了頭? 網際網路是瘋狂的。 的確是。我的意思說,它帶來的失敗可能是巨大的。 你一定得是個傻子才去給它投資。 幸運的是,他們是傻子。 現在,我們還沒提到報酬這事兒呢。 除非你把美國政府描繪成風險容忍者。 問題是經濟學家們往往認為, 政府當然有報酬呀,那些稅收呀。 你知道,公司當然會交稅, 他們創造就業機會,稅收自然會增長。 人們得到那些工作,他們的工資得到提高, 然後通過交納稅款回報政府。 可遺憾的是,事實並非如此。 是的,事實不是這樣的,因為許多就業的崗位在國外。 全球化,這沒問題。我們不應該持國家主義態度。 也許我們就應該 讓這些工作崗位安置在合適的地方。 我是說,總有人會受雇。 但這些公司 其實從政府那兒得到了巨大的好處。 蘋果就是一個很好的例子。 他們甚至是第一,好吧,也許不是第一, 但是他們確實通過SBIC計畫 得到了50萬美元的資助。 該計畫早於後來的SBIR計畫。 同樣,我說的,iPhone背後的所有技術也來自那裡。 但是我們知道在法律上, 和其他公司一樣,蘋果公司只需要上繳很少的稅款。
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.
所以我們確實需要重新思考的是 也許需要有一個利潤回報機制 讓這些公司回報比稅款更多的資金給政府。 為什麼不呢? 也許可以通過發行股票的方式。 順便說一下,其他國家 實際上也在考慮使用這樣的方法。 比如說斯堪的納維亞半島上的芬蘭 還有中國和巴西。 他們的政府持有這些創新公司的股票。 希特拉投資諾基亞,持有股票,賺了很多錢, 它是芬蘭的一個公共投資機構。 它後來又資助了諾基亞的下一代產品。 巴西開發銀行 現在提供大量資金 去開發清潔技術。他們剛剛宣佈了 一個對未來清潔技術的 560 億資助計畫。 他們會保有這些發明的上市股票。 把它說得誘人些, 美國政府完全可以考慮 通過一些所謂的創新基金 得到更多的回報。 你知道嗎,你完全可以打賭,如果僅僅 0.05% 由網際網路帶來的收益 回報給創新基金的話, 會有更多的錢 可以投資到綠色科技上。 可是,許多政府預算 想這麼去做的, 可是資金有限。 但或許更重要的是, 我們之前聽過 1% 99%。 如果美國政府能夠更有戰略眼光, 成為創造價值機制的主導者該有多好。 這就是我們在討論的重點,對吧? 誰在市場經濟中充當創造價值的特殊一員? 考慮到政府的作用, 政府是不是成了市場經濟中的候補隊員了? 實際上,如果我們有一個更廣義的 創造價值理論,我們可以允許 政府對科技投資,以期回報。 也許下一輪的科技創新時,我們就可以這樣做。 我希望我們期待的下一個巨大變革 會真的是綠色革命。 那個時期的經濟增長, 不僅是智慧的、 創新主導的、 不僅是綠色的,更應該是包容的, 這樣,像在矽谷的那些公立學校 就可以從經濟增長中直接受益。 但是他們還沒有受益。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)