Economics of Science Address to the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute Sinclair Davidson

Economics of Science

Address to the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute

Sinclair Davidson

Economics of Science

• Economic interest in Science:

– Science is a source of economic growth.

– This is an argument about innovation and R&D.

– Scientific labour markets.

– Science and the private/public good divide.

– “What goods and services should a community supply publicly through political-government processes rather than privately through market processes?” James Buchanan.

RMIT University © 2012 Economics, Finance & Marketing 2

Australian Investment

• Source: Health of Science Report















• Source: ABS Cat. 8112.0

•




• Source: ABS 8104.0 (various)



• Source: ABS Cat. 8112.0



2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

$m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m

Defence Science & Technology Organisation 293.9 314.4 349.1 406.0 401.0 427.3 433.0 438.6

CSIRO 568.6 577.1 593.9 610.1 663.1 675.8 726.8 780.8

Industry R&D Tax Concession 665.0 729.0 867.0 1,045.0 1,208.0 1,369.0 1,563.7 1,606.1

Australian Research Council 399.6 480.9 544.4 570.3 571.8 585.9 664.2 717.2

Performance Based Block Funding 1,215.2 1,223.7 1,271.2 1,282.4 1,270.4 1,282.1 1,146.9 1,007.9

NHMRC and Other Health 365.6 371.4 653.3 959.1 620.1 836.9 880.5 1,067.3

Other 2,145.8 1,526.2 1,723.1 1,744.4 1,947.7 1,988.2 2,994.7 3,305.6 TOTAL AUS TRALIAN GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 5,653.7 5,222.7 6,002.1 6,617.4 6,682.2 7,165.1 8,409.8 8,923.4 % Total Australian Government Expenditure 2.63% 2.28% 2.48% 2.55% 2.39% 2.21% 2.47% 2.59%


R&D as a Public Good

• Vannevar Bush

– Drove the huge growth in publicly funded science in the US.

– Promoted the linear model.


Francis Bacon and Adam Smith on innovation

• Linear Model (Francis Bacon)

Academic Science → Technology → Wealth

• Adam Smith

– Project Hindsight (1969)

– A US government analysis of 700 ‘research events’ in the development of 20 weapon systems

– 2 out of 700 were due to basic science.

Pre-existing Technology → New Technology → Wealth

↑↓

Academic Science



• Vannevar Bush

– Promoted the linear model.

– Drove the huge growth in publicly funded science in the US.

• Arrow (1962) associated with market failure.

– Indivisibility.

– Inappropriability.

– Uncertainty.

– Romano (1989), “In the frictionless perfectly competitive market, with no barriers to the use of information, the market will provide no R&D investment.”



• Public goods have two characteristics:

– Non-excludable (indivisible)

– This is a function of property rights

– Non-rival (inappropriable)

– This is function of technology

– Can be an innate part of the product

– Information is (usually) non-rival



Rival

Tragedy of the

Commons Pure Private Good

Non

-Exc

luda

ble

Pure Public Good Most R&D

Excludable

Non-Rival



• The legal system and intellectual property rights operate to exclude and protect R&D activity.

– Legal system may be over-excluding: Patent thickets and FTA with US, EU.

• R&D can be rival.– “have you cloned an organism recently? Or etched a silicon chip? Nor

have I.” Terence Kealey

• “Over time progressively fewer references have been made to the empirical evidence, and more to the standard theorems of welfare economics. Whilst it might be advantageous in the economics classroom to assume that basic science is instantly applicable and easily transferable, … such assumptions are empirically invalid, and have effectively restricted debate.” Keith Pavitt 1993

• R&D is not a public good.


What about uncertainty?

• The impact uncertainty has on the real economy, as opposed to theoretical analyses is oversold.

• “Actually, most economic actions are taken under conditions of imperfect knowledge and under circumstances where the outcome cannot be known with certainty. In this respect applied research does not differ from other forms of economic activity.” Gordon Tullock 1966.


The modern case for public science

• Science is a public good.

– Science will be underprovided by the market.

– Not Convinced.

• Science has positive externalities (spillover).

– Science is associated with market failure.

– Government can correct that failure by investing in science.

• Public science is an important part of the education system.

Basic Model


Basic Model



Basic Model

• How big is the gap?

– William Boumol: 80 percent

– Jones and Williams: 2 – 4 times current investment

• Is this plausible?

– Does the gap represent net or gross investment?

– Are these competitive or monopolistic firms?

• What about social costs?


Basic Model


Basic model is flawed

• Hayek’s Information Problem

– “how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know.”

– It is impossible for government to estimate the societal benefits from R&D in advance.

– The social benefit curve can only be established ex post.

• Buchanan’s Cost and Choice

– Choice-influencing cost is subjective, “that which the decision-maker sacrifices or gives up when he makes a choice.”

– “That which happens after choice is made is what economists seem to be talking about when they draw their cost curves on the blackboards and what accountants seem to be concerning themselves with.”

– The cost curves cannot be observed.



• Coase’s Black Board Economics

– “The analysis … floats in the air.”

– “This is, of course, blackboard economics, in which with full knowledge of the curves (which no participant in the actual economic process possesses), we move factors around (on the blackboard) so as to produce an optimal situation. This may well be a good way of teaching the tools of economic analysis but it gives students a very poor idea of what is normally involved in deciding on economic policy.”



• Adam Jaffe: “the extreme difficulty of observing the actual spillovers except anecdotally”.

• Zvi Griliches: “ideas borrowed by research teams of industry i from the research results of industry j.”

– What does it mean to ‘borrow’ an idea?

– Borrow – ‘obtain the temporary use of’



Possible Interpretation

of Borrowing an Idea

Does it Represent an

Externality and hence a

True Market Failure?

A More Accurate

Interpretation

Copy/Imitation of

another firm’s process

No Property Rights

Problem

Purchase No Voluntary Exchange

Purchase at less than

full factor cost

No Pecuniary External

Economy

Theft of Idea No Property Rights

Problem

Gift No Voluntary Exchange

Acquisition following

loss

No Property Rights

Problem

Acquisition following

abandonment

No Asymmetry in

perceived value



• Adam Jaffe: “the extreme difficulty of observing the actual spillovers except anecdotally”.

• Zvi Griliches: “ideas borrowed by research teams of industry i from the research results of industry j.”

– What does it mean to ‘borrow’ an idea?

– Borrow – ‘obtain the temporary use of’

• Richard Nelson: “External economies result from two facts: firstly, that research results often are of little value to the firm that sponsors the research, though of great value to another firm, and, secondly, that research results often cannot be quickly patented.”


When Should Government Fund Activity?

“… though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, [they] are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals.” Adam Smith 1776.

– advantageous

– could never repay the expense


When Should Government Fund Activity?

Private

Funding

Private

Funding

Pri

vate

Ret

urns

Cost of Private Funds

Nobody should

Fund

Public Funding

(Arrow)

Cost of Public Funds

Public Return

Source: Adapted from Kenneth M. Brown (1998, pg. 45).


What is the cost of public funds?

• Long-term government bond rate

– Should government pay the equity risk premium?

• Cost of private funds scaled up by deadweight costs of taxation.

– Deadweight costs of taxation may be very high!

– Henry Review

– Corporate income tax 40%

– Personal income tax 24%

– The notion that government funding is ‘cheaper’ than private sector funding is simply wrong.


What is the return to publicly funded research?

• This is a eleven billion dollar question.

• Estimated returns are very high

– Australian Research Council Study

– Top-Down approach = 50 percent pa (?)

– Bottom-Up approach = 39 percent over 4 – 10 years

• Problems

• Look-back Bias & Survivorship Bias

• Crowding out


What is the return to publicly funded research?

Category of Benefits Measured Benefits

Building the basic knowledge stock 10.0%

Generation of commercialisable intellectual property 3.0%

Improving the skills base 12.5%

Improved access to international research 7.5%

Better informed policy making 6.0%

Health, environmental and cultural benefit Not Measured

Source: Adapted from The Allen Consulting Group (2003, pg. 6).


Can government pick winners?

• Private sector performance:

– Edwin Mansfield et al. success rate = 13%

– Edwin Mansfield et al. success rate = 27%

– Thomas Astebro, median return = -7%

– Private sector is not very good

• Arthur M Diamond Jr.

– Chemistry papers from 1985 Science.

– ‘the most straightforward interpretation is that private funders are more successful than the government at identifying important research.’

• Brian Jacob and Lars Lefren (2007)

– Look at the impact of US National Institute of Health grants 1980 – 2000

– Result is one additional paper over five years.


Does Public Science lead to economic growth?

• OECD (2003) The sources of economic growth in OECD countries


Does Public Science lead to economic growth?

• “The negative results for public R&D are surprising and deserve some qualification. Taken at face value they suggest publicly-performed R&D crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private sector, including private R&D. There is some evidence of this effect in studies that have looked in detail at the role of different forms of R&D and the interaction between them.”


Myths of Public Science

• The Myth of Infinite Return: – There is a notion that money spent on science and innovation

automatically, at some point, translates into economic growth. – This is an argument about stocks and flows of knowledge.

• The Myth of Unfettered Research: – This myth argues that not only will basic research have some long-term

value, but any curiosity-driven research is likely to have some long-term value.

– This myth rejects any notion that public funding of science be subject to a cost-benefit analysis – the more public science the better.

• The Myth of Accountability:

– All researchers need do is deliver research that is ‘scientifically sound’. In other words, scientific excellence is social accountability.

– This myth suggests that because science is a self-regulating self-correcting process that it is best left to the scientists.

– This myth has been sorely tested over the ClimateGate emails scandal.



• The Myth of Authoritativeness:

– Contrary to the myth, science cannot resolve political controversy. The notion that politicians can simply make decision by recourse to ‘the facts’ is nonsense.

– Political controversy revolves around value-judgements and cost-benefit analysis, not just scientific fact.

– Scientists cannot predict the future any better than economists (who are pretty bad at it too).



• The Myth of the Endless Frontier:

– The myth that new knowledge has no moral consequence.

– Science should not push too far against societal mores.

– Greater danger for public science – private science has a profit motive and must find willing customers.

– Stem-cell research.

– Irrational hypocrites?

– Genetic slavery?

– Informed consent.

– Nelson and the rejected ARC grants.


Conclusion

• Government should only fund R&D as a consumer of research.

• R&D is not a public good.

• The costs of public funds are high.

• The returns to public R&D are low.

• Government is poor at picking winners.

• Public R&D has negative impact on economic growth.

• Standard economic model is flawed.


Conclusion

• This is a huge topic

– I have just scratched the surface

• It is not clear that government can achieve its stated objectives for public science

• To be blunt; it isn’t really a lot of money

– So should we do nothing?

– Tinker around the edges?

– Stop most of it now?


Suggested Reading

• Terence Kealey, 1996, The scientific laws of scientific research.

• Terence Kealey, 2009, Sex, science and Profits.

• Thomas Barlow, 2006, The Australian miracle.

• Sinclair Davidson, 2006, Back to basics, Institute of Public Affairs.

• Productivity Commission, Public support for science and innovation (chapter 4)

• Health of Australian Science report, available from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/health-of-australian-science-report-2/

• Daniel Sarewitz, 1996, Frontiers of illusion.

• Daniel Greenberg, 2001,Science, money, and politics.

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/health-of-australian-science-report-2/

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/health-of-australian-science-report-2/

Documents

Economics of Science Address to the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute Sinclair Davidson