Is It Government, Not the Private Sector, That Leads Real Innovation?

So what if all the rhetoric you've heard about business being the font of innovation was a bunch of baloney (itself an innovation in affordable food)? And what if all that stuff about government stifling innovation was total poppycock (derivation as to impact on innovation unknown)?

What if, instead, government was actually a font of innovation without which much of the way in which our current economy works - including some of the basic operational principles through which that smart phone on which you are probably reading this - were actually invented and/or funded by government fulfilling its role as a way of making the lives of its citizens better?

Yeah, what if?

The question going forward is what role government should continue to play - less, more, about the same - and to what degree should the benefits of that state-sponsored innovation flow to private citizens rather than corporations as it mostly has up to now? JL

Yves Smith comments in Naked Capitalism:

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
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.
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 in this interview.