Economics of Technology – Page 104

R&D Stats Better; But Still Omit a Lot of Innovation

GDPgrowthWithR&Dgraph.gif Source of graphic: online version of WSJ article cited below.

Note well Romer’s caveat below that, although we may be measuring better, we are still not measuring Schumpeterian innovations (such as the Wal-Mart innovations that are vastly increasing the efficiency of retailing).

That research and development makes an important contribution to U.S. economic growth has long been obvious. But in an important advance, the nation’s economic scorekeepers declared they can now measure that contribution and found that it is increasing.

. . .

Since the 1950s, economists have explained economic output as the result of measurable inputs. Any increase in output that can’t be explained by capital and labor is called "multifactor productivity" or "the Solow residual," after Robert Solow, the Nobel Prize-winning economist considered the father of modern growth theory.

From 1959 to 2002, this factor accounted for about 20% of U.S. growth. From 1995 to 2002, when productivity growth accelerated sharply, that grew to about 33%. Accounting for R&D would explain about one-fifth, by some measures, of the productivity mystery. It suggests companies have been investing more than the official data had previously shown — a good omen for future economic growth. "The slump in investment is not as drastic as people thought before they saw these figures," says Dale Jorgenson, professor of economics at Harvard University.

Mr. Jorgenson noted a lot of the multifactor productivity growth remains unexplained. "The great mystery of growth . . . is not eliminated."

Paul Romer, an economics professor at Stanford Business School, said the better the measurements of R&D become, the more economists and policy makers will realize other factors may be more important. "If you look at why we had rapid productivity growth in big-box retailing, there were lots of intangibles and ideas that . . . don’t get recorded as R&D."

For the full story, see:

GREG IP and MARK WHITEHOUSE. "Why Economists Track Firms’ R&D; Data on Knowledge Creation Point to an Increasing Role In Domestic Product Growth." Wall Street Journal (Fri., September 29, 2006): A2.

(Note: The slightly different online version of the title is: "Why Economists Track Firms’ R&D; Data on Knowledge Creation Point to an Increasing Role In Domestic Product Growth.")

(Note: ellipses in Jorgenson and Romer quotes, in original; ellipsis between paragraphs, added.)

Sulfa: First Antibiotic Was Pursued for Profit

Source of the book image: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1400082137.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V52133117_.jpg

Economists have debated whether patents mainly provide incentives, or obstacles, to innovation. In the story of the development of sulfa, the first powerful antibiotic, the desire for profit, through patents, was one motive that drove an important part of the development process; this, even though, in the end, sulfa turned out not to be patentable:

(p. P9) Mr. Hager follows a group of doctors into postwar German industry — specifically into the dye conglomerate IG Farben. These men, having witnessed horrible deaths by infection on the battlefield, picked up on Ehrlich’s hypothesis by trying to synthesize a dye that specifically stained and killed bacteria. Led by the physician-scientist Gerhard Domagk, they brought German know-how, regimentation and industry to the enterprise.

Year after year the team infected mice with streptococci, the bacteria responsible for so many deadly infections in humans. The researchers then treated the mice with various dyes but had to watch as thousands upon thousands of them died despite such treatment. Nothing seemed to work. The 1920s turned into the ’30s, and still Domagk and his team held to Ehrlich’s idea. There was simply no better idea around.

Then one of the old hands at IG Farben mentioned that he could get dyes to stick to wool and to fade less by attaching molecular side-chains containing sulfur to them. Maybe what worked for wool would work for bacteria by making the dye adhere to the bacteria long enough to kill it.

. . .

The IG Farben conglomerate expected huge profits from Prontosil. But then French scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris dashed these dreams. The German scientists — all of them Ehrlich disciples — thought that the power to cure infection rested in the dye, with the sulfa side-chain merely holding the killer dye to the bacteria. The scientists at the Pasteur Institute, though, showed that the sulfa side-chain alone worked against infection just as well as the Prontosil compound. In fact, the dye fraction of the compound was useless. You could have Ehrlich’s magic bullet without Ehrlich’s big idea! This bombshell rendered the German patents worthless. The life-saver "drug" turned out to be a simple, unpatentable chemical available in bulk everywhere.

For the full review, see:

PAUL MCHUGH. "BOOKS; Medicine’s First Miracle Drug." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., September 30, 2006): P9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

The reference for the book is:

Thomas Hager. The Demon Under The Microscope. Harmony, 340 pages, $24.95

Maybe Fewer Women Engineers Because Fewer Women Want to Be Engineers?

I’ve slogged through enough reports from the National Academy of Sciences to know they’re often not shining examples of the scientific method. But — call me naïve — I never thought the academy was cynical enough to publish a political tract like “Beyond Bias and Barriers,” the new report on discrimination against female scientists and engineers.

. . .

I consulted half a dozen of these experts about the report, and they all dismissed it as a triumph of politics over science. It’s classic rent-seeking by a special-interest group that stands to get more money and jobs if the recommendations are adopted.

“I am embarrassed,” said Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, “that this female-dominated panel of scientists would ignore decades of scientific evidence to justify an already disproved conclusion, namely, that the sexes do not differ in career-relevant interests and abilities.”

. . .

After decades of schools pushing girls into science and universities desperately looking for gender diversity on their faculties, it’s insulting to pretend that most female students are too intimidated to know their best interests. As Science magazine reported in 2000, the social scientist Patti Hausman offered a simple explanation for why women don’t go into engineering: they don’t want to.

“Wherever you go, you will find females far less likely than males to see what is so fascinating about ohms, carburetors or quarks,” Hausman said. “Reinventing the curriculum will not make me more interested in learning how my dishwasher works.”

For the full commentary, see:

JOHN TIERNEY. "Academy of P.C. Science." The New York Times (Tues., September 26, 2006): A23.

(Note: the title of the online version was "Academy of P.C. Sciences.")

(Note: ellipses added.)

“Work Alone”

Source of book image: http://www.mactime.ru/Environ/WebObjects/mactime.woa/2/wa/Main?textid=6114&level1=mactimes&wosid=b2qk07iEkIh6GoutH7IbVg

Many scholars interpret Schumpeter as believing that large firms would increasingly become the main source of innovation. Scherer, Christensen, and many others, have provided plenty of reason to doubt this belief. Here is another reason, from one of the innovators who helpted bring us the personal computer:

What emerges in "iWoz" is a chatty memoir full of surprises. Yes, Mr. Wozniak cherishes workbench minutiae, such as his tips for connecting circuitry wires. But he also sees this book as a chance to cut through cliché and explain himself to a larger audience. He reveals a technology pioneer who is more charming and annoying — and whose life is more poignant — than we expected.

. . .

As Apple roared ahead, going public in 1980 and then becoming one of the 500 largest U.S. companies, Mr. Wozniak’s golden moment came to an end. New products weren’t developed anymore by a brilliant prankster working with barely any sleep. There were now teams, committees and market studies.

Mr. Wozniak by his own account didn’t like these changes, and he didn’t want to rise into senior management. He hung on at Apple as a lone engineer — and he says he still collects a tiny paycheck from the company — but from the mid-1980s onward turned his attention to other things.

. . .

Fortunately, Mr. Wozniak finishes strong. In his final chapter, he offers a bit of advice to gifted engineers: "Work alone." Big companies tend to stifle innovation, he explains. It’s lonely and risky to work solo. No matter. "Man, it will be worth it in the end," he writes. His life bears out the truth of that simple claim.

For the full review, see:

GEORGE ANDERS. "BOOKS; Technostalgia; Steve Wozniak looks back on the computer revolution and his role as Apple’s co-founder." Wall Street Journal (Sat., September 30, 2006): P8.

(Note: ellipses added.)

The reference to the book by Wozniak:

Steve Wozniak, with Gina Smith. iWoz Norton, 2006. 313 pages, $25.95.

Steve Jobs at left, and Steve Wozniak at right, in San Francisco in 1977. Source of photo: online version of the WSJ article cited above.

Sprint to Risk Billions on New Infrastructure

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article cited below.

If Sprint bets on WiFi, they’re betting with their money; if the government bets on WiFi, they’re betting with your money. If Sprint succeeds, thereby benefiting the consumer, at no risk to the consumer, the consumer should not object to their earning huge profits.

Note also, that this is a plausble candidate for a firm trying to follow Clayton Christensen’s advice to try to disrupt itself. (And see the comment at the end, for someone who hasn’t read Christensen, or doesn’t believe what he has read.)

Analysts say building a nationwide WiMax network could cost Sprint between $1 billion and $4 billion, a hefty sum for a company that is already struggling to meet Wall Street’s expectations. Sprint said it expects to invest $1 billion on the project in 2007 and between $1.5 billion and $2 billion in 2008.

Sprint’s decision carries considerable risks: Investors have hammered telecom companies that have made large capital investments in new technologies, banking on future markets to emerge. For example, among other things, Verizon Communications Inc.’s stock has been under fire as the company is rolling out a costly new fiber optic network that it says will position the company to deliver a bundled TV, Internet, and phone service. Also, WiMax technology is still untested on a large scale.

Sprint is making a huge bet that consumer demand for wireless Internet access and services such as cellphone downloads of music and video will continue to grow in the coming years. Consumers already can get access to wireless Internet service at Wi-Fi "hotspots" in airports and coffee shops, and some cities, like Anaheim, Calif., are blanketing their terrain with Wi-Fi connections.

. . .

. . . , some analysts and industry experts question why the company is gearing up for such a major capital investment when it is already even or ahead the other top U.S. carriers, Verizon and Cingular Wireless, when it comes to data services. "Why compete against yourself? It doesn’t make a lot of sense at this point," said Mike Thelander, principal analyst at Signals Research Group who predicted several weeks ago that Sprint would choose WiMax.

For the full story, see:

AMOL SHARMA and DON CLARK. "Sprint Bets on New Wireless ‘WiMax’." Wall Street Journal (Tues., August 8, 2006): B1-B2.

(Note: the above passages are from the online version, which was later, and less tentative about Sprint’s intentions, than the print version.)

(Note: ellipses added.)

Tech Bubble Caused Much of 1990s Inequality Increase

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article cited below.

It is widely recognized that income inequality increased in the 1990’s, but nobody knows quite why. Despite the lack of hard evidence, there are plenty of theories.

. . .

Two University of Texas researchers, James K. Galbraith and Travis Hale, added an interesting twist to this debate in a paper, “Income Distribution and the Information Technology Bubble” (utip.gov.utexas.edu/abstract.html#UTIP27).

According to Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Hale, much of the increase in income inequality in the late 1990’s resulted from large income changes in just a handful of locations around the country — precisely those areas that were heavily involved in the information technology boom.

. . .

A big advantage of looking at county data is that it is possible to identify counties that contributed the most to the increase in income inequality from 1994 to 2000. It turns out that the five biggest winners in this period were New York; King County, Wash. (with both Seattle and Redmond); and Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco, Calif., the counties that make up Silicon Valley. The five biggest losers were Los Angeles; Queens; Honolulu; Broward, Fla.; and Cuyahoga, Ohio.

What do the counties in the first list have in common? Their economies were all heavily driven by information technology in the late 90’s. This is true for the rest of the list of winners as well. Harris, Tex. (home to Houston and Enron); Middlesex, Mass. (home to Harvard and M.I.T.); Fairfield, Conn.; Alameda, Calif.; and Westchester, N.Y., were also among the top 10 income gainers in this period.

The authors point out that half the 80 American companies in the CNET Tech Index are in those top 10 counties. Furthermore, when income inequality decreased after 2000, the income drop in the high-tech counties contributed most to the decline.

For the full commentary, see:

HAL R. VARIAN. "ECONOMIC SCENE; Many Theories on Income Inequality, but One Answer Lies in Just a Few Places." The New York Times (Thurs., September 21, 2006): C3.

Markets, Not Courts, Should Decide Intel Market Share

Intel executives, coming up on a pre-trial conference in a case that could decide their company’s fate, should be looking with envy and admiration at Tiger Woods, and wondering how to make their business more like his.

If golf followed the same path as other businesses, Tiger could expect to face a lawsuit contending that his dominance of professional golf is based on unfair competition. And in fact, a few years back Sergio Garcia whined that Tiger got better practice times, favorable treatment around the course, more protection against distracting fans — little things that could, Mr. Garcia intimated, explain Tiger’s edge. Sportswriters responded swiftly, deriding Mr. Garcia for looking to blame others for his being outcompeted. They understood that sports contests belong on the field, not in the media or the courts.

The same should be true of business. Market-based economies thrive on competition. The competitive economy doesn’t yield an infinite number of equally successful firms producing indistinguishable products, but lets winners and losers emerge from marketplace competition. The (inevitably) temporary dominance of one product or one firm spurs others to compete harder. Today, however, many businesses — especially American ones — find it easier to restrain a dominant competitor through the courts than to beat it in the market.

Take the case of Advanced Micro Devices and Intel, the dominant chipmaker for PCs and servers. AMD for years played the role of Phil Mickelson to Intel Corporation’s Tiger Woods — the talented rival who keeps coming up short in head-to-head competition. Last year, it decided to model Mr. Garcia rather than Mr. Mickelson, filing an antitrust action against Intel, charging it with a variety of unlawful actions.

. . .

AMD finds fault in Intel’s continued market dominance: Because Intel has had 80% or more of the x86 chip processor market for many years it must be doing something illegal to keep rivals out. Yet, George Stigler, among others, long ago debunked the significance of market share as a measure of competition. Duopoly markets, like the market for large commercial aircraft, can be fiercely competitive. Ask anyone working at Boeing or Airbus.

Moreover, markets can change rapidly, especially high-tech markets, often in ways unanticipated by antitrust suits. Witness the changes in computing that caused the government’s antitrust case against IBM to implode.

For the full commentary, see:

RON CASS. "RULE OF LAW; Tigers by the Tail." Wall Street Journal (Sat., September 23, 2006): A7.

Europe’s Antitrust Policies Based on “Pathological Revulsion” to Creative Destruction

One of the EU’s findings is that Microsoft uses its desktop dominance to capture the market for Web server software, and now the EU further charges Microsoft with failing to honor its ruling. So Microsoft’s takeover of serverware proceeds apace? Er, Brussels we have a problem.

At last count, Apache-Linux had 62% of the market, Windows 25%, with various others capturing smaller slices. True, Microsoft saw a nearly five-point increase in market share last quarter thanks to GoDaddy.com shifting its 3.5 million hosted sites from Linux to Windows. Maybe the EU should subpoena GoDaddy on grounds that for Microsoft to compete successfully for a customer is illegal.

The other pillar of Europe’s case is Microsoft’s alleged ability to foreclose the market to rival media-playing software. This week, EU lawyers are trying to swat down the inconvenient fact that, since their ruling, Apple’s iTunes and Macromedia’s Flash Player have carved out big niches for themselves. The Apple example is worth inspecting up close. It demonstrates that people don’t buy computers to run software, but to consume information and entertainment "content." Apple gave them the music they wanted, and its software easily found a home on their computers.

Yet the EU simply rejects the example as irrelevant because it doesn’t fit its mental category about what constitutes a "media player." More than stupid — this suggests a pathological revulsion against the kind of disorder in which an Apple can come along and upend all the procrustean assumptions of the EU’s drearily youthful staff of economists and lawyers. We’re not kidding when we say there’s a connection between the Microsoft case and the European 20-somethings who riot in the streets because they’d rather have no job than take a job from which they might fail and be fired.

For the full commentary, see:

HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. "BUSINESS WORLD; The Land (and Antitrust Case) That Time Forgot." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., April 26, 2006): A17.

The Best Company at Making Cars Powered by Steam

Danny DeVito was Larry the Liquidator in the movie “Other People’s Money.” The source of the image of the VHS tape box cover is Amazon.com.

A key passage from Larry the Liquidator’s great speech in “Other People’s Money”:

This company is dead. I didn’t kill it. Don’t blame me. It was dead when I got here. It’s too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered, and a miracle occurred, and the yen did this, and the dollar did that, and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead. You know why? Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence. We’re dead alright. We’re just not broke. And you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure.

You know, at one time there must’ve been dozens of companies makin’ buggy whips. And I’ll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company? You invested in a business and this business is dead. Let’s have the intelligence, let’s have the decency, to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.

For a transcript, and audio version, of the full speech by Larry the Liquidator, see:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechotherpeople’smoneydevito.html

Larry would not have been surprised by the following account of steam automobiles that mentions that the last maker of steam-powered cars, Doble, “managed to hang on until the early 30’s, building what many consider to be the finest of all the steam cars.”

The notion of steam cars seems quaint today, but they were a natural offshoot of an age when much of industry was powered by pressurized steam. By the end of the 19th century, steam engines were ubiquitous, running everything from factories to ships. As a mature, well-developed technology, steam was a logical competitor to electricity and gasoline as a power source for early cars.

Electric vehicles disappeared relatively quickly, a result of their batteries’ meager storage capacity and high weight. The popularity of early gasoline cars was hampered by the arduous, sometimes dangerous, hand-crank starting routine.
As a result, in the early decades of the 20th century steam managed to hold on against the “explosive” engine — as Stanley advertising derisively referred to the internal combustion motor. More than 125 companies manufactured steam automobiles. Among American companies, Stanley, White and Locomobile were the most successful, with Stanleys priced higher than mass-market Fords but below the luxury brands of the time.
Even the most innovative makers of steam cars were not impervious to developments in other technologies: the introduction of the electric starter on the 1912 Cadillac sealed their fate. While gasoline-powered cars became “transportation on demand,” steam cars still needed up to half an hour for the entire process of lighting the burners and developing sufficient pressure before driving away.
White dropped out of the steam business, and Stanley’s operation in Newton, Mass., was gone by the mid-1920’s. Only Doble, in Emeryville, Calif., managed to hang on until the early 30’s, building what many consider to be the finest of all the steam cars.

For the full article, see:
ROB SASS. “Autos on Monday / Collecting; When These Boil Over, They’re Ready to Drive.” The New York Times (Mon., February 27, 2006): D9.

The Stanley Rocket Racer that held the land-speed record for four years for cars of all power plants, starting in 1906. It reached a speed of 127.659 mph. Source of photo, and caption information: NYT article cited above.

Leading Clinton Economist Advocates a Schumpeterian “Dynamism”

Source of book image: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0743237536/104-0088216-5679944

Today’s review of the new Gene Sperling economic policy book in the New York Times Book Review, begins by emphasizing Sperling’s importance in the Clinton administration:

(p. 16) If you were inclined to identify Clintonism with a single person other than the big man himself, that person might well be Gene Sperling – a top campaign adviser in 1992; a tireless advocate of fiscal discipline during the first term; an inveterate policy wonk throughout all eight years of the administration. So it’s little surprise that this book-length vision for a Democratic economic strategy can best be described as Clintonism 2.0.

NOAM SCHEIBER. “Clintonism 2.0.” The New York Times Book Review, Section 7 (Sun., January 22, 2006): 16.

Here is the opening paragraph of Sperling’s chapter one, which is entitled ” Growing Together in the Dynamism Economy.”

In the 1990s, a new economic era was created when a period of intense globalization collided with an information technology revolution. Yet precisely defining a "new" economy is less important than understanding the nature of the change. I believe a more descriptive label is the “dynamism” economy. Of course, dynamic change in market economies is hardly new. The mid-twentieth-century economist Joseph Schumpeter identified the process of “creative destruction,” positing that a healthy market economy is continually moving forward, replacing old capital, old industries — and existing jobs — with more productive alternatives. Yet, what feels most “new” for average citizens is the breakneck speed at which the increased globalization, rapid technological advance, and the explosion of the Internet are putting fierce competitive pressures on the economy and accelerating change not only in products and services, but also in entire job categories and industries.

Part of the first chapter is viewable at Amazon.com. The book citation is: Sperling, Gene. The Pro-Growth Progressive: An Economic Strategy for Shared Prosperity. Simon & Schuster, 2005.

“Dynamism” as a descriptor for the good society also appeals to libertarian economics columnist Virginia Postrel, author of The Future and Its Enemies and webmaster of dynamist.com.

With Flat Tax, Estonia Has 11% Growth

“Prime Minister Andrus Ansip of Estonia in the cabinet room, which is equipped with a computer for each minister.” Source of caption and photo: online version of NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A4) TALLINN, Estonia – Estonia, one realizes after a few days in the abiding twilight of a Baltic winter, is not like other European countries.
The first tip-off is the government’s cabinet room, outfitted less like a ceremonial chamber than a control center. Each minister has a flat-screen computer to transmit votes during debates. Then there is Estonia’s idea of an intellectual hero: Steve Forbes, the American publishing scion, two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and tireless evangelist for the flat tax.
Fired with a free-market fervor and hurtling into the high-tech future, Estonia feels more like a Baltic outpost of Silicon Valley than of Europe. Nineteen months after it achieved its cherished goal of joining the European Union, one might even characterize Estonia as the un-Europe.
“I must say Steve Forbes was a genius,” Prime Minister Andrus Ansip declared during an interview in his hilltop office. “I’m sure he still is,” he added hastily.
The subject was the flat tax, which Mr. Forbes never succeeded in selling in the United States. Here in the polar reaches of Europe it is an article of faith. Estonia became the first country to adopt it in 1994, as part of a broader strategy to transform itself from an obscure Soviet republic into a plugged-in member of the global information economy.
By all accounts, the plan is working. Estonia’s economic growth was nearly 11 percent in the last quarter – the second fastest in Europe, after Latvia, and an increase more reminiscent of China or India than Germany or France.
People call this place E-stonia, and the cyber-intoxication is palpable in Tallinn’s cafes and bars, which are universally equipped with wireless connections, and in local success stories like Skype, designed by Estonian developers and now offering free calls over the Internet to millions.
. . .
Germans showed how allergic they were to the idea when Angela Merkel chose a flat tax advocate as her economic adviser. Antipathy toward him was so intense that political analysts say it probably cost Chancellor Merkel’s party a clear majority in the German Parliament.
Yet the concept has caught on in this part of Europe. Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia all have a flat tax, while the Czech Republic and Slovenia have considered one. Tax policy, not support for the American-led war in Iraq, is the bright line that separates the so-called old Europe from the new.

For the full article, see:
MARK LANDLER. “Letter From Estonia: A Land of Northern Lights, Cybercafes and the Flat Tax.” The New York Times (Weds., December 21, 2005): A4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)