LawFont.com

There’s something rather interesting going on at the Productivity Commission here in Australia. The Commonwealth Government has asked the PC to undertake a research study on public support for science and innovation in Australia. Now, I’d heard some muttered cynical comments that one of the purposes of this particular inquiry might be to give government some reasons to reduce public funding for innovation (I’m not sure why giving a review to an independent body like the PC would further this kind of aim: I’m just reporting scuttlebut here).

But there’s some interesting submissions going up now, that make for interesting reading if you are interested in innovation and the drivers of innovation.

The Commission has been asked, more specifically, to:

1. Report on:
   • the economic impact of public support for science and innovation in Australia and, in particular, its impact on Australia’s recent productivity performance;
   • whether there are adequate arrangements to benchmark outcomes from publicly supported science and innovation and to report on those outcomes as measured by the benchmarks.

   The analysis should cover all key elements of the innovation system, including research and development, taking into account interaction with private support for science and innovation, and paying regard to Australia’s industrial structure.

2. Identify impediments to the effective functioning of Australia’s innovation system including knowledge transfer, technology acquisition and transfer, skills development, commercialisation, collaboration between research organisations and industry, and the creation and use of intellectual property, and identify any scope for improvements;
3. Evaluate the decision-making principles and programme design elements that:
   1. influence the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia’s innovation system; and
   2. guide the allocation of funding between and within the different components of Australia’s innovation system;

   and identify any scope for improvements and, to the extent possible, comment on any implications from changing the level and balance of current support;

4. Report on the broader social and environmental impacts of public support for science and innovation in Australia.

Although the Commission is not requested to review individual programmes, it can, where necessary, undertake case studies of particular types of public support for science and innovation. It should also draw on relevant international experience.

Submissions I’d particularly refer you to include these:

• My IPRIA colleague Joshua Gans has a submission up (and see his blog here), in which he examines the relationship between basic research and commercial research, refutes empirical findings from a PC working paper (with Gans showing that Australian domestic R&D stock does have a positive and significant impact on productivity), and talks about his work on national innovative capacity. There’s some interesting stuff in this one, pointing out the weaknesses of a ‘linear model’ of how innovation works, and discussing the importance of cumulative innovation;
• My IPRIA colleagues Paul Jensen, Alfons Palangkaraya and Beth Webster have a submission up, in which they examine the economics of innovation, and results of their research on public policies relating to science and innovation;
• My neighbour while I’m visiting at ACIPA, Charles Lawson has a submission up about patent licensing. It’s a very specific issue, and I’m not entirely clear about how it really relates to the inquiry. Nevertheless, if you’ve ever been interested in the relationship between patents and competition, it’s an extensive discussion of those issues.

Enjoy!