Ben S Bernanke: Promoting research and development - the
Government's role
Speech by Mr Ben S Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, at the Conference on "New Building Blocks for Jobs and Economic Growth",
Washington DC, 16 May 2011.
* * *
I am pleased to speak at this conference on new building blocks for jobs and economic
growth. The conference organizers have gathered an outstanding group of participants and
have set an ambitious agenda. The topics you will address today and tomorrow, bearing on
innovation and intangible capital, are central to understanding how we can best promote
robust economic growth in the long run.
I won't have to spend much time convincing this audience of the importance of long-run
economic growth. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert E. Lucas, Jr., wrote that
once one starts thinking about long-run growth and economic development, "it is hard to
think about anything else."1 Although I don't think I would go quite that far, it is certainly
true that relatively small differences in rates of economic growth, maintained over a
sustained period, can have enormous implications for material living standards. A growth
rate of output per person of 2-1/2 percent per year doubles average living standards in
28 years - about one generation - whereas output per person growing at what seems a
modestly slower rate of 1-1/2 percent a year leads to a doubling in average living
standards in about 47 years - roughly two generations. Compound interest is powerful!
Of course, factors other than aggregate economic growth contribute to changes in living
standards for different segments of the population, including shifts in relative wages and
in rates of labor market participation. Nonetheless, if output per person increases more
rapidly, the prospects for greater and more broad-based prosperity are significantly
enhanced.
Over long spans of time, economic growth and the associated improvements in living
standards reflect a number of determinants, including increases in workers' skills, rates of
saving and capital accumulation, and institutional factors ranging from the flexibility of
markets to the quality of the legal and regulatory frameworks. However, innovation and
technological change are undoubtedly central to the growth process; over the past 200 years
or so, innovation, technical advances, and investment in capital goods embodying new
technologies have transformed economies around the world. In recent decades, as this
audience well knows, advances in semiconductor technology have radically changed many
aspects of our lives, from communication to health care. Technological developments further
in the past, such as electrification or the internal combustion engine, were equally
revolutionary, if not more so. In addition, recent research has highlighted the important role
played by intangible capital, such as the knowledge embodied in the workforce, business
plans and practices, and brand names. This research suggests that technological progress
and the accumulation of intangible capital have together accounted for well over half of the
increase in output per hour in the United States during the past several decades.2
Innovation has not only led to new products and more-efficient production methods, but it has
also induced dramatic changes in how businesses are organized and managed, highlighting
the connections between new ideas and methods and the organizational structure needed to
implement them. For example, in the 19th century, the development of the railroad and
telegraph, along with a host of other technologies, were associated with the rise of large
businesses with national reach. And, as transportation and communication technologies
developed further in the 20th century, multinational corporations became more feasible and
prevalent.
Economic policy affects innovation and long-run economic growth in many ways. A stable
macroeconomic environment; sound public finances; and well-functioning financial, labor,
and product markets all support innovation, entrepreneurship, and growth, as do effective
tax, trade, and regulatory policies. Policies directed at objectives such as the protection of
intellectual property rights and the promotion of research and development, or R&D, promote
innovation and technological change more directly.
In the remainder of my remarks, I will focus on one important component of innovation policy
- namely, government support for R&D. As I have already suggested, the effective
commercial application of new ideas involves much more than just pure research. Many
other factors are relevant, including the extent of market competition, the intellectual property
regime, and the availability of financing for innovative enterprises. That said, the tendency of
the market to supply too little of certain types of R&D provides a rationale for government
intervention; and no matter how good the policy environment, ultimately, big new ideas are
often rooted in well-executed R&D.
The rationale for a government role in research and development
Governments in many countries directly support scientific and technical research, for
example, through grant-providing agencies (like the National Science Foundation in the
United States) or through tax incentives (like the R&D tax credit). In addition, the
governments of the United States and many other countries run their own research facilities,
including facilities focused on nonmilitary applications such as health. The primary economic
rationale for a government role in R&D is that, absent such intervention, the private market
would not adequately supply certain types of research.3 The argument, which applies
particularly strongly to basic or fundamental research, is that the full economic value of a
scientific advance is unlikely to accrue to its discoverer, especially if the new knowledge can
be replicated or disseminated at low cost. For example, James Watson and Francis Crick
received a minute fraction of the economic benefits that have flowed from their discovery of
the structure of DNA. If many people are able to exploit, or otherwise benefit from, research
done by others, then the total or social return to research may be higher on average than the
private return to those who bear the costs and risks of innovation. As a result, market forces
will lead to underinvestment in R&D from society's perspective, providing a rationale for
government intervention.
One possible policy response to the market underprovision problem would be to substantially
strengthen the intellectual property rights regime, for example, by granting the developers of
new ideas strong and long-lasting claims to the economic benefits of their discoveries -
perhaps by extending and expanding patent rights. This approach has significant drawbacks
of its own, however, in that strict limitations on the free use of new ideas would inhibit both
further research and the development of valuable commercial applications. Thus, although
patent protections and similar rules remain an important part of innovation policy,
governments have also turned to direct support of R&D activities.
Of course, the rationale for government support of R&D would be weakened if governments
had consistently performed poorly in this sphere. Certainly, there have been
disappointments; for example, the surge in federal investment in energy technology research
in the 1970s, a response to the energy crisis of that decade, achieved less than its initiators
hoped. In the United States, however, we have seen many examples - in some cases
extending back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries - of federal research initiatives and
government support enabling the emergence of new technologies in areas that include
agriculture, chemicals, health care, and information technology. A case that has been
particularly well documented and closely studied is the development of hybrid seed corn in
the United States during the first half of the 20th century.4 Two other examples of innovations
that received critical federal support are gene splicing - federal R&D underwrote the
techniques that opened up the field of genetic engineering - and the lithium-ion battery,
which was developed by federally sponsored materials research in the 1980s. And recent
research on the government's so-called war on cancer, initiated by President Nixon in 1971,
finds that the effort has produced a very high social rate of return, notwithstanding its failure
to achieve its original, ambitious goal of eradicating the disease.5
What about the present? Is government support of R&D today at the "right" level? This
question is not easily answered; it involves not only difficult technical assessments, but also
a number of value judgments about public priorities. As background, however, a
consideration of recent trends in expenditures on R&D in the United States and the rest of
the world should be instructive. In the United States, total R&D spending (both public and
private) has been relatively stable over the past three decades, at roughly 2-1/2 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP).6 However, this apparent stability masks some important
underlying trends. First, since the 1970s, R&D spending by the federal government has
trended down as a share of GDP, while the share of R&D done by the private sector has
correspondingly increased.7 Second, the share of R&D spending targeted to basic research,
as opposed to more applied R&D activities, has also been declining.8 These two trends - the
declines in the share of basic research and in the federal share of R&D spending - are
related, as government R&D spending tends to be more heavily weighted toward basic
research and science. The declining emphasis on basic research is somewhat concerning
because fundamental research is ultimately the source of most innovation, albeit often with
long lags. Indeed, some economists have argued that, because of the potentially high social
return to basic research, expanded government support for R&D could, over time,
significantly boost economic growth.9 That said, in a time of fiscal stringency, the Congress
and the Administration will clearly need to carefully weigh competing priorities in their
budgetary decisions.
Another argument sometimes made for expanding government support for R&D is the need
to keep pace with technological advances in other countries. R&D has become increasingly
international, thanks to improved communication and dissemination of research results, the
spread of scientific and engineering talent around the world, and the transfer of technologies
through trade, foreign direct investment, and the activities of multinational corporations. To
4
See Griliches (1958).
5
See Lakdawalla et al. (2010).
6
In 2010, total U.S. R&D spending as a share of GDP was estimated to be 2.8 percent (Battelle and R&D
Magazine, 2010). For earlier data, see National Science Foundation (2010), table 13.
7
The federal share of total U.S. R&D spending was 26 percent in 2008, while the private-sector share was
67 percent. The remaining funding comes from universities and colleges, private foundations, and other
nonprofits. Three decades prior, the federal and private-sector shares were 50 percent and 46 percent
respectively. See table 5 in National Science Foundation (2010).
8
See tables 6 through 8 in National Science Foundation (2010).
9
For example, see Jones and Williams (1998). Griliches (1992) reports estimates of the average social return
that cluster in the range of 20 to 60 percent a year. See also Hall, Mairesse, and Mohnen (2009). The
estimates in the literature are typically for average social returns; the return to an additional dollar of R&D
spending, which is the relevant variable for determining whether further spending is warranted, may be lower
than the average return.
be sure, R&D spending remains concentrated in the most-developed countries, with the
United States still the leader in overall R&D spending.10 However, in recent years, spending
on R&D has increased sharply in some emerging market economies, most notably in China
and India. In particular, spending for R&D by China has increased rapidly in absolute terms,
although recent estimates still show its R&D spending to be smaller relative to GDP than in
the United States.11 Reflecting the increased research activity in emerging market
economies, the share of world R&D expenditures by member nations of the Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development, which mostly comprises advanced economies,
has fallen relative to non-member nations, which tend to be less developed. A similar trend is
evident, by the way, with respect to science and engineering workforces.12
How should policymakers think about the increasing globalization of R&D spending? On the
one hand, the diffusion of scientific and technological research throughout the world
potentially benefits everyone by increasing the pace of innovation globally. For example, the
development of the polio vaccine in the United States in the 1950s provided enormous
benefits to people globally, not just Americans. Moreover, in a globalized economy, product
and process innovations in one country can lead to employment opportunities and improved
goods and services around the world.
On the other hand, in some circumstances, the location of R&D activity can matter. For
example, technological prowess may help a country reap the financial and employment
benefits of leadership in a strategic industry. A cutting-edge scientific or technological center
can create a variety of spillovers that promote innovation, quality, skills acquisition, and
productivity in industries located nearby; such spillovers are the reason that high-tech firms
often locate in clusters or near leading universities.13 To the extent that countries gain from
leadership in technologically vibrant industries or from local spillovers arising from inventive
activity, the case for government support of R&D within a given country is stronger.14
How should governments provide support for research and development?
The economic arguments for government support of innovation generally imply that
governments should focus particularly on fostering basic, or foundational, research. The
most applied and commercially relevant research is likely to be done in any case by the
private sector, as private firms have strong incentives to determine what the market demands
and to meet those needs.15
If the government decides to foster R&D, what policy instruments should it use? A number of
potential tools exist, including direct funding of government research facilities, grants to
university or private-sector researchers, contracts for specific projects, and tax incentives.
Moreover, within each of these categories, many choices must be made about how to
structure specific programs. Unfortunately, economists know less about how best to channel
10
Among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations, the United States is
estimated to have spent the most on R&D in 2010, followed by Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, and
the United Kingdom (Battelle and R&D Magazine, 2010). As a percentage of GDP, Israel ranked first among
OECD nations in R&D spending, followed by Finland, Sweden, Japan, and South Korea (OECD, 2010).
11
China's gross R&D expenditures are estimated to have increased more than five-fold between 1997 and 2007
and, by 2010, are estimated to have been roughly on par with expenditures in Japan, the world's
secondlargest spender on R&D, although they were still about one-third the expenditures in the United States. See
National Science Foundation (2010) and Battelle and R&D Magazine (2010).
12
See OECD (2010).
13
See Jaffe (1989).
14
Another argument for fostering domestic innovation is that it may have national security implications.
15
For example, see David, Hall, and Toole (2000) and Hall and van Reenen (2001).
public support for research and development than we would like; it is good news, therefore,
that considerable new work is being done on this topic, including recent initiatives on science
policy by the National Science Foundation.16
Certainly, the characteristics of the research to be supported are important for the choice of
the policy tool. Direct government support or conduct of the research may make the most
sense if the project is highly focused and large-scale, possibly involving the need for
coordination of the work of many researchers and subject to relatively tight time frames.
Examples of large-scale, government-funded research include the space program and the
construction and operation of "atom-smashing" facilities for experiments in high-energy
physics. Outside of such cases, which often are linked to national defense, a more
decentralized model that relies on the ideas and initiative of individual researchers or small
research groups may be most effective. Grants to, or contracts with, researchers are the
typical vehicle for such an approach.
Of course, the success of decentralized models for government support depends on the
quality of execution. Some critics believe that funding agencies have been too cautious,
focusing on a limited number of low-risk projects and targeting funding to more-established
scientists at the expense of researchers who are less established or less conventional in
their approaches. Supporting multiple approaches to a given problem at the same time
increases the chance of finding a solution; it also increases opportunities for cooperation or
constructive competition.17 The challenge to policymakers is to encourage experimentation
and a greater diversity of approaches while simultaneously ensuring that an effective
peerreview process is in place to guide funding toward high-quality science.18
However it is channeled, government support for innovation and R&D will be more effective if
it is thought of as a long-run investment. Gestation lags from basic research to commercial
application to the ultimate economic benefits can be very long. The Internet revolution of the
1990s was based on scientific investments made in the 1970s and 1980s. And today's
widespread commercialization of biotechnology was based, in part, on key research findings
developed in the 1950s. Thus, governments that choose to provide support for R&D are
likely to get better results if that support is stable, avoiding a pattern of feast or famine.19
Government support for R&D presumes sufficient national capacity to engage in effective
research at the desired scale. That capacity, in turn, depends importantly on the supply of
qualified scientists, engineers, and other technical workers. Although the system of higher
education in the United States remains among the finest in the world, numerous concerns
have been raised about this country's ability to ensure adequate supplies of highly skilled
workers. For example, some observers have suggested that bottlenecks in the system limit
the number of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science and engineering:
Surveys of student intentions in the United States consistently show that the number of
students who seek to major in science and engineering exceeds the number accommodated
by a wide margin, and waitlists to enroll in technical courses have trended up relative to
those in other fields, as has the time required to graduate with a science and engineering
degree.20 Moreover, although the relative wages of science and engineering graduates have
increased significantly over the past few decades, the share of undergraduate degrees
awarded in science and engineering has been roughly stable.21 At the same time, critics of
K-12 education in the United States have long argued that not enough is being done to
encourage and support student interest in science and mathematics. Taken together, these
trends suggest that more could be done to increase the number of U.S. students entering
scientific and engineering professions.
At least when viewed from the perspective of a single nation, immigration is another path for
increasing the supply of highly skilled scientists and researchers. The technological
leadership of the United States was and continues to be built in substantial part on the
contributions of foreign-born scientists and engineers, both permanent immigrants and those
staying in the country only for a time. And, contrary to the notion that highly trained and
talented immigrants displace native-born workers in the labor market, scientists and other
highly trained professionals who come to the United States tend to enhance the productivity
and employment opportunities of those already here, reflecting gains from interaction and
cooperation and from the development of critical masses of researchers in technical areas.
More generally, technological progress and innovation around the world would be enhanced
by lowering national barriers to international scientific cooperation and collaboration.
Conclusion
In the abstract, economists have identified some persuasive justifications for government
policies to promote R&D activities, especially those related to basic research. In practice, we
know less than we would like about which policies work best. A reasonable strategy for now
may be to continue to use a mix of policies to support R&D while taking pains to encourage
diverse and even competing approaches by the scientists and engineers receiving support.
We should also keep in mind that funding R&D activity is only part of what the government
can do to foster innovation. As I noted, ensuring a sufficient supply of individuals with science
and engineering skills is important for promoting innovation, and this need raises questions
about education policy as well as immigration policy. Other key policy issues include the
definition and enforcement of intellectual property rights and the setting of technical
standards. Finally, as someone who spends a lot of time monitoring the economy, let me put
in a plug for more work on finding better ways to measure innovation, R&D activity, and
intangible capital. We will be more likely to promote innovative activity if we are able to
measure it more effectively and document its role in economic growth.
References
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962). "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Review of
Economic Studies, vol. 29 (3), pp. 155-73.
Battelle and R&D Magazine (2010). "2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast," R&D Magazine,
December, www.battelle.org/aboutus/rd/2011.pdf.
Corrado, Carol, Charles Hulten, and Daniel Sichel (2009). "Intangible Capital and U.S.
Economic Growth," The Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 55 (September), pp.661-85.
Corrado, Carol, and Charles R. Hulten (2010). "How Do You Measure a "Technological
Revolution"?" American Economic Review, vol. 100 (May), pp. 99-104.
David, Paul A., Bronwyn H. Hall, and Andrew A. Toole (2000). "Is Public R&D a Complement
or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence," Research Policy,
vol. 29 (4-5), pp. 497-529.
Freeman, Richard, and John Van Reenen (2009). "What if Congress Doubled R&D Spending
on the Physical Sciences?" Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 9, pp.1-38.
Greenstein, Shane (2007). "Economic Experiments and Neutrality in Internet Access,"
Innovation Policy and the
Economy, vol. 8, pp. 59-109.
Griliches, Zvi (1958). "Research Cost and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related
Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 66 (5), pp. 419-31.
Scandinavian Journal of
Griliches, Zvi (1992). "The Search for R&D Spillovers," Economics,
vol. 94, supplement, pp. 29-47.
Hall, Bronwyn H., Jacques Mairesse, and Pierre Mohnen (2009). "Measuring the Returns to
R&D," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15622. Cambridge, Mass.:
NBER.
Hall, Bronwyn, and John Van Reenen (2001). "How Effective are Fiscal Incentives for R&D?
Research
A Review of the Evidence," Policy, vol. 29 (4-5), pp. 449-69.
Huang, Kenneth G., and Fiona E. Murray (2010). "Entrepreneurial Experiments in Science
Policy: Analyzing the Human Genome Project," Research Policy, vol.39(5), pp. 567-82.
American Economic
Jaffe, Adam B. (1989). "Real Effects of Academic Research," Review,
vol. 79 (5), pp. 957-70.
Jones, Charles I., and John C. Williams (1998). "Measuring the Social Return to R&D,"
Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 113 (4), pp. 1119-35.
Lakdawalla, Darius, Eric Sun, Anupam Jena, Carolina Reyes, Dana Golman, and Tomas
Philipson (2010). "An Economic Evaluation of the War on Cancer," Journal of Health
Economics, vol. 29(3), pp. 333-46.
Lane, Julia (2009). "Assessing the Impact of Science Funding," Science, vol. 324 (June),
pp. 1273-75.
Lucas, Jr., Robert E. (1988). "On the Mechanics of Economic Development," Journal of
Monetary Economics, vol. 22 (1), pp. 3-42.
National Science Board (2010). "Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010." Arlington, Va.:
National Science Foundation, www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10.
National Science Foundation (2010). "National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2008." Arlington,
Va.: NSF, www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/content.cfm?pub_id=4000&id=2.
Nelson, R. R. (1959). "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of
Political Economy, vol. 67 (3), pp. 297-306.
Nelson, R. R. (1961). "Uncertainty, Learning, and the Economics of Parallel Research and
Development Efforts," Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 43, pp.351-64.
Noll, Roger G. (2003). "Federal R&D in the Antiterrorist Era," Innovation Policy and the
Economy, vol. (3), pp. 61-89.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). "Main Science and
Technology Indicators," OECD Science, Technology, and R&D Statistics (database),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00182-en.
Romer, Paul M. (2000). "Should the Government Subsidize Supply or Demand in the Market
for Scientists and Engineers?" Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1, pp. 221-52.