Innovation at the agenda

La nota es de The Economist y nos refiere la novedad de que los gobiernos del mundo estarían apuntando más, ahora, a "la creación de nuevos empleos que al cuidado de los antiguos", esto último lo que hicieron preponderantemente cuando comenzó la crisis...

Es, podríamos decir, una política que reconoce la base sólida de la teoría de la "destrucción creativa" de Schumpeter, que señala que la fuerza del capitalismo (la que evita que deje de reinar) reside en la innovación, en no obstaculizarla, resultado de lo cual es la constante renovación de las ofertas (y los líderes que las proponen) de bienes y servicios valiosos en la sociedad; todo lo cual supone la eventual desaparición, permanente, de los líderes de antes...

Extracto de apertura:

"So far policymakers have focused on rescuing the economy from free fall, boosting demand, however indiscriminately, and rescuing failing companies, however expensively (AIG received $180 billion-worth of government support). But policymakers are beginning to turn their minds to the potentially more rewarding question of creating tomorrow’s jobs, rather than trying to save yesterday’s. The buzzwords in government circles are entrepreneurship, innovation and venture capital.

This makes perfect sense, in theory. Innovative start-ups are efficient engines of job creation and long-term economic growth..."

Pero hay evidencias de que no es tan sencillo (que los gobiernos logren estimular la consolidación y escala de la innovación):

"The road to the entrepreneurial future is littered with failed government schemes. Malaysia’s massive BioValley complex, which opened in 2005 at a cost of $150m, is now known as the “Valley of the BioGhosts”. Dubai’s entrepreneurial hub is awash in a sea of red ink. Australia has little to show for its ambitious BITS (Building on Information Technology Strengths) programme. The European Union’s European Investment Fund, which was started in 2001 with an endowment of more than €2 billion ($1.8 billion at the time), has failed in its mission to burnish the sorry record of the European venture-capital industry..."

So? La respuesta correcta (según el articulista) viene de la experiencia de Israel (habrá que seguir investigando :-)

"The country that has led the world in promoting entrepreneurship has also done the most to plug itself into global markets. The Israeli government’s venture-capital fund, which was founded in 1992 with $100m of public money, was designed to attract foreign venture capital and, just as importantly, expertise. The government let foreigners decide what to invest in, and then stumped up a hefty share of the money required. Foreign venture capital poured into the country, high-tech companies boomed, domestic venture capitalists learned from their foreign counterparts and the government felt able to sell off the fund after just five years.

Last year Israel, a country of just over 7m people, attracted as much venture capital as France and Germany combined. Israel has more start-ups per head than any other country (a total of 3,850, or one for every 1,844 Israelis), and more companies listed on the NASDAQ exchange, a hub for fledgling technology firms, than China and India combined. It may not have the same comforting ring as “the Swedish model” or “the polder model”, but when it comes to promoting entrepreneurship, “the Israeli model” is the one to emulate."