Search

Begin New Search Topic Innovation Political Geography North America

61. Access to Capital for Urban Innovators: Report to the Bank of America Charitable Foundation

Author:
Aspen Institute
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
Urban innovators share a commitment to using new approaches, and often new technologies, to tackle long-standing challenges that seem unsolvable to others and that affect a large number of cities. Despite urban innovators’ insightful ideas on new ways to solve metropolitan areas’ most difficult challenges, many lack access to critical resources, tools, and funding. These access to capital hurdles most severely affect women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color, who historically have lacked opportunities for creating their own ventures, building wealth, and achieving financial empowerment. Throughout 2016 – 2017 the Aspen Institute Center for Urban Innovation worked with partner programs and organizations to demonstrate the sustainable impact urban innovators have when they have access to the capital necessary to start, grow, and stabilize their organizations and businesses. We learned from entrepreneurs, leaders of support organizations, government officials, and funders from capital-heavy places such as Silicon Valley, New York, and Boston, but also from places starting to garner more attention for their innovation-friendly cultures such as Buffalo, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. The Access to Capital for Urban Innovators report highlights the lessons learned from several convenings and programs focused on strategies to eliminate barriers to resources for women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color. We heard firsthand what urban innovators need to achieve success, and put forth principles and ideas on ways different sectors can improve their cities’ economy and become centers of inclusive prosperity
Topic:
Science and Technology, Finance, Urban, and Innovation
Political Geography:
United States and North America

62. Abenomics and Japan's Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Is the Third Arrow Pointed in the Right Direction for Global Competition in the Digital Era of Silicon Valley?

Author:
Kenji E. Kushida
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Given that much of the global leadership in value creation over the past couple of decades has been driven by the Silicon Valley model – not only a geographic region but a distinct ecosystem of complementary characteristics – the basic question this paper asks is how far Japan’s Abenomics reforms are pushing Japan towards being able to compete in an era dominated by Silicon Valley firms. To answer this, the first section of this paper looks at content of the third arrow of Abenomics. The second section then distills the Silicon Valley ecosystem into its key characteristics, sorts each of these characteristics according to the underlying institutions to put forth a model, and briefly evaluates whether third arrow reforms move Japan closer to a Silicon Valley model of entrepreneurship and innovation.
Topic:
Digital Economy, Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Digitization, and Sillicon Valley
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

63. The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century

Author:
Edward Alden and Laura Taylor-Kale
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The challenge facing the United States today is to rebuild the links among work, opportunity, and economic security for all Americans in the face of accelerating technological change.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Labor Issues, Employment, Innovation, Emerging Technology, and Machine Learning
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

64. The Mandate to Innovate

Author:
Christina Monaco
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Delivering decision advantage to a policymaker or situational awareness to a warfighter is becoming a more competitive challenge. As geospatial and AAA technologies increase in capability and availability—both within the United States and allied GEOINT enterprise as well as for our adversaries—the complexity of that mission increases. Empowering rapid experimentation and innovation, adapting new business models (particularly those that have proven successful to the business world), and applying the breadth of the means availability to us to acquire new capabilities are ways for us to continuously replenish the nation's GEOINT advantage.
Topic:
Intelligence, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, and Innovation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

65. Learning and Innovation: Jordan at the "Crossroads of Armageddon"

Author:
Beth Ellen Cole
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
A recurring feature of the past few decades is the presence of the nation’s three principal national security institutions (the 3Ds)—Department of State (DOS), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and Department of Defense (DOD)—operating in complex environments abroad marked by conflict, crisis, and state fragility. This paradigm, dubbed the “new normal” by many, begs a few questions. What are we learning from these critical missions undertaken in pursuit of national security? Are we adjusting our strategies to maximize the prospects for prevention of conflict based on that learning? Is innovation occurring that enables us to work better together to address challenges in these environments? Of keen interest is what the 3D did to address the unique challenges in Jordan, and how. Understanding both the “what” and the “how” might reveal if we are learning and innovating.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Governance, and Innovation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

66. The Machine Beneath: Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Strategic Decisionmaking

Author:
Matthew Price, Stephen Walker, and Will Wiley
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Despite the risks posed by the adaptation of AI to military affairs, the United States must seek to be at the forefront of this technology. It is unthinkable that America will cede this new territory to our competitors, such as China and Russia, who are aggressively pursuing it. Even if the United States decided to opt out of this arms race, it would have little effect, as the technologies described in this paper are inherently dual use, and the private sector around the globe will pursue them with abandon. Ethicists, weapon engineers, and military leaders are already hard at work on the challenges associated with designing and deploying battlefield lethal autonomous weapons systems. With this article, the authors hope to begin a new conversation, highlighting and differentiating the risks posed by employing strategic AI in military decisionmaking, particularly as the pace of warfare accelerates.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

67. US Pharma’s Financialized Business Model

Author:
William Lozonick, Matt Hopkins, Ken Jacobson, Mustafa Erdem Sakinç, and Öner Tulum
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
Price gouging in the US pharmaceutical drug industry goes back more than three decades. In 1985 US Representative Henry Waxman, chair of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, accused the pharmaceutical industry of “gouging the American public” with “outrageous” price increases, driven by “greed on a massive scale.” Even in the wake of the many Congressional inquiries that have taken place since the 1980s, including one inspired by the extortionate prices that Gilead Sciences has placed on its Hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi since 2013 and Harvoni since 2014, the US government has not seen fit to regulate drug prices. UK Prescription Price Regulation Scheme data for 1996 through 2010 show that, while drug prices in other advanced nations were close to the UK’s regulated prices, those in the United States were between 74 percent and 181 percent higher. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has produced abundant evidence that US drug prices are by far the highest in the world. The US pharmaceutical industry’s invariable response to demands for price regulation has been that it will kill innovation. US drug companies claim that they need higher prices than those that prevail elsewhere so that the extra profits can be used to augment R&D spending. The result, they contend, is more drug innovation that benefits the United States, and indeed the whole world. It is a compelling argument, until one looks at how major US pharmaceutical companies actually use the profits that high drug prices generate. In the name of “maximizing shareholder value” (MSV), pharmaceutical companies allocate the profits generated from high drug prices to massive repurchases, or buybacks, of their own corporate stock for the sole purpose of giving manipulative boosts to their stock prices. Incentivizing these buybacks is stock-based compensation that rewards senior executives for stock-price “performance.” Like no other sector, the pharmaceutical industry puts a spotlight on how the political economy of science is a matter of life and death. In this paper, we invoke “the theory of innovative enterprise” to explain how and why high drug prices restrict access to medicines and undermine medical innovation. An innovative enterprise seeks to develop a high-quality product that it can sell to the largest possible market at the most affordable price. In sharp contrast, the MSV-obsessed companies that dominate the US drug industry have become monopolies that restrict output and raise price. These companies need to be regulated.
Topic:
Finance, Business, Drugs, Innovation, Pharmaceuticals, and Stock Markets
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

68. Social Innovation and Aboriginal Communities

Author:
Iryna Volynets
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University (ISID)
Abstract:
Improving the lives and contributing to a more resilient society requires breakthrough ideas and approaches, game changing strategies and collaborations, and continuous innovation. Social innovation combines all of the above and is already bringing significant advances in areas such as reducing prisoner reoffending, caring for children and the elderly, community regeneration, financial inclusion, and supported housing. It has the potential to generate great benefits to the Indigenous communities in developed countries. While governments in Canada acknowledged the importance of social capital and social economy, and have been active in these areas in the recent years, a cross-sectoral national strategy to advance social innovation needs to be in place. There is no established labour market policy or program in Canada that would have social innovation aspects embedded in it as compared for example to the EU. The new policies are required for the further development of social finance and social enterprise sector. In September 2014, the Canadian National Advisory Board published the report Mobilizing Private Capital for Public Good: Priorities for Canada. The recommendations in the report for the domestic policy agenda are seen as a basis in this environmental scan for the potential future developments in the social innovation arena. More specific considerations for urban Aboriginal communities in Canada are also offered in this paper. Overall, this environmental scan attempts to (1) offer a vocabulary and an analysis of social innovation activity internationally and in Indigenous communities in particular, (2) discuss key issues and innovative approaches in labour market programming in Canada and abroad, and (3) offer considerations for Aboriginal communities in Canada to continue and expand the dialog with the policy makers. However, given the complexity of the issues that Aboriginal communities are facing, most considerations and recommendations are context-dependent and require further research. The research field of social innovation in the context of Aboriginal communities can be described as an opportunity not only to explore trust, balance, respect, and understanding in relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, but also to focus on the market-based strategies to achieve business targets while creating public social benefit. There still remains a gap in both literature documenting the statistics on Indigenous social enterprises and impact investing in Aboriginal businesses, the means of addressing issues in building Indigenous social enterprise pipeline, and the mechanisms in place for evaluating the effectiveness of the government or other programs targeted at improving Indigenous economic development through social innovation. Future research directions should focus on the abovementioned issues as well as on applications for innovations in job skills training and labour market programming in Canada and abroad.
Topic:
Government, Innovation, Indigenous, and Social Capital
Political Geography:
Canada and North America

69. Innovative Enterprise or Sweatshop Economics? In Search of Foundations of Economic Analysis

Author:
William Lazonick
Publication Date:
10-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
By integrating the history of industrial development in Britain and the United States with the ideas of leading economic thinkers, this essay demonstrates the absurdity of perfect competition as the ideal of economic efficiency. In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter asserts: “perfect competition is not only impossible but inferior, and has no title to being set up as a model of ideal efficiency.” For neoclassical economists, the large corporation is a “market imperfection” that, compared with “perfect competition,” should result in higher product prices and lower industry output. Yet business history reveals the capability of the most productive enterprises to generate massive quantities of output at low costs to attain large market shares with buyers benefiting from low prices even as employees receive higher pay and shareholders ample dividends. By integrating the history of industrial development in Britain and the United States with the ideas of leading economic thinkers, this essay demonstrates the absurdity of perfect competition as the ideal of economic efficiency. Indeed, I show that, in their desire to make the market rather than the firm the main arbiter of resource allocation, neoclassical economists have enshrined the sweatshop as the foundation of their analysis, with profoundly negative consequences for understanding how a modern economy actually operates and performs. In doing so, neoclassical economists ignore not only the economic history of capitalism but also the intellectual history of their own discipline. I conduct a journey through two hundred years of economic thought – from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) to Alfred Chandler’s The Visible Hand (1977) – to derive analytical foundations for a theory of innovative enterprise that can explain and explore firm- level sources of productivity growth in the economy. What then do more sophisticated theories of the firm rooted in the neoclassical tradition have to offer? In a section of this essay that I call (borrowing a phrase from Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means) “Economic Theory for ‘an Era of Corporate Plundering’,” I outline the shortcomings of Williamsonian transaction-cost theory and Jensenian agency theory for analyzing the role of the business corporation in the operation and performance of the economy. From the perspective of the theory of innovative enterprise, I demonstrate how the methodology of constrained optimization trivializes the business enterprise while the ideology that companies should be run to maximize shareholder value legitimizes financial predators, many senior corporate executives among them, in the looting of the industrial corporation. The “era of corporate plundering” since the mid-1980s has contributed to extreme concentration of income among the richest households and the erosion of middle- class employment opportunities. Finally, I call for a transformation of economic thinking so that the innovative enterprise is at the center of economic analysis. The theory of innovative enterprise exposes as costly intellectual failures “perfect competition” as the ideal of economic efficiency, “constrained optimization” as the prime tool of economic analysis, and “maximizing shareholder value” as the ideology of superior corporate governance. The theory of innovative enterprise provides, moreover, a clear and compelling rationale for sharing the gains of business enterprise among stakeholders in the broader community, in conjunction with government policies that seek to support sustainable prosperity, characterized by stable and equitable economic growth.
Topic:
Economics, Business, Economic Growth, Innovation, and Industry
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

70. The New York Times and American Tax Policy: Representing Citizens or Echoing Elites?

Author:
Daniel Chomsky
Publication Date:
04-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
A recent New York Times article observed that Americans want action to address inequality. 2016 presidential candidates from both parties also acknowledge that inequality is a pressing concern. But not one of the candidates has proposed to do anything meaningful about it, sharing wealthy Americans’ (understandable) opposition to any solution (Scheiber 2015). Perhaps nothing has been done because there is nothing to do about it. Some treat inequality as an inevitable or intractable feature of the global economy, or at least impossible to alter at acceptable cost (Cowen 2013). But inequality may be subject to political circumstances, and public policies including progressive taxes might reduce it without adversely affecting economic growth (Diamond and Saez 2011, Piketty 2014). It may be that Americans are just unwilling to support policies that would reduce inequality. Progressive taxation and other policies may reduce inequality. But policy reflects public preferences (Stimson, Mackuen, and Erikson 2002), and the American people just hate taxes. Martin Gilens (2012) effectively demonstrated that policy makers favor the wealthy over the majority when opinions diverge. Yet he accepted that the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s reflected broad consensus opinion. Public opposition to taxes is seen as so powerful that even observers seeking programs to promote economic equality often abandon progressive taxes as a remedy (Kenworthy 2013).
Topic:
Race, Science and Technology, History, Culture, Ethics, Philosophy, Tax Systems, and Innovation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America