A digression: Globalization, Science and Technology and the Economy
(or why is Adam Smith still very relevant…)
Manuel Trajtenberg 2005
1
Outsourcing/offshoring What is it all about?
The phenomena, in recent years: 1. Steep increase in outsourcing/offshoring of activities in the High Tech/ICT sectors, in particular in ICT services, and software. 2. Increasing sophistication of activities outsourced. These trends perceived as threat to the national economy, for Israel as much as for the US…
So what are the facts? Why is this an issue?!
2
Employment in High Tech manufacturing industries in the US (BLS)
Semiconductors & elec. components Electronic instruments Communications eq. Computers & peripherals
3
Employment changes in non-manufacturing sectors prone to outsourcing (BLS data)
4
Attributes of “new wave” of jobs outsourced
• Telecommutable and Internet enabled
• High wage differential, low set up barriers
• No face-to-face customer servicing required
• Low “social networking” required
Location does not matter much
5
Annual Salaries of software programmers in various countries
USA
Computerworld, April 28, 2003 6
Still, why is this an issue?
• Nothing qualitatively different in present wave of globalization vis a vis previous expansions of international trade – from 500 BC Athens on..
• Different nature of “stuff” traded, outsourced: services that have become location neutral because of IT. But same economics as auto parts produced at maquilladoras in Mexico…
• Trade always evolves with the predominant technologies of the era, nature of production processes, loci of economies of scale in situ.
7
Same with software…
Writing code: not used to think of it as a process that can be parceled out, and turned into a virtual activity independent of location, i.e. something that can be “globalized,” outsourced, much like sport shoes, textiles or TV sets. But surely it can, guided by the same universal principles of comparative advantage, except that the traditional notions of transport costs are replaced by communication costs, availability of reliable IT infrastructure, etc.
8
Voicing common concerns
1. There are always winners and losers (those displaced). The latter do not necessarily find alternative (good) jobs.
2. Activities outsourced increasingly sophisticated, feeling that the there are no further steps to climb up the technological/skills ladder…
3. Apprehension about the ability of the economy to generate enough upscale jobs.
1: real concern. 2 & 3: usually not founded,
provided good S&T infrastructure
9
So, does location (and hence e.g. outsourcing) matter for the economy?
• Matters for employment: but structural adjustment, overall econ activity; retraining and/or compensating those left behind.
• Want in situ activities that generate the most spillovers flowing inwards: those that involve creativity, cutting edge innovation, frontier science. Eventually may give rise to “the next big thing” (nano?).
• Where do the gains flow to? Ultimately to those that own/control the IP, hence care who they are, where 10 they are located.
The Globalization of
Science and Innovation (S&I)
trends, logic, implications
11
The Globalization of S&I: basic trends
• Advanced S&T spreading around the world, also in developing countries (e.g. India, ppp $2,900,
China, $5,000 versus US $37,800).
• Increased mobility of scientists and inventors (geographic, institutional)
• Larger, more diverse teams of inventors and scientists
• More international cooperation
• Decentralization of “big science”: e.g. the Genome project.
12
Why globalization of S&I?
Some of the reasons: • Globalization in trade, finance, IP, WTO, etc. bound to impact also S&I. • Increased complexity, cross-disciplinary nature of frontier S&I (e.g. Genome, nano), increased specialization of researchers. • Advances in ICT, ease of communication and transportation, lowering of barriers.
13
Why do we care in the context of outsourcing of ICT, of software?
• The ICT sector breeds from the S&I infrastructure of the country. • Outsourcing pushes us up the “tech ladder,” but to be able to climb up, need advances in S&T. • Does globalization in S&I threaten those capabilities? First, a close look at the trends…
14
Trends in the global mobility of Science and Innovation (S&I) players: Inventors, Scientists, Students
15
Front page of a patent (partial)
Frohman-Bentchkowsky, et. al. May 13, 1980 Electrically programmable and erasable MOS floating gate memory device employing tunneling and method of fabricating same Inventors: Frohman-Bentchkowsky; Dov (Haifa, IL); Mar; Jerry (Sunnyvale, CA); Perlegos; George (Cupertino, CA); Johnson; William S. (Palo Alto, CA). Assignee: Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA).
Current U.S. Cl.: 365/185.29; 257/321; 326/37; 327/427; Field of Search: 365/185, 189; 307/238; 357/41, 45, 304 References Cited 3,500,142 Mar., 1970 Kahng 365/185 4,051,464 Sept., 1977 Huang 365/185
Primary Examiner: Fears; Terrell W. 16 Claims, 14 Drawing Figures 16
Number of patents per inventor
(or how much “action” can we expect?)
Out of 1,565,780 inventors, those with, • one patent: 911,943 (58%) • 2 or more: 653,837 (42%) • 5 or more: 203,302 (13%) • 10 or more: 73,072 (5%)
These are driving innovation worldwide!
17
and we can trace them…
International Mobility of Patent Inventors
number of cross-country moves per year 1975-1999
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99
18
Flows of Inventors across countries
From
US
To Japan Germany UK
Canada Other
Total
0 908 Germany 731 UK 2,077 Canada 1,308 Other 3,017 Total 8,041
US Japan
808 0 122 41 23 120 1,114
657 115 0 51 11 717 1,551
1,602 49 38 0 106 386 2,181
1,096 21 16 131 0 128 1,392
3,109 7,272 151 1,244 794 1,701 509 2,809 106 1,554 1,821 6,189 6,490 20,769
19
Flows of inventors across US states
NY NJ CA PA MA CT TX IL OH Other Total NY 0 795 809 399 353 447 353 184 279 2,450 6069 NJ 594 0 552 599 266 231 273 187 151 1,661 4514 CA 517 360 0 323 377 199 777 333 267 4,317 7470 PA 312 483 457 0 175 107 199 185 248 1,868 4034 MA 267 190 539 175 0 153 145 114 111 1,536 3230 CT 304 185 280 123 188 0 113 103 98 838 2232 TX 199 142 745 143 108 89 0 159 166 1,897 3648 IL 167 199 530 165 128 103 219 0 198 2,112 3821 OH 256 151 357 246 121 95 236 192 0 2,112 3766 Other1456 1040 3774 1552 1060 606 2307 1439 1465 29,227 Total 4072 3545 8043 3725 2776 2030 4622 2896 2983 33,319 68,011
20
Net flows of inventors across states,
Move in 4072 3545 8043 3725 2776 2030 4622 2896 2983
NY NJ CA PA MA CT TX IL OH
Move out 6069 4514 7470 4034 3230 2232 3648 3821 3766
Net flow -1,997 -969 573 -309 -454 -202 974 -925 -783
21
Further facts about globalization of S&I
• Larger teams of researchers per unit of S&I output (papers, patents, etc.) • More international and institutional cooperation and diversity • More geographic dispersion of researchers • Large fraction of foreign PhD students
22
Mean Number of Authors per Scientific Paper
23
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
Size of R&D Teams: Average Number of Inventors per Patent
Grant Year
19 7 19 5 7 19 6 7 19 7 7 19 8 7 19 9 8 19 0 8 19 1 8 19 2 8 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 99
24
Institutional collaborations: Mean number of universities per scientific paper 1981-1999
25
% of US scientific papers joint with foreign co-authors
w/foreign universities
26
International Diversity of Teams of Patent Inventors
(1 – Herfindahl index on countries of inventors)
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
19 7 19 5 7 19 6 7 19 7 7 19 8 79 19 8 19 0 8 19 1 8 19 2 83 19 8 19 4 8 19 5 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 90 19 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 94 19 9 19 5 9 19 6 97 19 9 19 8 99
Grant Year
27
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
(1 – Herfindahl index on states of inventors)
Geographic diversity of inventors in the US
Grant Year
28
19 7 19 5 7 19 6 7 19 7 7 19 8 7 19 9 8 19 0 8 19 1 8 19 2 8 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 99
International mobility of Ph.D. Students: Foreign Students as % of total PhD enrollment 2000
25%
29
S&E doctoral degrees earned by foreign students – 2001 (NSF)
30
How does a nation benefit from the globalization of S&I?
Presumably, as with trade, it is win-win; still some countries benefit more than others. In order to benefit the most, strive to
become a S&I HUB,
i.e, a place through which lots of scientists and inventors come and go, interact with the local players and with each other. True for countries, for regions, for universities, and to some extent also for industrial labs. 31
Why a “hub”?
• Creativity in S&I nurtures from exchange of ideas, from exposure to diverging points of view; • Much of S&I progress consists of recombination of existing ideas, principles, tools; • The important point is the comings and goings, the interaction, which allows for all the above.
32
Regional hubs of cutting-edge S&I
• Silicon Valley (around Stanford)
• Boston area (around MIT, Harvard)
• Cambridge UK (e.g. biotech) • Israel “Waddi” Contradicts globalization? not quite: creativity/ innovation requires close interaction, highly specialized inputs, personal contacts, etc.
33
Silicon Valley as a Hub
44,805 inventors “related” to Silicon Valley, involved in 160,000 patents. • 3.6 patents per inventor (US mean of 2.7) • corporate movers: 45% (all inventors: 33%) • state movers: 16% (US inventors: 7%) • country movers: 3.7% (all inventors: 1.9%)
(all percentages out of inventors with > 1 patent)
34
International flows of inventors: turnover
Country Moves in 1392 Canada 702 Switzerland 1551 Germany 665 France 2181 UK 248 Israel 205 Italy 1114 Japan 371 Korea 453 Netherlands 275 Taiwan 8041 US Moves out 1554 693 1701 665 2809 219 186 1244 270 527 176 7272 Net -162 9 -150 0 -628 29 19 -130 101 -74 99 769 Turnover
2,946 1,395 3,252 1,330 4,990 467 391 2,358 641 980 451 15,313
35
What does it take to be a S&I hub?
Easy said… • First-rate Universities and R&D labs
• Critical mass of research in cutting edge fields
• Appropriate S&I infrastructure (C&C, scientific instrumentation, broadband, etc.)
•
Easy access, openness (see difficulties now in the US).
Standard of living, wider opportunities
36
And also… •
Can Israel be a major S&I hub?
Maybe…Good starting point: • Excellent research universities (for now…), vibrant High Tech sector; • Extensive network of scientific and tech international collaborations • Outward orientation But, • Security concerns • Reduced funding for Universities
Still, this is Israel’s (only?) comparative advantage, no choice but to strive for it
37