1 / 37

Manuel Trajtenberg 2005

A digression: Globalization, Science and Technology and the Economy (or why is Adam Smith still very relevant…). Manuel Trajtenberg 2005. Outsourcing/offshoring What is it all about?. The phenomena, in recent years:

fabian
Download Presentation

Manuel Trajtenberg 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A digression: Globalization, Science and Technology and the Economy (or why is Adam Smith still very relevant…) Manuel Trajtenberg 2005

  2. Outsourcing/offshoringWhat is it all about? • The phenomena, in recent years: • Steep increase in outsourcing/offshoring of activities in the High Tech/ICT sectors, in particular in ICT services, and software. • 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?!

  3. Employment in High Tech manufacturing industries in the US (BLS) Semiconductors & elec. components Electronic instruments Communications eq. Computers & peripherals

  4. Employment changes in non-manufacturing sectors prone to outsourcing (BLS data)

  5. 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

  6. Annual Salaries of software programmers in various countries USA Computerworld, April 28, 2003

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Voicing common concerns • There are always winners and losers (those displaced). The latter do not necessarily find alternative (good) jobs. • Activities outsourced increasingly sophisticated, feeling that the there are no further steps to climb up the technological/skills ladder… • 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

  10. 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 they are located.

  11. The Globalization ofScience and Innovation (S&I)trends,logic,implications

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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…

  15. Trends in the global mobility of Science and Innovation (S&I) players:Inventors, Scientists, Students

  16. 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

  17. 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! and we can trace them…

  18. International Mobility of Patent Inventorsnumber of cross-country moves per year 1975-1999

  19. Flows of Inventors across countries From To

  20. Flows of inventors across US states

  21. Net flows of inventors across states,

  22. 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

  23. Mean Number of Authors per Scientific Paper

  24. Size of R&D Teams:Average Number of Inventors per Patent

  25. Institutional collaborations:Mean number of universities per scientific paper 1981-1999

  26. % of US scientific papers joint with foreign co-authors w/foreign universities

  27. International Diversity of Teams of Patent Inventors (1 – Herfindahl index on countries of inventors)

  28. Geographic diversity of inventors in the US(1 – Herfindahl index on states of inventors)

  29. International mobility of Ph.D. Students:Foreign Students as % of total PhD enrollment 2000 25%

  30. S&E doctoral degrees earned by foreign students – 2001 (NSF)

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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)

  35. International flows of inventors: turnover

  36. 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). • And also… • Standard of living, wider opportunities

  37. 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

More Related