The IPL newsletter: Volume 16, Issue 333

Contributors and Detractors: Ranking Countries’ Impact on Global Innovation

Stephen Ezell, Adams Nager, and Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF
Robust innovation is essential for economic growth and social progress around the world. Until now, most studies of innovation policy looked at how nations’ policies affect innovation in their own country. This report assesses 56 countries—which comprise almost 90 percent of the global economy—on 27 factors reflecting the extent to which their economic and trade policies contribute to and detract from innovation globally. The report finds that on a per-capita basis, the nations doing the most for global innovation (a combination of more effort on policies that support innovation and less on policies that harm it) are Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In contrast, India, Indonesia, and Argentina score the lowest overall. Singapore, Korea, and Finland rank highest on how much their policies contribute to global innovation. In contrast, India, China, and Thailand have put in place policies that have done the most to harm global innovation. The United States ranks 10th overall, with policies that do little to detract from global innovation yet fall short of those of other nations when it comes to contributing to global innovation. China ranks 44th overall, principally because it fields so many policies that actively detract from the global innovation system. The report also finds a strong correlation between countries’ contributions to global innovation and their levels of innovation success, meaning that doing well domestically on innovation policy can also mean doing well for the world. The report concludes that for the world to maximize global innovation capacity, it will need to develop stronger mechanisms to encourage nations to do more contributing and less detracting. 

 What Comes First, People or Jobs: Evidence and Lessons from Indiana

Michael J. Hicks and Dagney Faulk, Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER)
This paper evaluates the long standing question: Do people follow jobs, or do jobs follow people? To do so, the authors examined population and employment growth in Indiana’s 92 counties in the decades of the 1970s and the 2000s. The study controlled for educational attainment, initial population, urban/rural influence, natural amenities, income inequality and inter-generational mobility, the size of local government and spatial spillover effects. The findings are very consistent with the more than 25 studies performed on this issue, though this study adds both income and social mobility dynamics to the analysis. Moreover, this is the first study to examine long-term differences between the questions: Do jobs move to people or do people move to jobs? The authors found that in the 1970s both phenomena occurred; workers migrated to jobs, while jobs moved to workers, though the movement of jobs to people was at that time much larger. However, in this study of Indiana the 2000s they found that the movement of workers to jobs had ceased to play a statistically meaningful role in population dynamics, and that jobs relocated to be near people. The clear implication of this finding is that policies that focus on relocating capital investment, in order to move people to jobs, will be ineffective. In contrast, policies that effect the relocation of people to regions will also increase employment availability.

Empowering Michigan: Ninth Annual Impact Report of Michigan’s University Corridor

Michigan’s University Research Corridor (URC)
Employing several facets of analysis not typically seen in higher-ed economic impact reports, the URC’s ninth annual assessment by independent evaluator Anderson Consulting Group is able to: quantify total degrees awarded, R&D expenditures, and technology transfer activities to estimate the cumulative impact of the corridor; analyze how the URC leads to jobs and income for residents and state revenue in each of Michigan’s counties; and, compare the URC’s performance to peer university innovation clusters nationwide. They find that the URC generated approximately $17.5 billion in net economic impact in 2014. The report is also somewhat unique in that it compares the URC to other established research clusters. The Innovation Power Rankings assess the URC’s performance relative to its peer clusters for research spending, talent, and technology transfer activities.

Cultural Times: The First Global Map of Cultural and Creative Industries

EY
The world has a shared history and a rich, diverse cultural heritage. This heritage is cherished globally as an asset that belongs to us all, yet gives our societies their identity and binds them together, nurturing a rich cultural and creative present and future. That is why stakeholders of the creative and cultural world must do everything in their power to preserve this heritage and the diversity of actual cultural content, amid a political and economic climate that is subject to major upheavals. The idea behind this report is that the economic weight of cultural and creative industries (CCI) in mature and emerging economies is partially described, misunderstood and undervalued. This is why the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC — the body representing authors’ societies worldwide) — decided to commission a global study of the economic and social impact of CCI, focusing especially upon revenues and employment. 

World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends

The World Bank
Digital technologies have spread rapidly in much of the world. Digital dividends—that is, the broader development benefits from using these technologies—have lagged behind. In many instances, digital technologies have boosted growth, expanded opportunities, and improved service delivery. Yet their aggregate impact has fallen short and is unevenly distributed. For digital technologies to benefit everyone everywhere requires closing the remaining digital divide, especially in internet access. But greater digital adoption will not be enough. To get the most out of the digital revolution, countries also need to work on the “analog complements”—by strengthening regulations that ensure competition among businesses, by adapting workers’ skills to the demands of the new economy, and by ensuring that institutions are accountable.

Cities Outlook 2016

Centre for Cities
In the Summer Budget 2015, the Chancellor set out his vision to build a “higher wage, low-welfare” economy in Britain. This year’s Cities Outlook shows that while 14 cities can be said to be achieving this goal already, almost half have lower wages, and higher welfare, than the national average. Moreover, welfare spending since 2010 has grown at a much faster rate in high-wage cities, largely the result of rising housing benefit payments. Outlook 2016 argues that in order for the Chancellor to achieve his objective, he will need to vary his approach across the country. To deal with increases in welfare spending in recent years the focus will need to be on addressing housing shortages in high-wage areas. Meanwhile in low-wage areas, to tackle both low-pay and high-welfare, the focus needs to be on boosting jobs and skills. Now in its ninth year, Cities Outlook provides the authoritative economic index of the 63 largest cities and towns in the UK. To explore the data behind the report, visit our data tool. To get the key stats on your area, go to our city by city page.