Monthly Archives: May 2014

Innovation, competition and public good

Posted on by

[amazon_link id=”1594203288″ target=”_blank” ]The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation[/amazon_link] by Jon Gertner is a fabulously interesting and readable book. It’s a terrific business history about the research and development arm of AT&T during its golden, monopoly era. Scientists and engineers at Bell Labs created some of the defining technologies of modern times, including the transistor, the semiconductor, the laser, fibre optics, Claude Shannon’s information theory, submarine cables, satellites (Telstar), early work on mobile communications, and more.(Francis Spufford’s lovely book [amazon_link id=”0571214975″ target=”_blank” ]Backroom Boys[/amazon_link] has a chapter on the UK’s contribution to mobile communications at the same time.)

“Finding an aspect of modern life that doesn’t incorporate some strand of Bell Labs’ DNA would be difficult,” as Gertner rightly puts it.

[amazon_image id=”1594203288″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation[/amazon_image]

The book is also a thoughtful exploration of how this institution was able to be so consistently innovative for such a long time. The key is the implicit deal between AT&T and the US authorities to permit the company its monopoly of local and, for many years, long-distance calls as long as the fruits of the research were shared with competitors. Thus key technologies such as the transistor were quickly licensed at low cost. It was an excellent system for delivering the public good of innovative ideas. The parent company was a dull but profitable utility. It paid good and steady dividends to shareholders, and to Bell Labs. “The paradox of course was that a parent company so dull, so cautious, so predictable was also in custody of a lab so innovative,” Gertner writes.

An interesting question is therefore how Bell Labs came to be so innovative in the first place. Apart from the steady flow of generous funding from the parent company, its rules seemed to have played a vital role. People were strongly discouraged from closing their doors. Anybody could ask anybody else – no matter how eminent – to help on a problem. The different disciplines were located in close proximity. All work had to be written down in specified notebooks and countersigned, so ideas were attributed, but nobody could claim individual patents. Everyone had to work on their own side-projects, an idea copied by Google. Its director saw the lab as a living organism, with physical proximity essential for the fruitful cross-fertilisation of ideas.

In those pre-competitive times, the value of patents was well understood, and Bell Labs was careful to patent its discoveries, but there was no inhibition in exchanging ideas with the broader scientific community. For example, in the early days of semi-conductor research, visitors from Fairchild Semiconductor in Palo Alto and Texas Instruments in Dallas were frequent visitors to the Bell Lab home in New Jersey. It’s hard to recall a time when commercial entities were so open with each other about their R&D.

Eventually of course the monopoly power for social returns deal broke down – and apart from Bell Labs, the other social aspect of it was AT&T’s use of long distance profits to subsidise local calls. By the time the break up of AT&T into the Baby Bells occurred in 1984, there had been several assaults on the monopoly by various US regulators. (Tim Wu’s [amazon_link id=”1848879865″ target=”_blank” ]The Master Switch[/amazon_link] gives an account of the communication monopoly from a far more sceptical perspective than The Idea Factory.) The Federal judge who finally oversaw the agreement to break up AT&T was not concerned about the vertical integration of AT&T with its research subsidiary or Western Electric, the equipment subsidiary, seeing economic benefit to consumers in the supply chain links, but rather with the horizontal integration. Hence the deal to break off the regional Baby Bells. Competition from MCI on long distance calls was already occurring. But some people anyway saw the end of the monopoly as an inevitable result of the earlier licensing of key technologies. AT&T and Bell Labs had given birth to their own future competitors.

The inevitable question is what kind of innovation system could again deliver such fundamental technological advances? All of the communications technologies have involved vast, vast sums of money and multi-year, multi-person efforts. Mariana Mazzucato has argued that government involvement in innovation is always essential, due to the scale of funding and effort, and the risk involved, giving examples mainly from the computer industry in her book [amazon_link id=”0857282522″ target=”_blank” ]The Entrepreneurial State[/amazon_link]. Governments of course fund university research, as do some foundations, but direct public funding of research and – importantly – development in the commercial sector is rare – often done through the defense budget in the US, previously through nationalised entities in other countries.

Elsewhere, and in the post-privatisation era, it is pretty rare. And today’s information sector monopolists and quasi-monopolists do not seem to have the same sense of public obligation as their Bell Labs predecessors; the profit motive did not drive the creation of transistors and semi-conductors, although it was vital in getting them into new products in the market once they had been invented. Dominant companies in digital businesses with low marginal costs and strong network effects have tremendous market power which it’s hard for competition authorities to address because there are large consumer benefits and because there’s always the hope of disruptive entry by a new and better soon-to-be-dominant company. Perhaps the right public policy approach is to learn a lesson from the history of Bell Labs and look at what public or social benefits these dominant players offer until that disruption happens?

[amazon_image id=”1848879865″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires[/amazon_image]

Living on the never never

Posted on by

I’ve been looking through an interesting book by UBS economist Paul Donovan and Julie Hudson, [amazon_link id=”1849714142″ target=”_blank” ]From Red to Green: How the financial credit crunch could bankrupt the environment[/amazon_link]. It starts with the simple point that people were relying on credit in two ways, using both financial and environmental resources for current rather than future consumption. In some cases the credit-financed consumer boom before the crisis accelerated the consumption of environmental resources, and in other cases had positive environmental benefits. More consumption clearly uses more of some materials and more energy; but has also encouraged investment in additional infrastructure (to use water more efficiently, for example) or innovation. In either case it’s important to note that the two are related, when thinking about what the crunch after the crisis implies for financial and environmental sustainability.

[amazon_image id=”1849714142″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]From Red to Green?: How the Financial Credit Crunch Could Bankrupt the Environment[/amazon_image]

The bulk of the book looks in detail at different issues to explore the interactions between red and green credit. For example, a chapter on food discusses what actions could increase agricultural productivity while protecting biodiversity and soil quality, how the credit crunch is affecting the outlook, and also what changes in behaviour might be desirable . So declining real incomes could lead to reduced consumption of meat and less food waste, but these depend on changed consumer habits and changed practices in the food retailing business. On the other hand, there is less funding for R&D in agriculture and food production – unless the corporate sector concludes that it needs to do more to limit its exposure to supply chain risks like the horse meat scandal. Other chapters look at water, energy, infrastructure, housing, human health, and consumer goods.

The detail is all fascinating, and the book obviously covers a wide territory. It seems to offer a very practical and fruitful approach to turning the crisis to some longer term benefit by getting people to focus on specific actions to reduce the economy’s reliance on financial credit and at the same time economise on natural resource use and preserve natural assets. Ever since writing [amazon_link id=”B00GP1RV0U” target=”_blank” ]The Economics of Enough[/amazon_link] a few years ago I’ve been obsessed with the chronic short-termism of modern economies. So a book about what people can do right now to safeguard future living standards – written by a City economist too – was bound to appeal to me. Any investors who are genuinely interested in long-term returns rather than quarterly results will find it very interesting. However, although the advice in [amazon_link id=”1849714142″ target=”_blank” ]From Red to Green[/amazon_link] is practical and specific, it does highlight how much needs to be done by many people to lengthen the economic time horizon.

The social life of innovation

Posted on by

I’m half way through and really enjoying [amazon_link id=”1594203288″ target=”_blank” ]The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation [/amazon_link]by Jon Gertner. It was published in the US in 2012 and was a bestseller, but I’m not sure it was ever published here in the UK – it was a tweet from Tim Harford that alerted me to it. If that’s right, perhaps Penguin thought it was too American and nobody on this side of the Atlantic had ever heard of Bell Labs. Yet this is the organisation that employed Bill Shockley, John Tukey, Claude Shannon and many other brilliant scientists and mathematicians in the mid-20th century. When I studied at Harvard in the early 1980s one of my fellow-students, Kaye Husbands, had worked at Bell Labs, which is how I first came to learn about it.

[amazon_image id=”1594203288″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation[/amazon_image]

I’ll review the book at length later in the week. The question it immediately raises, though, is about the structure of innovation, a costly business. AT&T funded Bell Labs from its monopoly profit but its executives were well aware that its privileged position of a regulated monopoly meant Bell Labs had to serve public purposes as well as private profit, and to do so in a public way. This meant that, for example, the transistor technology was publicised and quickly licensed on reasonable terms to competitors – AT&T knew there would be an outcry if the company tried to keep that innovation to itself. An interesting history lesson for large technology organisations. Indeed, as John Kay often points out, sustained success for any business depends on its moral purpose as a social institution delivering benefits to everybody, not on maximising short term profit; and the very purpose of a tech business is innovation.

Of course, the AT&T monopoly was eventually broken up by the US authorities, but I’m not yet that far through Gertner’s account.

Festivities

Posted on by

Yesterday I was at the Hay Festival talking about [amazon_link id=”0691156794″ target=”_blank” ]GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History[/amazon_link]. My slot was the opposite of headlining, 9am on Monday morning, after a weekend of rain, on a rather muddy site. It was heartwarming to see the level of interest in how to measure economic progress, even in those unpromising circumstances.

Me talking about GDP in a new pair of Festival wellies

There were loads of other economics-related sessions. [amazon_link id=”0718197038″ target=”_blank” ]Ha-Joon Chang[/amazon_link] was on yesterday too, [amazon_link id=”1846146895″ target=”_blank” ]Philip Coggan[/amazon_link], [amazon_link id=”1846147557″ target=”_blank” ]Levitt and Dubner[/amazon_link]. And of course there’s all the non-economics non-fiction too.

The silver lining in living in interesting times is that lots of people are interested in understanding what’s going on in the world. Besides, in one of the obvious paradoxes of the ever-more digital world, one of the things people are increasingly spending their money on is participation in events, from lectures, concerts and sports events to maker faires and literary festivals. Speaking of which, information about the 2014 Festival of Economics in Bristol in late November will be available soon.

Signing copies

 

Chewing over the beautiful game

Posted on by

Arrived in the post, and only slightly chewed on one corner by the dog on dropping through the letter box, is [amazon_link id=”0691144028″ target=”_blank” ]Beautiful Game Theory: How Soccer Can Help Economics[/amazon_link] by Ignacio Palacios-Huerta. Football is so much not my thing that a book using game theory to explain soccer isn’t very enticing, and using soccer to explain game theory would mystify me. The book aims to do both. Not one for me but I *love* the title.

Slightly chewed