Now, I'm off to call for more government subsidies for research and development of the type the market would like. I have a lobby group that knows precisely what the economy needs.
To put it another way, graduates should be starting up their own businesses.
I was going to suggest that microcredit or venture capital would be the solution, but the private sector seems to have little appetite for it. And, of course, there's the issue of the entrepreneurial/risk-taking culture (or lack thereof) among the graduates. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
And, of course, the suggestion is not that everyone starts a company by themselves, but as a partnership with others they know so that the group has the necessary mix of skills and attitudes.
But access to capital is the essential ingredient, and it is jealously guarded. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
But even beyond fundamental research, I'm not too friendly to the idea of exposing university research to even the possibility of dependence on private companies. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In the US you can get a better basic science education at a 4-year college than at a research university. Not only are the resources more focused on teaching, but at a 4-year college, as there are no graduate students, professors use undergraduates to run research projects. There is hardly any undergraduate research at research universities. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Except of course, if the money came from Shell. Then it'd be alright. (!!)
So I would not be surprised if some of that particular culture is more pervasive within Europe - but this is a question I have which I've not researched and is extremely hard to research sitting behind a computer in South Africa.
So, yes, maybe private businesses will find it in their hearts to put money into an independent research trust, but I don't think it's likely.
If a researcher wants to consult or be employed with a private business, fine, but university funding shouldn't depend on that. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
I agree that a university funding for research should not depend solely on private business funding. Which is why it should remain third stream money.
Migeru:
The problem with accepting non-charity money from a for-profit organisation is that it generally comes with intellectual strings attached.
Let me answer that one over three years...
But it doesn't happen often. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
I think that spending in Europe also tends to be skewed towards large undertakings (at least this is the case in Germany where the automobile sector accounts for over half of all private sector R&D), whereas the largest potential for wealth creation lies in R&D by SMEs.
Maybe it's silly to speak of a 'gap'. In terms the economy at large, it is probably better to spend quite a lot on fundamental research, applied research and the development of technology as it is one of the most potent sources for the creation of wealth.
Caveats with regard to creating wealth apply, though I think that changes in technology is a potent force for the betterment of just about anything. If used wisely...
I have no idea what would be behind the Japanese figure, but I'd be interested in the structure of it.
Problem solved.
The difference in private sector spending points at something real. Of course, the figures need to be broken down, as you indicate. It may be that in the case of the US it is merely spending on military development and patent trolling. That's an interesting topic for further research.
I think that there is a fairly continuous line from fundamental research to applied research to new product development, and therefore it makes sense to group them together when doing an analysis in an economic context.
