Tech Pork – Technology Liberation Front https://techliberation.com Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Mon, 10 Apr 2023 14:17:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 6772528 Podcast: What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy? https://techliberation.com/2022/02/18/podcast-whats-wrong-with-industrial-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2022/02/18/podcast-whats-wrong-with-industrial-policy/#comments Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:54:29 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76954

I recently joined Rep. Dan Crenshaw on his Hold These Truths podcast to discuss, “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy.” We chatted for 25 minutes about a wide range of issues related to the the growing push for grandiose industrial policy schemes in the US, including the massive new 3,000-page, $350 billion “COMPETES Act” legislation that recently passed in the House and which will soon be conferenced with a Senate bill that already passed.

On the same day this podcast was released this week, I also had a new op-ed appear in  The Hill on “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover.” In both that essay and the podcast with Rep. Crenshaw, I stress that, beyond all the other problems with these new industrial policy measures, no one is talking about the fiscal cost of it all. As I note:

In the rush to pass legislation, we’ve barely heard a peep about the $250-$350 billion price tag. This follows a massive splurge of recent government borrowing, which led to the U.S. national debt hitting another lamentable new record: $30 trillion. China already owns over $1 trillion of that debt, making one wonder if we’re really countering China by adopting a massive, new and unfunded industrial policy that they will end up financing indirectly.

Read my oped for more details and for a deeper dive of what’s wrong with the bills, see my earlier essay here on “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever.”

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer on Industrial Policy:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/02/18/podcast-whats-wrong-with-industrial-policy/feed/ 1 76954 Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever https://techliberation.com/2022/01/26/thoughts-on-the-competes-act-the-most-corporatist-wasteful-industrial-policy-ever/ https://techliberation.com/2022/01/26/thoughts-on-the-competes-act-the-most-corporatist-wasteful-industrial-policy-ever/#respond Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:37:24 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76942

On Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, posted the text of the “America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength Act of 2022,” or “The America COMPETES Act.” As far as industrial policy measures go, the COMPETES Act is one of the most ambitious and expensive central planning efforts in American history. It represents the triumph of top-down, corporatist, techno-mercantilist thinking over a more sensible innovation policy rooted in bottom-up competition, entrepreneurialism, private investment, and free trade.

Unprecedented Planning & Spending

First, the ugly facts: The full text of the COMPETES Act weighs in at a staggering 2,912 pages. A section-by-section “summary” of the measure takes up 109 pages alone. Even the shorter “fact sheet” for the bill is 20 pages long. It is impossible to believe that anyone in Congress has read every provision of this bill. It will be another case of having “to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it,” as Speaker Pelosi once famously said about another mega-measure.

Of course, a mega bill presents major opportunities for lawmakers to sneak in endless gobs of pork and unrelated policy measures they can’t find any other way to get through Congress. The Senate already passed a similar 2,600-page companion measure last summer, “The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.” Lawmakers loaded up that measure with so much pork and favors for special interests that Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) labelled the effort an “orgy of spending porn.” Like that effort, the new COMPETES Act includes $52 billion to boost domestic semiconductor production as well as $45 billion in grants and loans to address supply chain issues.

But there are billions allocated for other initiatives, as well as countless provisions addressing other technologies and sectors. The list is seemingly endless and includes: 5G mobile networks, biometrics, quantum information science, “the development of safe and trustworthy artificial intelligence and data science,” cybersecurity literacy, drone security, microelectronics, electronic waste, genomics, isotope development, and the Large Hadron Collider and high intensity lasers, among many other things. The measure also proposes a broad array of Green New Deal-esque efforts focused on things like: biometrology, climate and Earth modeling, deforestation and overfishing / “driftnet” fishing matters, marine mammal research, solar energy, bioenergy, the creation of a National Engineering Biology Research and Development Initiative and a Regional Clean Energy Innovation Program at the Department of Energy, clean water programs, a national clean energy incubator program, and helium conservation, again among many other things. There are even provisions addressing the trading of shark fins and almost 70 pages of provisions on coral reef conservation.

A Sweeping Macroeconomic Planning Exercise

There are more sweeping macroeconomic provisions and mandates in the bill. For example, the COMPETES Act would create a new “national supply chain database,” as well as a Supply Chain Resiliency and Crisis Response Office in the Department of Commerce, while also requiring the Director of White House Office of Science & Technology Policy to develop and submit to Congress a 4-year comprehensive national S&T strategy. The measure also includes trade adjustment assistance for workers, firms, and farmers and even provisions dealing with currency undervaluation. There are also many provisions addressing drug manufacturing and medical supply chain issues. There are even proposed expansions of federal antitrust power. (Apparently, once America’s grandiose industrial policies magically create global powerhouses in every sector, we’ll need expanding antitrust action to tear them all down and start all over again! Meanwhile, perhaps the greatest irony of the new industrial policy efforts is that, while lawmakers are falling all over themselves to shower corporate America with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, policymakers are simultaneously on a regulatory and antitrust jihad against many successful tech companies with bills that would break them up or destroy their business models.)

Perhaps most radically, the measure includes a 25-page section proposing a sweeping new “National Critical Capabilities Review” process to oversee outbound investments. Covington lawyers noted that, if such a regulatory regime is enacted, “the United States would become the first major Western advanced economy to adopt a broad-gauged outbound investment screening process, raising the prospect of a new era in national security-based reviews and restrictions of international investment flows.”

Finally, the COMPETES Act includes a huge assortment of other national security and foreign policy-related provisions, most of which focus on countering China in some fashion. “There’s a lot of Cold War-style influence mongering happening here,” says Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown, including programs that sound like they could have been concocted by the CIA, such as the bill’s “Countering China’s Educational and Cultural Diplomacy in Latin America” initiative. But there is also a lot of language here addressing other regions or countries, including: Oceania, Africa, the Arctic, the Middle East, Iran, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and others.

The relationship of most of these provisions to U.S. industrial competitiveness is tenuous to say the least. Nonetheless, those provisions take up a huge amount of space in this nearly 3,000-page industrial policy measure and may end up complicating its passage.

A Chicken in Every Pot

The inclusion of “Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs” in the bill deserves special attention. The Act proposes $7 billion over four years to fund 10 different innovation hubs and it includes many provisions about how and where money will be spent. It’s hard to see how spreading $7 billion across 10 hubs is actually going to result in much once every special interest gets their cut of the action, but proposals like these are all the rage these days. It’s the equivalent of policymakers promising a high-tech chicken in every pot, or a Silicon Valley in every state.

In a two-part series for Discourse, I documented the problems associated with the many previous government efforts to create innovation hubs, tech clusters, or science parks. The government’s  track record in this regard is long and lamentable. Instead of following a time-tested approach getting the broad innovation policy environment right through a “generalized” approach to economic growth and development, most policymakers took unwise shortcuts and tried using “targeted” development schemes that were incredibly risky and ended up squandering a huge amount of taxpayer resources.

But all those failed past efforts probably won’t stop this high-tech pork barrel effort from rolling forward in some fashion. The proposed new regional hub effort comes on top of an announcement last July by the Commerce Department that the agency plans to allocate $1 billion in pandemic recovery funds to create or expand “regional industry clusters” as part of the administration’s new “Build Back Better Regional Challenge.” The agency’s list of possible winning funding ideas includes an “artificial intelligence corridor” and a “climate-friendly electric vehicle cluster.” And there are many other federal and state programs throwing money at the idea of hub or “cluster” formation, or even just highly cronyist efforts to attract a single big tech firm. (Anyone remember the Foxconn fiasco in Wisconsin?)

As Matt Mitchell and I have noted, this growing trend represents the collision of federal industrial policy and long-standing state-based economic development efforts. Regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, it is highly unlikely these new tech pork barrel efforts will produce better results than the long string of earlier federal and state failures.

Secondary Effects & Unforeseeable Costs

A bill this big presents many other big opportunities for corporations and other special interests. It’s no wonder that many companies, trade associations, and other special interests are lining up to support this effort. In a recent study co-authored with Connor Haaland (“Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech”), we outlined “the way rent-seeking and cronyism often become chronic problems for highly targeted, big-budget industrial policy efforts.” Those problems will grow exponentially if the COMPETES Act passes. Everyone expects a cut of the action when Washington starts showering sectors with money.

But there’s a bigger problem associated with the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to such a massive industrial policy bill.  All the ambiguities associated with a monster measure like this means that agency bureaucrats will be left to fill in all the details for many years to come. It is folly of the highest order to believe that all these agencies will work together in a tightly coordinated and consistent way to advance industrial policy efforts or address “strategic objectives.” Anyone currently following the fight between the FAA and FCC over the rollout of 5G wireless networks will know what I am talking about. Moreover, delegating broad authority and big money to all these agencies just further reinforces the rent-seeking instincts of special interests, who will rush to their respective regulatory masters with hat in hand. This presents agencies with an added policy lever to blackmail companies into doing what they want without any new regulations even being issued.

And then there is the final consideration: where will all the money come from for this grand exercise in technocratic central planning? The Senate bill costs an estimated $250 billion. To be clear, that’s A QUARTER TRILLION DOLLARS. We’re talking big money, and chances are that the final price tag for the House’s COMPETES Act will be even higher. Does the money to fund all this profligate spending just fall like manna from industrial policy heaven? No, it will come out the pockets of the American taxpayer and American companies (who will just pass the bill along to consumers). This will have dynamic effects on growth and innovation that are almost never discussed in industrial policy debates. Here’s how Connor Haaland and I put it in our big study:

“First, a dollar spent pursuing one objective is a dollar that could have been invested differently, and potential better. Second, the very act of imposing taxes to cover these state gambits results in costs and distortions that must be accounted for. Some of these costs are deadweight losses associated with taxes and tax collection more generally. But this points to a third lesson: The true potential costs associated with industrial policy programs also need to account for the negative secondary effects of rent-seeking, bureaucracy, and the many other downsides of the political system, included cost overruns and corruption.”

As the old saying goes: There is no free lunch.

Conclusion: There Is a Better Way

Some advocates of the COMPETES Act label it a “competitiveness bill” or an “innovation initiative.” It takes a great deal of hubris to pretend that that the economy is just a giant machine to be manipulated and that policymakers can easily “dial in” the desired innovation results through massive bills and expanded bureaucracy.

Lawmakers and bureaucrats are not going to allocate capital more efficiently than private innovators and investors. Nor are they going to be able to “shore up supply chains” or create tech hubs in every city just by sprinkling a little magical industrial policy pixie dust thinly across the entire nation.

We should not try to compete with China by becoming China. Nor do we need to. Markets and supply chains recover from setbacks faster than governments can. This week, the White House reiterated its support for industrial policy efforts to strengthen supply chains and extend subsidies to the semiconductors industry. But, assuming the COMPETES Act passes, it’ll take years to get all the planning and spending going. When government spins those proverbial dials, it does so very slowly and extremely inefficiently. Meanwhile, the same day the White House was making these announcements, it was also touting that $80 billion in private investment has been announced by the US semiconductor industry recently. Just last week, Intel announced it plans to invest at least $20 billion in two new chip-making facilities in Ohio. Scott Lincicome and Ilana Blumsack have documented the many other private initiatives underway by the semiconductor industry to expand domestic manufacturing capacity, as well as efforts by foreign firms like Samsung to invest here to take advantage of our skilled workforce and vibrant capital market. This is all happening despite the fact that Congress is still debating an industrial policy measure that may end up being too bloated to even achieve successful passage this session.

Does government have any role to play? It certainly does. Most current industrial policy proposals fail to understand that the most important thing that policymakers can do is to clean up decades of earlier failed industrial policy efforts. Industrial policies in fields like energy, aviation, space, communications and other sectors skewed markets in unnatural and inefficient ways by favoring specific technologies and companies over others. This is because industrial policy all too often devolves into the business of picking winners and losers. This is not always done in a formal way or even with clear intent. Rather, when government is throwing around billions and engaging in casino economics by placing big bets, a lucky few will win at the expense of others.

Of course, not all government support is as wasteful or corporatist in character. “Basic” R&D efforts are certainly more defensible than most “applied” or “targeted” efforts. “When government is supporting basic R&D,” Connor Haaland and I have noted, “the chances of wasting scarce resources on risky investments can be minimized to some degree, at least as compared with highly targeted applied R&D investments in unproven technologies and firms.”

And then there are all of the education and training efforts governments can undertake. If lawmakers were smart, they would have just limited their efforts to the sort of things found in Titles III, V, and VI of the COMPETES Act, which relates to boosting STEM education, high-tech workforce training, improving National Science Foundation research efforts, and funding various other federal science agencies and labs, that conduct more basic research. And more flexible immigration policies are also essential.

Meanwhile, government defense spending isn’t going to dry up anytime soon and it continues to represent an indirect form of industrial policy given the trillions of dollars that are spread around through the so-called “military-industrial complex.” That certainly doesn’t mean America should be greatly expanding its already bloated defense budgets in the name of expanding industrial policy. Yet, for better or worse, government is always going to be spending a lot of money on defense priorities and it gives it a chance to address whatever “strategic” needs it has.

But the current industrial policy behemoth advancing in Congress represents a misguided effort at domestic retrenchment and a collapse into a lamentable sort of techno-mercantilism thinking that happens every quarter century or so. In my paper with Haaland as well as a separate essay, I have documented just how misguided the “Japan panic” of the 1980s and 90s was. One policymaker and pundit after another lined up to breathlessly proclaim the end of America if we failed to adopt a grandiose industrial policy to counter Japan. Of course, that industrial policy approach ended up being such a disaster that even the Japanese government itself declared in a 2000 report that “the Japanese model was not the source of Japanese competitiveness but the cause of our failure.”

Moreover, it is worth noting what happened with the Internet and digital technology in the U.S. versus the rest of the world in the 1990s and beyond. America essentially put a policy firewall between the emerging digital technology sector and the old industrial policy regime we had for analog sectors and technologies, like broadcasting and wireline telephony. And thank God we did! America’s digital technology sector thrived, and U.S.-headquartered tech companies became household names across the globe. Meanwhile, the Europeans have spent 20 years crafting one misguided industrial policy scheme after another to equal America’s accomplishments. Despite highly targeted and expensive efforts to foster a domestic digital tech base, the EU has instead generated a string of industrial policy failures that Haaland and I documented in detail here.

Corporatism, cronyism, and profligate pork-barrel spending were not the sources of America’s competitive advantage in digital technology, and top-down planning did not make our digital technology companies global powerhouses.  Instead, we got our innovation culture right for digital technology. First and foremost, our the default regulatory policy for the digital economy was permissionless innovation. No one had to ask anyone for the right to develop all those new digital technologies and online platforms. The Clinton Administration’s 1997 “Framework for Global Electronic Commerce” announced that “governments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible” and “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce.” Second, investors saw that positive policy ecosystem developing and moved quickly to shower entrepreneurs in this sector with unprecedented private venture capital investment. Third, education and career opportunities in these sectors expanded accordingly. Real-time “learning by doing” took place as millions of people learned new digital skillsets on the fly. Kids learned how to code before anyone could even teach them how to type. Most importantly, talented immigrants and foreign investors then came here to take advantage of all this, allowing America to steal away the best and brightest from the rest of the world.

This constitutes one of the greatest capitalist success stories in human history, and it all happened without targeted, technocratic, top-down industrial policy planning. This is the more principled and less costly vision for innovation policy America needs today to counter China and the rest of the world. There is absolutely no reason that we can’t apply this same vision to aviation, space, semiconductors, energy, nanotech, AI, and many other sectors of importance.

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer on Industrial Policy:

Other critical essays on industrial policy:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/01/26/thoughts-on-the-competes-act-the-most-corporatist-wasteful-industrial-policy-ever/feed/ 0 76942 Lavoie’s Lessons for Industrial Policy Planners https://techliberation.com/2021/11/09/lavoies-lessons-for-industrial-policy-planners/ https://techliberation.com/2021/11/09/lavoies-lessons-for-industrial-policy-planners/#comments Tue, 09 Nov 2021 15:55:23 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76917

Discourse magazine recently published my essay on what “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie.” With industrial policy enjoying a major revival in the the U.S. — with several major federal proposals are pending or already set to go into effect — I argue that Lavoie’s work is worth revisiting, especially as this weekend was the 20th anniversary of his untimely passing. Jump over to Discourse to read the entire thing.

But one thing I wanted to just briefly highlight here is the useful tool Lavoie created that helped us think about the “planning spectrum,” or the range of different industrial policy planning motivations and proposals. On one axis, he plotted “futurist” versus “preservationist” advocates and proposals, with the futurists wanting to invest in new skills and technologies, while the preservationists seek to prop up existing sectors. On the other axis, he contrasted “left-wing or pro-labor” and “right-wing or pro-business” advocates and proposals.

Lavoie used this tool to help highlight the remarkable intellectual schizophrenia among industrial policy planners, who all claimed to have the One Big Plan to save the economy. The problem was, Lavoie noted, all their plans differed greatly. For example, he did a deep dive into the work of Robert Reich and Felix Rohatyn, who were both outspoken industrial policy advocates during the 80s. Reich as affiliated with the Harvard School of Government at that time, and Rohatyn was a well-known Wall Street financier. The industrial policy proposals set forth by Reich and Rohatyn received enormous media and academic attention at the time, yet no one except Lavoie seriously explored the many ways in which their proposals differed so fundamentally. Rohatyn was slotted on the lower right quadrant because of his desire to prop up old sectors and ensure the health of various private businesses. Reich fell into the upper quadrant of being more of futurist in his desire to have the government promote newer skills, sectors, and technologies.

After identifying the many inconsistencies among these planners and their proposed schemes, Lavoie pointed out that these differences raised some obvious questions: Whose plan are we supposed to follow when proposed plans conflict? And how much stock should we place in the wisdom of industrial policy when the leading advocates cannot even agree on what sectors and technologies are worth preserving or promoting? It was a simply but powerful insight that should led us to calling into question anyone who tries to pretend that they have all the answers when it comes to industrial policy planning. And, as I argue in my new essay, this insight helps us identify the continuing intellectual schizophrenia among industrial policy planners and schemes today. If you jump over to my longer piece, you’ll see my breakdown of all this, but it’s plotted here:

In the end, I conclude that:

The limitations of industrial policy exist regardless of the policymaker’s intentions. There are no “good guys” versus “bad guys” when it comes to industrial policy efforts; there are just many people with many different technocratic plans, all of which are constrained by limited knowledge and resources.

Moreover, Lavoie most important piece of relevant advice is the simple adage that, if you find yourself in a hole, it is wise to stop digging. Constantly doubling down on planning efforts is not going to help governments escape the problems created by their earlier interventions. Unfortunately, this is exactly what many industrial policy advocates do: They insist that America already has an industrial policy, but that it lacks the sort of conscious design or coherent form or direction they desire. But that is the typical sort of hubris and folly we’ve always heard from planners. They always think there’s a proverbial “better path” out there and want us to imagine that they can lead us down it with wiser planning that avoids all the problems of all those past failed planning efforts.

As Lavoie taught us long ago, we’d be wise to reject their various schemes and recommendations. “In light of the inherent deficiencies of central planning, it might be argued that the U.S. should instead try to reduce current government interference with the competitive process to the absolute minimum consistent with other political goals,” he concluded. It remains wise advice for today’s policymakers.

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/11/09/lavoies-lessons-for-industrial-policy-planners/feed/ 2 76917 Can Government Reproduce Silicon Valley Everywhere? https://techliberation.com/2021/09/12/can-government-reproduce-silicon-valley-everywhere/ https://techliberation.com/2021/09/12/can-government-reproduce-silicon-valley-everywhere/#comments Sun, 12 Sep 2021 17:36:07 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76903

Wishful thinking is a dangerous drug. Some pundits and policymakers believe that, if your intentions are pure and you have the “right” people in power, all government needs to do is sprinkle a little pixie dust (in the form of billions of taxpayer dollars) and magical things will happen.

Of course, reality has a funny way of throwing a wrench into the best-laid plans. Which brings me to the question I raise in a new 2-part series for  Discourse magazine: Can governments replicate Silicon Valley everywhere?

In the first installment, I explore the track record of federal and state attempts to build tech clusters, science parks & “regional innovation hubs” using state subsidies and industrial policy. This is highly relevant today because of the huge new industrial policy push at the federal level is building on top of growing state and local efforts to create tech hubs, science parks, or various other types of industrial “clusters.

At the federal level, this summer, the Senate passed a 2,300-page industrial policy bill, the “United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021,” that included almost $10 billion over four years for a Department of Commerce-led effort to fund 20 new regional technology hubs, “in a manner that ensures geographic diversity and representation from communities of differing populations.” A similar proposal that is moving in the House, the “Regional Innovation Act of 2021,” proposes almost $7 billion over five years for 10 regional tech hubs. Meanwhile, the Biden administration also is pitching ideas for new high-tech hubs. In late July, the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration announced plans to allocate $1 billion in pandemic recovery funds to create or expand “regional industry clusters” as part of the administration’s new Build Back Better Regional Challenge. Among the possible ideas the agency said might win funding are an “artificial intelligence corridor,” an “agriculture-technology cluster” in rural coal counties, a “blue economy cluster” in coastal regions, and a “climate-friendly electric vehicle cluster.”

In my essay, I note that the economic literature on these efforts has been fairly negative, to put it mildly. There is no precise recipe for growing tech clusters, as most economists and business analysts note.

“Despite several attempts, Silicon Valley has not been successfully copied elsewhere,” notes Mark Zachary Taylor, author of “The Politics of Innovation: Why Some Countries Are Better Than Others at Science and Technology.” Judge Glock, a senior policy adviser with the Cicero Institute, offers a more blistering assessment of such efforts: “Almost every American state has tried to fund the creation of biotech clusters, projects that almost inevitably end with weeds growing through the parking-lot pavement and a trail of corrupt bargains.”

I then highlight the key findings from several major studies of these efforts, all of which make it clear that, as cluster scholars by Aaron Chatterji, Edward Glaeser and William Kerr noted in 2014 after gathering all the research conducted on the topic: existing evidence “suggests that the regional foundation for growth-enabling innovation is complex and that we should be cautious of single policy solutions that claim to fit all needs.” Furthermore, “even if clusters of entrepreneurship are good for local growth, it is less clear that cities or states have the ability to generate those clusters.”

I also highlight research from my Mercatus Center colleagues on “The Economics of a Targeted Economic Development Subsidy” documenting costs of state-level planning & case study of Foxconn fiasco. They summarize the fairly miserable track record of state and local mini-industrial policy efforts. As they note, the extensive economic literature on this matter finds that “the net effect of targeted economic development subsidies is likely to be negative” because “the taxes funding the subsidies will discourage more economic activity than will be encouraged by the subsidies themselves.” Similarly, Harvard Business School economist Josh Lerner evaluated dozens of similar targeted development efforts from around the globe in his 2009 book Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed—and What to Do About It. He concluded that “for each effective government intervention, there have been dozens, even hundreds, of failures, where substantial public expenditures bore no fruit.”

In my essay, I also discuss the astonishing array of federal efforts to promote the geographic spread of high-tech sectors and jobs since 2000. Throughout Bush, Obama, Trump & Biden admins, there’s been a lot of spending, but not a lot of success. Just lots of new laws and bureaucracies:

In 2012, the Obama administration launched the multiagency Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge and Advanced Manufacturing Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge. This occurred at roughly the same time President Obama was launching his Startup America initiative. He also signed the JOBS Act (Jump-start Our Business Startups) in 2012. All these efforts included various measures to support the spread of advanced manufacturing and high-tech startups across the U.S. But none of these efforts have borne much fruit so far.

In the second installment of this series, I explore better ways to encourage regional tech innovation and economic development without doubling down on failed programs of the past. Specifically, I explain why, when it comes to economic development efforts, policymakers would be wise to avoid the costly, ineffective “fun stuff” and refocus on time-tested “boring” strategies:

The boring approach to economic development seeks to promote an open innovation culture that is conducive to risk-taking, investment and growth without the need to extend targeted privileges to particular firms or industries. Such a culture comes down to a classic mix of simplified and equally applied taxes, streamlined permitting processes and sensible regulations, limits on frivolous lawsuits, and clear protection of contracts and property rights. As Matt Mitchell and I argued previously, policymakers need to resist the urge to go for broke with splashy policies and programs. They need to appreciate the benefits of generalized economic development policy (a.k.a. the boring approach) as opposed to far riskier targeted development efforts.

I also highlight recent research explaining how perhaps the simplest way to strengthen existing clusters, or give rise to new ones, is to make sure America’s immigration policies are hospitable to the best and brightest minds from across the globe.

And I note how, due to the problems associated with many other forms of government-sponsored R&D assistance, many scholars and policymakers are increasingly turning to the idea of government-sponsored competitions and prizes as a superior way to distribute R&D assistance.

With competitions, governments can set broad goals to help facilitate the search for important societal needs. The prizes then create a powerful incentive for innovators to pursue those goals, not only to win money, but also to gain recognition from peers and the public. Another alternative is just using lotteries to distribute R&D money instead of having agencies target grants. That at least avoids political shenanigans and paperwork delays, although it may not be a particularly effective approach.

There is also some good news is overlooked in today’s rush to make big industrial policy gambles: Venture capitalists and new startups are already spreading out naturally.

A 2021 study on “The State of the Startup Ecosystem” by Engine, a research and advocacy organization supporting startups, revealed that “as Series A funding grew over the last fifteen years, more of that growth has started to shift to areas located outside of the largest ecosystems.” Series A funding refers to the initial round of outside venture capitalist investment in startups. The report looked at Series A deals from 2003 to 2018 and found that “Series A rounds outside of the top five ecosystems grew nearly 900 percent, while the number of rounds outside of the top nine grew nearly tenfold.” Whereas Series A fundings outside of the top five ecosystems stood at 38% in 2003, they had jumped up to 43% in 2018. “The increase in deal location diversity over this period reflects an increasing spread in venture capital investment across the country and less centralization of investment in areas like Silicon Valley,” the report concluded.

Meanwhile, tech innovators and investors are increasingly engaging in innovation arbitrage as they move to cities and states across the nation that are more hospitable to entrepreneurial activities. Firms and investors are voting with their feet (and dollars) by flocking to areas where tech clusters can more naturally sprout because the general policy environment is sound.

But government efforts to artificially try to create regional innovation hubs in a top-down, technocratic fashion will almost certainly persist. As they do, some will argue that this time will be different! Perhaps, but it is more likely that the past is prologue; these new hubs will likely cause federal politicians to jockey for position to have their regions named one of the winners and get a big cut of all the new high-tech pork being served up by Washington. We can do better.

Jump over to  Discourse to read both installments here and here.

Also, down below I list several other things I have written recently on industrial policy efforts more generally.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/09/12/can-government-reproduce-silicon-valley-everywhere/feed/ 1 76903 Keeping Uncle Sam out of the Industrial Policy Casino https://techliberation.com/2021/07/16/keeping-uncle-sam-out-of-the-industrial-policy-casino/ https://techliberation.com/2021/07/16/keeping-uncle-sam-out-of-the-industrial-policy-casino/#comments Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:01:32 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76898

Financial Help for Gamblers: How to Get Find ReliefIn my latest column for The Hill, I consider that dangers of government gambling our tax dollars on risky industrial policy programs. I begin by noting:

Roll the dice at a casino enough times, and you are bound to win a few games. But knowing the odds are not in your favor, how much are you willing to risk losing by continuing to gamble? This is the same issue governments confront when they gamble taxpayer dollars on industrial policy efforts, which can best be described as targeted and directed efforts to plan for specific future industrial outputs and outcomes. Throwing enough money at risky ventures might net a few wins, but at what cost? Could those resources have been better spent? And do bureaucrats really make better bets than private investors?

I continue on to note that, while the US is embarking on a major new industrial policy push, history does not provide us with a lot of hope regarding Uncle Sam’s betting record when he starts rolling those industrial policy dice. “How much tolerance should the public have for government industrial policy gambling?” I ask. I continue on:

Generally speaking, “basic” support (broad-based funding for universities and research labs) is wiser than “applied” (targeted subsidies for specific firms or sectors). With basic R&D funding, the chances of wasting resources on risky investments can be contained, at least as compared to highly targeted investments in unproven technologies and firms.

I also argue that “The riskiest bets on new technologies and sectors are better left to private investors,” and note how, “America’s venture capital industry remains the envy of the world because it continues to power world-beating advanced technology.” Accordingly, I conclude:

While some government investments will always be necessary, policymakers engaging in casino economics means bad industrial policy bets and taxpayer money squandered on risky ventures best made by private actors. We need to keep Uncle Sam’s gambling habits in check.

Read the whole thing here. And here’s a list of more of my recent writing on industrial policy:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/07/16/keeping-uncle-sam-out-of-the-industrial-policy-casino/feed/ 1 76898 Targeting vs. Generality in Economic Development & Industrial Policy https://techliberation.com/2021/04/08/targeting-vs-generality-in-economic-development-industrial-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2021/04/08/targeting-vs-generality-in-economic-development-industrial-policy/#comments Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:43:39 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76863

Over at Discourse magazine, my Mercatus Center colleague Matt Mitchell and I have a new essay on, “Industrial Policy is a Very Old, New Idea.” We argue that, despite having a long history of disappointments and failures, that isn’t stopping many policymakers from proposing it industrial policies again. We compare national industrial policy efforts alongside state-based economic development policies, noting their many similarities. In both cases, the crucial issue comes down to targeting versus generality in terms of how policymakers go about encouraging innovation and economic growth. We note how:

The building blocks of the general approach—a mix of broadly applicable tax, spending, regulatory and legal rules—are often rejected because they seem less exciting than targeting specific companies or industries for help. Pundits and policymakers are fond of using machine-like metaphors to suggest they can “fine-tune” innovation or “dial-in” economic development according to a precise formula they believe they have concocted. They also savor the attention that goes along with ribbon-cutting ceremonies and the big headlines often generated by political targeting efforts.

We discuss the spectrum of economic development options (depicted in chart below) in more detail and explain the many pitfalls associated with some of the most highly targeted efforts. “The predicament for policymakers is that, while it is wiser to focus on the generalized approaches, the temptation will remain strong to jump to targeted gambles that may grab headlines but are far more risky and costly,” we argue. Head over to Discourse to read the entire thing.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/04/08/targeting-vs-generality-in-economic-development-industrial-policy/feed/ 1 76863 Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/skeptical-takes-on-expansive-industrial-policy-efforts/ https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/skeptical-takes-on-expansive-industrial-policy-efforts/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:09:11 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76845

[Last updated 3/25/22]

Industrial Policy is a red-hot topic once again with many policymakers and pundits of different ideological leanings lining up to support ambitious new state planning for various sectors — especially 5G, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. A remarkably bipartisan array of people and organizations are advocating for government to flex its muscle and begin directing more spending and decision-making in various technological areas. They all suggest some sort of big plan is needed, and it is not uncommon for these industrial policy advocates to suggest that hundreds of billions will need to be spent in pursuit of those plans.

Others disagree, however, and I’ll be using this post to catalog some of their concerns on an ongoing basis. Some of the criticisms listed here are portions of longer essays, many of which highlight other types of steps that governments can take to spur innovative activities. Industrial policy is an amorphous term with many definitions of a broad spectrum of possible proposals. Almost everyone believes in  some form of industrial policy if you define the term broadly enough. But, as I argued in a September 2020 essay “On Defining ‘Industrial Policy‘,” I believe it is important to narrow the focus of the term such that we can continue to use the term in a rational way. Toward that end, I believe a proper understanding of industrial policy refers to targeted and directed efforts to plan for specific future industrial outputs and outcomes.

The collection of essays below is merely an attempt to highlight some of the general concerns about the most ambitious calls for expansive industrial policy, many of which harken back to debates I was covering in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I first started a career in policy analysis. During that time, Japan and South Korea were the primary countries of concern cited by industrial policy advocates. Today, it is China’s growing economic standing that is fueling calls for ambitious state-led targeted investments in “strategic” sectors and technologies. To a lesser extent, grandiose European industrial policy proposals are also prompting new US counter-proposals.

All this activity is what has given rise to many of the critiques listed below. If you have suggestions for other essays I might add to this list, please feel free to pass them along. FYI: There’s no particular order here.

Scott Lincicome and Huan Zhu, “Questioning Industrial Policy: Why Government Manufacturing Plans Are Ineffective and Unnecessary,” Cato Institute Working Paper, June 16, 2021.

[I]ndustrial policy – properly defined – has an extensive and underwhelming history in the United States, featuring high costs (seen and unseen), failed objectives, and political manipulation. Surely, not every U.S. industrial policy effort has ended in disaster, but facts here and abroad argue strongly against new government efforts to boost “critical” industries and workers and thereby fix alleged market failures. Such efforts warrant intense skepticism – skepticism that today is unfortunately in short supply.

Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy as Casino Economics,” The Hill, July 12, 2021.

While some government investments will always be necessary, policymakers engaging in casino economics means bad industrial policy bets and taxpayer money squandered on risky ventures best made by private actors. We need to keep Uncle Sam’s gambling habits in check.

Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever,” Technology Liberation Front, January 26, 2022.

As far as industrial policy measures go, the COMPETES Act is one of the most ambitious and expensive central planning efforts in American history. It represents the triumph of top-down, corporatist, techno-mercantilist thinking over a more sensible innovation policy rooted in bottom-up competition, entrepreneurialism, private investment, and free trade.

Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Special Study, November 2021.

This paper considers how both the recent history of high-tech industrial policy efforts at the national and international level—as well as some state and local economic development efforts in the United States—might better inform the wisdom of proposed efforts for AI or other high-tech sectors. That history is spotted with some limited successes alongside a long string of costly failures. We explore the reasons for those failures and recommend that the US refocus on the policy prerequisites that helped give rise to the computing and internet revolutions: a more generalized approach to economic development rooted in light-touch regulation and taxation of emerging technology.

Samuel Gregg, “Can America Build A Broad-Based Economy?”  Law & Liberty, March 1, 2022

Of course, if a government decides to put enough money and resources behind a given industrial policy, it will likely produce some results. Yet the same is true of the gambler. If she stays in the casino long enough and spends enough money, she will win a few hands of cards. But the odds are that she will also lose a great deal of money, especially if she is as inept a gambler as the government is maladroit at identifying industry trends or entrepreneurial opportunities. Moreover, just as a compulsive gambler’s behavior will have numerous negative effects on her family’s well-being, so too does industrial policy risk inflicting wider damage upon a nation’s economy and political system. The harms range from gross misallocations of resources to the rampant cronyism and rent-seeking that seems inseparable from industrial policy (which, I again note, its advocates studiously avoid discussing), to name just a few.

Phil Gramm & Mike Solon, “Peace Through Strength Requires Economic Freedom,” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2022.

The America Competes Act is the House’s effort to outdo the Chinese Communist Party’s latest five-year plan. The 2,900-page bill would make an old Soviet commissar blush.  [. . . ] America’s success in the world economy has never depended on industrial policy or government subsidies. It has come from the relative absence of government planning and subsidies. This is hardly news. The U.S. government provided support for the efforts of Samuel Langley, the greatest aviation expert of the 1890s, in his effort to make America first in powered flight. His manned Aerodrome flopped into the Potomac River. It was the Wright brothers, two unsubsidized but determined bicycle makers from Dayton, Ohio, who flew at Kitty Hawk, N.C., and changed the world.

Scott Lincicome, “Moving Fast and Breaking Things,” Capitolism, February 2, 2022.

Adam Thierer, “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover,”  The Hill, February 16, 2022.

In the rush to pass legislation, we’ve barely heard a peep about the $250-$350 billion price tag. This follows a massive splurge of recent government borrowing, which led to the U.S. national debt hitting another lamentable new record: $30 trillion. China already owns over $1 trillion of that debt, making one wonder if we’re really countering China by adopting a massive, new and unfunded industrial policy that they will end up financing indirectly.

Podcast: “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy,” Hold These Truths with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, February 16, 2022.

Tad DeHaven and Adam Thierer, “ The Military-Industrial Complex Offers a Cautionary Tale for Industrial Policy Planning,” Discourse, March 25, 2022.

Wayne Crews, “What To Do Instead Of The America COMPETES Act,” Forbes, February 2, 2022.

All this spending and expansion of the federal government, atop which our leaders would lay the America COMPETES Act and doubtless its own accompanying guidebook, has massive, ignored regulatory effects. Trillions in government spending (”investment”) have altered and will alter the entire trajectory and competitive environment of industries engaged in large-scale enterprises and transactions. This removes vast swaths of business activity from free competitive enterprise altogether, and creates displacements and distortions such that the restoration of free enterprise becomes a near-impossible disentanglement. The result is, after 100 years of big government and seduction of and fusion with big business, the greatest endeavors—from infrastructure to artificial intelligence, from smart cities to space—now consist of “partnerships” with governments rather than free enterprise, at scales and at costs so gigantic they can only be ignored.

Adam Thierer, “‘Japan Inc.’ and Other Tales of Industrial Policy Apocalypse,” Discourse, June 28, 2021.

Perhaps the most ironic indictment of industrial policy punditry lies in the way all the earlier books and essays about Japanese planning not only failed to forecast the many flops associated with it, but also did not foresee China as a potential future economic juggernaut. [. . .] What might that tell us about the ability of experts to predict the future course of countries and economies?

Adam Thierer, “Can Government Reproduce Silicon Valley Everywhere?”  Technology Liberation Front, September 12, 2021.

government efforts to artificially try to create regional innovation hubs in a top-down, technocratic fashion will almost certainly persist. As they do, some will argue that this time will be different! Perhaps, but it is more likely that the past is prologue; these new hubs will likely cause federal politicians to jockey for position to have their regions named one of the winners and get a big cut of all the new high-tech pork being served up by Washington.

Weifeng Zhong, “Beijing Can’t Make Sense of Biden’s China Strategy. Can Biden?” Washington Examiner, July 01, 2021.

America is not China, and it would be a fatal mistake to equate competing with China with imitating what China does. Doing so would risk the advantageous U.S. position as the world’s chief innovator, whose ideas are turned into products by vibrant private sectors both domestically and internationally.

Mike Watson, “Industrial Policy in the Real World,” National Affairs, Summer 2021.

Given the nature of industrial policymaking in the United States, there’s little reason to believe future attempts at industrial planning will result in a more coherent, rational, or strategic allocation of resources than they have in the past. [. . .] In short, industrial policy in the United States cannot be steered by a small group of enlightened individuals, because a small group of enlightened individuals will never be at the helm. Indeed, in some sense, there is no single “helm” to speak of.
 

Samuel Gregg, “Industrial Policy Mythology Confronts Economic Reality,” Law & Liberty, September 3, 2021.

If prizes in policy debates were given out for persistence, those advocating for more widespread use of industrial policy in America would be first in line. No matter how many times it is pointed out that they don’t understand the nature and workings of comparative advantage; or avoid acknowledging how industrial policy fosters rampant cronyism and corruption; or highlight what they consider examples of countries in which industrial policy has been employed successfully (only to have it demonstrated that it didn’t quite work out the way they suggested), they don’t give up.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, “If This Is How America COMPETES, We’re Going to Lose,” Reason, January 26, 2022.

the bill can’t simply address one main issue or a few critical needs. Instead, it tries to insert the government into every aspect of all sorts of industries and markets and pretend that bureaucrats can solve complex social and cultural issues.

Chang-Tai Hsieh, “Countering Chinese Industrial Policy Is Counterproductive,” Project Syndicate, September 15, 2021.

US political leaders have long tried to counter Chinese industrial policy. And now they seem to have decided that the best way to do that is to emulate it. But their agenda betrays a profound lack of understanding of the unique challenge posed by China’s coupling of an authoritarian political regime with a dynamic market economy.

Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie,” Discourse, November 5, 2021.

“In light of the inherent deficiencies of central planning,” Lavoie said, “it might be argued that the U.S. should instead try to reduce current government interference with the competitive process to the absolute minimum consistent with other political goals.” It remains wise advice for today’s policymakers.
Image

Anne O. Krueger, “America’s Muddled Industrial Policy,” CGTN, June 25, 2021.

Governments have a poor track record of identifying “winners” – be it a company or a category of technology – whereas private companies have proved better at transforming new discoveries into new products or cost savings. That is why the U.S. state traditionally has stuck to funding basic research.

Eric Boehm, “Massive Subsidies Won’t Solve the Semiconductor Supply Chain Crisis,” Reason, January 28, 2022.

Tracy C. Miller, “The Case for Limiting Government Semiconductor Subsidies,” The Hill, June 26, 2021.

Without the subsidies, firms would be more cautious about building or expanding foundries. If long-term production capacity is truly insufficient, high prices and anticipated profits give firms the right incentives to build or expand and satisfy demand at cost-covering prices.

Scott Lincicome, “The ‘Endless Frontier’ and American Industrial Policy,” Cato Institute Blog, May 26, 2021.

U.S. industrial policy has a long history of struggling to overcome political pressures, just as public choice predicts, and the EFA is no different. None of this means that all legislating is bad, or that politicians don’t at least occasionally vote in the national interest. Instead, the public choice framework simply adds another hurdle—along with things like the “knowledge problem,” seen and unseen costs, and misaligned incentives—to designing and implementing commercial policies specifically intended to beat the admittedly messy and imperfect situation that the market generates. It’s imperative that we understand these risks before supporting policies that, while they might look good on paper, could easily morph into a counterproductive boondoggle—one we’ve seen countless times with respect to U.S. industrial policy.

Daniel W. Drezner, “Is the United States capable of industrial policy in 2021?” Washington Post, June 14, 2021.

To believe that the United States can pursue a high-caliber industrial policy, however, requires assuming a more competent state than I have seen in the past decade.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The Nicest Thing I Can Write About Supply Chain Policy,” The Daily Dish, June 10, 2021.

Nevertheless, the Senate just passed a provision for $50 billion to subsidize chip fabrication – something the president had requested – and the House will doubtlessly concur. That might seem like an industry victory, but wait until it realizes that the administration will assume it gives it the right to insist on union jobs, micromanage the design of chips, and dictate the pricing and distribution of the products. Good luck with that. As the definitive volume on policy analysis (Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack) put it, “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.”

Lipton Matthews, “Industrial Policy—a.k.a. Central Planning—Won’t Make America Great,” Mises Wire, November 5, 2021.

Although industrial policy is in vogue, the evidence suggests that it is not necessary for long-term development. Moreover, despite the popularity of industrial policy in China, America remains the world’s economic power, and by following China, it may lose this vaunted position.

Richard Beason, “Japanese Industrial Policy: An Economic Assessment,” National Foundation for American Policy, November 2021.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Japanese industrial policy during the 1955-1990 period enhanced growth rates by sector, industries with economies of scale (greater efficiency when produced in increased amounts), productivity growth or “competitiveness.” The reality of the political process and government spending priorities makes it very difficult for such policies to be effective. Furthermore, even if political pressures had not intervened, it seems questionable to suggest that government policymakers would be better than actual market participants in determining the most efficient allocation of resources to produce the best economic outcomes.

Douglas Irwin, “ Memo to the Biden administration on how to rethink industrial policy,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2020.

The challenge for policymakers is to identify such industries without succumbing to the notion that every industry is vital to some public objective. For example, the goal of “economic security” is so broadly defined and open-ended that virtually every domestic producer could claim the need for government support on that basis. The risk is that ill-conceived government programs will encourage corrupt behavior in which industries benefit themselves without contributing to national welfare.

Jim Pethokoukis, “Will Biden’s embrace of industrial policy pay off?” AEI Blog, January 15, 2021.

The history of such efforts in advanced capitalist economies gives ample reason for skepticism about the effectiveness of such top-down government planning, from Japanese economic stagnation to the now-mothballed Concorde supersonic jet to France’s failed attempt to create a thriving tech sector. The Internet might seem like the exception that negates the rule, but what turned out to be a successful partnership of government and entrepreneurs didn’t arise out of some master plan from Washington. And what do even the smartest plans look like when filtered through the dodgy quality of American governance? Maybe as an excuse for cronyism and protectionism.

Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” Discourse, March 11, 2021.

America needs to embrace its already vibrant venture capital market, the benefits of basic science and prize competitions, and a light-touch regulatory approach instead of gambling taxpayer dollars on grandiose industrial policy schemes that would likely become boondoggles.

Connor Haaland & Adam Thierer, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” Discourse, February 11, 2021.

Thus far, however, the Europeans don’t have much to show for their attempts to produce home-grown tech champions. Despite highly targeted and expensive efforts to foster a domestic tech base, the EU has instead generated a string of industrial policy failures that should serve as a cautionary tale for U.S. pundits and policymakers, who seem increasingly open to more government-steered innovation efforts.

Phil Levy & Christine McDaniel, “ Does the U.S. Need a Vigorous Industrial Policy?” Discourse, February 16, 2021.

we are certainly hearing new enthusiasm these days about industrial policy. It seems to have proponents or converts on both sides of the aisle. This either means that a new consensus has emerged, or it means that the term is being used so loosely that it has lost its original meaning. I’ll go with the latter; it now means different things to different people.

Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip discussing why “ The traditional skepticism toward industrial policy is well deserved.”

The traditional skepticism toward industrial policy is well deserved. Once Washington starts writing checks for semiconductors, other industries may get in line with the outcome determined more by political clout than economic merit. As in shipbuilding, the targeted companies may end up in perpetual need of federal protection and unable to compete internationally

David Ignatius, “The U.S. is quietly mobilizing its economy against China,” Washington Post, March 4, 2021.

The industrial policy the AI commission recommends could unlock talent and innovation. But if officials aren’t careful, government intervention could also afflict our best companies with the dead weight and dysfunction of our broken political system. We need government to spawn brainpower, not bureaucracy.

Veronique de Rugy, “Support for Industrial Policy is Growing,” AIER, January 18, 2020.

Looking at the federal government today tells me that the problems surrounding R&D programs in the past continue today, and will continue tomorrow, because they are simply a consequence of the normal functioning of government. It is hard to wish these problems away, even in the face of the private sector’s “imperfections.” Those arguing for more funding in R&D should proceed with caution.
This bill is proposing to give money with risk-averse restrictions to a risk-averse organization (the NSF) to be dispersed among other risk-averse organizations (Universities) into a system with increasingly risk-averse incentives. Note that I’m not saying “it’s all fubar’d lets burn it to the ground!” but I am suggesting that instead of slamming on the accelerator, we should be asking “what would a tune-up and an oil change look like instead?”

Ryan Bourne, “Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up?”  Cato Commentary, August 15, 2019.

Oren Cass asserts that markets cannot generally allocate resources efficiently by industry. Yet he provides no meaningful metrics to show this is the case, nor shows why his policies would deliver better outcomes. His two main claims about the benefits of a manufacturing sector — “stable employment” and “strong productivity growth” — are directly contradictory. A plethora of evidence suggests as countries’ get richer due to automation and technological improvements, they demand relatively more services, and so the industrial sector declines in employment terms.
Scott Lincicome, “ Manufactured Crisis: ‘Deindustrialization, Free Markets, and National Security,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 907, January 27, 2021.
This skepticism—mostly absent from Washington—is indeed warranted: analyses of the U.S. manufacturing sector and the relationship between trade and national security, as well as the United States’ long and checkered history of security‐​related protectionism, undermine the theoretical justifications for imposing protectionism and industrial policy in the name of national defense. Instead, open trade, freer markets, and global interdependence will in almost all cases produce better outcomes in terms of national security and, most importantly, preventing wars and other forms of armed conflict.
Matthew Lau, “Trudeau government’s ‘industrial policy’ creates all the wrong incentives,” Toronto Sun, March 16, 2021.
]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/skeptical-takes-on-expansive-industrial-policy-efforts/feed/ 2 76845 Should the US Follow China’s Lead on Industrial Policy? https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/should-the-us-follow-chinas-lead-on-industrial-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/should-the-us-follow-chinas-lead-on-industrial-policy/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:02:34 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76849

In our latest feature for Discourse magazine, Connor Haaland and I explore the question, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” We begin by noting that:

Calls for revitalizing American industrial policy have multiplied in recent years, with many pundits and policymakers suggesting that the U.S. should consider taking on Europe and China by emulating their approaches to technological development. The goal would be to have Washington formulate a set of strategic innovation goals and mobilize government planning and spending around them.

We continue on to argue that what most of these advocates miss is that:

China’s targeting efforts are often antithetical to both innovation and liberty, and involve plenty of red tape and bureaucracy. China has become a remarkably innovative country for many reasons, including its greater tolerance for risk-taking, even as the Chinese Communist Party continues to pump resources into strategic sectors. But most Chinese innovation is permissible only insomuch as it furthers the party’s objectives, a strategy the U.S. obviously wouldn’t want to copy.

We discuss the problems associated with some of those Chinese efforts as well as proposed US responses, like the recently released 756 page report from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The report takes an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to state direction for new AI-related efforts and spending. While that report says the government now must “drive change through top-down leadership” in order to “win the AI competition that is intensifying strategic competition with China,” we argue that there could be some serious pitfalls with top-down, high price tag approaches.

Jump over to the  Discourse site to read the full essay, as well as our previous essay, which asked, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” These two essay build on the research Connor and I have been doing on global artificial intelligence policies in the US, China, and the EU. In a much longer forthcoming white paper, we explore both the regulatory and industrial policy approaches for AI being adopted in the US, China, and the EU. Stay tuned for more.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/should-the-us-follow-chinas-lead-on-industrial-policy/feed/ 2 76849 European Industrial Policy Follies https://techliberation.com/2021/02/15/european-industrial-policy-follies/ https://techliberation.com/2021/02/15/european-industrial-policy-follies/#comments Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:17:36 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76842

Over at Discourse magazine, Connor Haaland and I have an new essay (“Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?”) examining Europe’s effort to develop national champion in a variety of tech sectors using highly targeted industrial policy efforts. The results have not been encouraging, we find.

Thus far, however, the Europeans don’t have much to show for their attempts to produce home-grown tech champions. Despite highly targeted and expensive efforts to foster a domestic tech base, the EU has instead generated a string of industrial policy failures that should serve as a cautionary tale for U.S. pundits and policymakers, who seem increasingly open to more government-steered innovation efforts.

We examine case studies in internet access, search, GPS, video services, and the sharing economy. We then explore newly-proposed industrial policy efforts aimed at developing their domestic AI market. We note how:

no amount of centralized state planning or spending will be able to overcome Europe’s aversion to technological risk-taking and disruption. The EU’s innovation culture generally values stability—of existing laws, institutions and businesses—over disruptive technological change. […] There are no European versions of Microsoft, Google or Apple, even though Europeans obviously demand and consume the sort of products and services those U.S.-based companies provide. It’s simply not possible given the EU’s current regulatory regime.

It seems unlikely that Europe will have much better luck developing home-grown champions in AI and robotics using this same playbook. “American academics and policymakers with an affinity for industrial policy might want to consider a model other than Europe’s misguided combination of fruitless state planning and heavy-handed regulatory edicts,” we conclude.

Head over to Discourse  to read the entire essay.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/02/15/european-industrial-policy-follies/feed/ 2 76842 Regulatory Capture: FAA and Commercial Drones Edition https://techliberation.com/2015/01/16/regulatory-capture-faa-and-commercial-drones-edition/ https://techliberation.com/2015/01/16/regulatory-capture-faa-and-commercial-drones-edition/#respond Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:02:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75279

FAA sealRegular readers know that I can get a little feisty when it comes to the topic of “regulatory capture,” which occurs when special interests co-opt policymakers or political bodies (regulatory agencies, in particular) to further their own ends. As I noted in my big compendium, “Regulatory Capture: What the Experts Have Found“:

While capture theory cannot explain all regulatory policies or developments, it does provide an explanation for the actions of political actors with dismaying regularity.  Because regulatory capture theory conflicts mightily with romanticized notions of “independent” regulatory agencies or “scientific” bureaucracy, it often evokes a visceral reaction and a fair bit of denialism.

Indeed, the more I highlight the problem of regulatory capture and offer concrete examples of it in practice, the more push-back I get from true believers in the idea of “independent” agencies. Even if I can get them to admit that history offers countless examples of capture in action, and that a huge number of scholars of all persuasions have documented this problem, they will continue to persist that, WE CAN DO BETTER! and that it is just a matter of having THE RIGHT PEOPLE! who will TRY HARDER!

Well, maybe. But I am a realist and a believer in historical evidence. And the evidence shows, again and again, that when Congress (a) delegates broad, ambiguous authority to regulatory agencies, (b) exercises very limited oversight over that agency, and then, worse yet, (c) allows that agency’s budget to grow without any meaningful constraint, then the situation is ripe for abuse. Specifically, where unchecked power exists, interests will look to exploit it for their own ends.

In any event, all I can do is to continue to document the problem of regulatory capture in action and try to bring it to the attention of pundits and policymakers in the hope that we can start the push for real agency oversight and reform. Today’s case in point comes from a field I have been covering here a lot over the past year: commercial drone innovation.

Yesterday, via his Twitter account, Wall Street Journal reporter Christopher Mims brought this doozy of an example of regulatory capture to my attention, which involves Federal Aviation Administration officials going to bat for the pilots who frequently lobby the agency and want commercial drone innovations constrained. Here’s how Jack Nicas begins the WSJ piece that Mims brought to my attention:

In an unfolding battle over U.S. skies, it’s man versus drone. Aerial surveyors, photographers and moviemaking pilots are increasingly losing business to robots that often can do their jobs faster, cheaper and better. That competition, paired with concerns about midair collisions with drones, has made commercial pilots some of the fiercest opponents to unmanned aircraft. And now these aviators are fighting back, lobbying regulators for strict rules for the devices and reporting unauthorized drone users to authorities. Jim Williams, head of the Federal Aviation Administration’s unmanned-aircraft office, said many FAA investigations into commercial-drone flights begin with tips from manned-aircraft pilots who compete with those drones. “They’ll let us know that, ’Hey, I’m losing all my business to these guys. They’re not approved. Go investigate,’” Mr. Williams said at a drone conference last year. “We will investigate those.”

Well, that pretty much says it all. If you’re losing business because an innovative new technology or pesky new entrant has the audacity to come onto your turf and compete, well then, just come on down to your friendly neighborhood regulator and get yourself a double serving of tasty industry protectionism!

And so the myth of “agency independence” continues, and perhaps it will never die. It reminds me of a line from those rock-and-roll sages in Guns N’ Roses: ” I’ve worked too hard for my illusions just to throw them all away!”

]]> https://techliberation.com/2015/01/16/regulatory-capture-faa-and-commercial-drones-edition/feed/ 0 75279 The Underwhelming Economic Effects of Municipal Broadband https://techliberation.com/2014/12/15/the-underwhelming-economic-effects-of-municipal-broadband/ https://techliberation.com/2014/12/15/the-underwhelming-economic-effects-of-municipal-broadband/#comments Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:52:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75127

The FCC is currently considering ways to make municipal broadband projects easier to deploy, an exercise that has drawn substantial criticism from Republicans, who passed a bill to prevent FCC preemption of state laws. Today the Mercatus Center released a policy analysis of municipal broadband projects, titled Community Broadband, Community Benefits? An Economic Analysis of Local Government Broadband Initiatives. The researcher is Brian Deignan, an alumnus of the Mercatus Center MA Fellowship. Brian wrote an excellent, empirical paper about the economic effects of publicly-funded broadband.

It’s remarkable how little empirical research there is on municipal broadband investment, despite years of federal data and billions of dollars in federal investment (notably, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). This dearth of research is in part because muni broadband proponents, as Brian points out, expressly downplay the relevance of economic evidence and suggest that the primary social benefits of muni broadband cannot be measured using traditional metrics. The current “research” about muni broadband, pro- and anti-, tends to be unfalsifiable generalizations based on extrapolations of cherry-picked examples. (There are several successes and failures, depending on your point of view.)

Brian’s paper provides researchers a great starting point when they attempt to answer an increasingly important policy question: What is the economic impact of publicly-funded broadband? Brian uses 23 years of BLS data from 80 cities that have deployed broadband and analyzes muni broadband’s effect on 1) quantity of businesses; 2) employee wages; and 3) employment.

In short, the economic effects of muni broadband appear to be modest. Brian’s economic models show that municipal broadband is associated with a 3 percent increase in the number of business establishments in a city. However, there is a small, negative effect on employee wages (perhaps as firms substitute technology for employee hours?). There is no effect on private employment but the existence of a public broadband network increases local government employment by about 6 percent.

In a research area filled with advocacy, this is a much-needed rigorous analysis and a great update to the research that does exist. The muni broadband fights will continue, but hopefully both sides will make use of the economic data out there. Given the amount of direct federal investment, some positive effects were inevitable and Brian’s paper suggests where those effects show up (quantity of businesses and local government employment). Still, it seems that there are more cost-effective ways of improving local business development and jobs.

I suspect, and the research suggests, that the detrimental effect on private investment (and taxpayers) likely outweighs these ambiguous economic effects. Unlike city-provided utilities, like water and sewer, broadband infrastructure requires regular network upgrades, and consumers often prefer broadband bundled with TV and phone, which cities have a harder time providing. But on this subject, as scholars like to say on difficult issues, more research is needed.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/12/15/the-underwhelming-economic-effects-of-municipal-broadband/feed/ 1 75127 Film Industry Tax Incentive Race to the Bottom Continues https://techliberation.com/2014/01/30/film-industry-tax-incentive-race-to-the-bottom-continues/ https://techliberation.com/2014/01/30/film-industry-tax-incentive-race-to-the-bottom-continues/#respond Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:30:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74212

The war among the states to see who can lavish the film industry with more generous tax credits in their attempt to become “the next Hollywood” continues, and it is quickly descending into a classic race to the bottom. A front-page article in today’s Wall Street Journal notes that the tax incentive bidding war has gotten so intense that it is hollowing out the old Hollywood labor pool and sending it on a road trip across the America in search of tax-induced job activity:

As film and TV production scatters around the country, more workers…  are packing up from California and moving to where the jobs are. Driving this exodus of lower-wage workers — stunt doubles, makeup artists, production assistants and others who keep movie sets humming — are successful efforts by a host of states to use tax incentives to poach production business from California. […]  Only two movies with production budgets higher than $100 million filmed in Los Angeles in 2013, according to Film L.A. Inc., the city’s movie office. In 1997, the year “Titanic” was released, every big-budget film but one filmed at least partially in the city. The number of feature-film production days in Los Angeles peaked in 1996 and fell by 50% through last year, according to Film L.A. Projects such as reality television and student films have picked up some of the slack. But overall entertainment-industry employment has slid. About 120,000 Californians worked in the industry in 2012, down from 136,000 in 2004, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor migration has arisen in part because California hasn’t competed aggressively on the tax-break front, officials and executives say, while states like Georgia have made efforts to grab a sizable chunk of the industry. More than 40 states and 30 foreign countries are offering increasingly generous and creative tax incentives to lure entertainment producers.

On one hand, hooray for labor mobility! But seriously, this stinks because this labor shift is taking place in a wholly unnatural way, with a complex and growing web of tax inducements leading to massive distortions in this marketplace. While proponents will insist these programs are job creators for the communities that win, in reality, they are really just job reshufflers that net limited jobs at that. Meanwhile, the costs to their taxpayers grows as more and more state and local governments jump in this game. It’s classic “smokestack chasing” activity, except in this case the firms probably didn’t even create that many jobs while they were there and then you don’t even have a factory left when the firms leave town!

If things continue like this, it probably won’t be long before some “innovative” state or local government leader gets the idea of actually just paying some film producers cold hard cash to come set up shop in their area. Hey, at least that way the programs would be on-budget and nominally more accountable!

Anyway, I’ve documented the cost of this ruinous race to the bottom in my essay, “State Film Industry Incentives: A Growing Cronyism Fiasco,” which documents the economic evidence about just how inefficient these programs are in practice.  I later expanded that essay and included in my massive paper with Brent Skorup, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” Warning: It makes for miserable reading if you care about fiscal accountability and good government. Maybe somebody will make a movie about this racket someday! (But don’t hold your breath.)

P.S. For more on the corrupting influence of cronyism on American capitalism, please visit this Mercatus Center page for a comprehensive set of studies on the issue. Also, check out this outstanding paper by my colleague Matt Mitchell (“The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism“) and this excellent recent book on cronyism by Randall G. Holcombe and Andrea Castillo. And here’s a little slide show I put together on the costs of cronyism.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/01/30/film-industry-tax-incentive-race-to-the-bottom-continues/feed/ 0 74212 Debate over Motion Picture Tax Incentives Intensifies https://techliberation.com/2013/08/28/debate-over-motion-picture-tax-incentives-intensifies/ https://techliberation.com/2013/08/28/debate-over-motion-picture-tax-incentives-intensifies/#respond Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:49:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=73500

A new article by Peter Caranicas and Rachel Abrams in Variety entitled, “Runaway Production: The United States of Tax Incentives,” notes how “[Motion picture] Producers looking for a location weigh many factors — screenplay, crew base, availability of stages, travel and lodging — but these days, first and foremost, they consider the local incentives and tax breaks that can reduce a production’s budget.” In other words, when every state and local government dreams of being “the next Hollywood,” they are willing to shower the entertainment industry with some pretty nice inducements at taxpayers expense.

But these programs are growing more controversial and some state and local governments are reconsidering the wisdom of these efforts. The article cites my Mercatus Center colleague Eileen Norcross, who points out the most serious problem with these programs:

Other arguments against incentives hold that they don’t help the states that offer them. In March, the Massachusetts revenue commission issued a scathing report on the state’s tax credit program, which stated that two-thirds of the total $175 million awarded in 2011 went to out-of-state spending. “The critique is that while they appear to bring in short-term temporary activity to a state or community, a lot of those benefits flow to the production companies,” says Eileen Norcross, a senior research fellow at George Mason U. “The people who are hired locally tend to be (in) more low-wage service industry jobs. It provides a temporary economic blip on the radar, and then it’s sort of fleeting.”

Eileen is exactly right.  I have previously covered this issue here in an essay entitled, “State Film Industry Incentives: A Growing Cronyism Fiasco,” which was later expanded and included as a section in my 73-page forthcoming law review article with Brent Skorup, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” In those articles, I noted that all the serious economic reviews of these programs find that there is no evidence these tax incentives help state or local economies. And there are many other problems with these tax inducements, including the fact that they open up the door to more meddling in content decisions by government officials and to serious abuse by fly-by-night scam artists looking to take advantage of state-sponsored cronyism schemes.

As I noted in concluding my earlier blog post in this,

In sum, film tax credit cronyism puts taxpayers at risk without any corresponding benefits to them or the state.  Glamor-seeking and state pride seem to be the primary motivational factors driving state legislators to engage in such economically illogical behavior. It’s like “smokestack-chasing” for the Information Age, except in this case you don’t even have a factory left in town after your economic development efforts go bust. This cronyist activity benefits no one other than film studios. States should end their film incentive programs immediately.
]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/08/28/debate-over-motion-picture-tax-incentives-intensifies/feed/ 0 73500 FCC Commish Ajit Pai on Protectionism & Cronyism in the Tech Sector https://techliberation.com/2013/07/11/fcc-commish-ajit-pai-on-protectionism-cronyism-in-the-tech-sector/ https://techliberation.com/2013/07/11/fcc-commish-ajit-pai-on-protectionism-cronyism-in-the-tech-sector/#comments Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:20:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=45129

Ajit Pai FCCAjit Pai, a Republican commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), had an outstanding op-ed in the L.A. Times yesterday about state and local efforts to regulate private taxi or ride-sharing services such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar. “Ever since Uber came to California,” Pai notes, “regulators have seemed determined to send Uber and companies like it on a one-way ride out of the Golden State.” Regulators have thrown numerous impediments in their way in California as well as in other states and localities (including here in Washington, D.C.). Pai continues on to discuss how, sadly, “tech start-ups in other industries face similar burdens”:

For example, Square has created a credit card reader for mobile devices. Small businesses love Square because it reduces costs and is convenient for customers. But some states want a piece of the action. Illinois, for example, has ordered Square to stop doing business in the Land of Lincoln until it gets a money transmitter license, even though the money flows through existing payment networks when Square processes credit cards. If Square had to get licenses in the 47 states with such laws, it could cost nearly half a million dollars, an extraordinary expense for a fledgling company.

He also notes that “Obstacles to entrepreneurship aren’t limited to the tech world”:

Across the country, restaurant associations have tried to kick food trucks off the streets. Auto dealers have used franchise laws to prevent car company Tesla from cutting out the middleman and selling directly to customers. Professional boards, too, often fiercely defend the status quo, impeding telemedicine by requiring state-by-state licensing or in-person consultations and even restricting who can sell tooth-whitening services.

What’s going on here? It’s an old and lamentable tale of incumbent protectionism and outright cronyism, Pai notes:

These are just the latest chapters in an old economic story. Incumbents have long promoted regulation in the name of protecting consumers when their actual goal is to block new entrants and stifle competition. As Milton Friedman observed, “The pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public … the pressure invariably comes from members of the occupation itself.”

Indeed, this is exactly the sort of cronyist nightmare that Brent Skorup and I documented in our new Mercatus Center report, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” Our 73-page working paper outlines the evolution of government-granted privileges in America’s information and communications technology marketplace and in the media-producing sectors. Sadly, there are all too many examples of special interests seeking to commandeer the levers of government power to distort market outcomes and head off disruptive forms of innovation or new competition.

“Consumer protection is important,” Pai notes, “and rules to ensure safety and to deter fraud are necessary. But many regulations aren’t about safeguarding consumers; they’re about entrenching incumbents (at consumers’ expense), and they’re typically created by the very agencies that are supposed to oversee those incumbents.” he correctly observes.

The costs of cronyism can be significant. In our paper, Skorup and I note that when companies seek and receive favors from government, it can dull entrepreneurialism and competition in this highly innovative sector since time and resources spent on influencing politicians and capturing regulators cannot be spent competing and innovating in the marketplace. Every dollar spent trying to influence government is a dollar that could have been better spent trying to develop the next iPhone or other innovative gadget or service. Thus, cronyism can negatively impact consumer welfare by denying consumers more and better products and services. Additionally, consumers might end up paying higher prices or higher taxes due to government privileges for industry.

Worse yet, cronyism also raises the specter of greater government control of the Internet and of the digital economy. When policymakers dispense favors, they usually expect something in return. Just ask the agriculture and transportation sectors how their experience with favor-seeking has worked out. Yes, they have often received the special favors and benefits they sought, but along with the goodies came a litany of demands from lawmakers and regulators about how to run their businesses.

At the end of the day, it all goes back to the consumer and how they get screwed in this process. As Pai eloquently puts it:

Heavy-handed regulations hurt the very consumers they’re supposed to help. Consumers fare best when the barriers to business entry are low, which helps ensure that the market — any market — becomes competitive and stays that way. …  Governments at all levels should guard against this tendency by prioritizing innovation and removing unnecessary regulations that burden risk-taking entrepreneurs.

Amen, brother! If only all government officials thought this way. I hope some of them at least take the time to read Commissioner Pai’s excellent essay.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/07/11/fcc-commish-ajit-pai-on-protectionism-cronyism-in-the-tech-sector/feed/ 2 45129 Adam Thierer on cronyism https://techliberation.com/2013/07/09/adam-thierer-on-cronyism/ https://techliberation.com/2013/07/09/adam-thierer-on-cronyism/#comments Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:00:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=45126

Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center discusses his recent working paper with coauthor Brent Skorup, A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector. Thierer takes a look at how cronyism has manifested itself in technology and media markets — whether it be in the form of regulatory favoritism or tax privileges. Which tech companies are the worst offenders? What are the consequences for consumers? And, how does cronyism affect entrepreneurship over the long term?

Download

Related Links

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/07/09/adam-thierer-on-cronyism/feed/ 5 45126 New Paper on “A History of Cronyism & Capture in the Information Technology Sector” https://techliberation.com/2013/07/02/new-paper-on-a-history-of-cronyism-capture-in-the-information-technology-sector/ https://techliberation.com/2013/07/02/new-paper-on-a-history-of-cronyism-capture-in-the-information-technology-sector/#comments Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:48:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=45048

WP coverThe Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” In this 73-page working paper, which we hope to place in a law review or political science journal shortly, we document the evolution of government-granted privileges, or “cronyism,” in the information and communications technology marketplace and in the media-producing sectors. Specifically, we offer detailed histories of rent-seeking and regulatory capture in: the early history of the telephony and spectrum licensing in the United States; local cable TV franchising; the universal service system; the digital TV transition in the 1990s; and modern video marketplace regulation (i.e., must-carry and retransmission consent rules, among others.

Our paper also shows how cronyism is slowly creeping into new high-technology sectors.We document how Internet companies and other high-tech giants are among the fastest-growing lobbying shops in Washington these days. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbying spending by information technology sectors has almost doubled since the turn of the century, from roughly $200 million in 2000 to $390 million in 2012.  The computing and Internet sector has been responsible for most of that growth in recent years. Worse yet, we document how many of these high-tech firms are increasingly seeking and receiving government favors, mostly in the form of targeted tax breaks or incentives.

We argue that the creeping cronyism could have two major negative ramifications. First, it could dull entrepreneurialism and competition in this highly innovative sector since time and resources spent on influencing politicians and capturing regulators cannot be spent competing and innovating in the marketplace. Cronyism will also negatively impact consumer welfare by denying consumers more and better products and services. Additionally, consumers might end up paying higher prices or higher taxes due to government privileges for industry.

Second, cronyism also raises the specter of greater government control of the Internet and of the digital economy. When policymakers dispense favors, they usually expect something in return. They also become accustomed to having greater informal powers over the sector receiving favors, and contribute to DC’s infamous “revolving door” problem.

High-tech America’s recent embrace of Washington could take it down the familiar path followed by the agriculture, telecommunications, and automotive sectors (among many others), with government becoming both protector and punisher of industry. Today’s dynamic tech industries will increasingly come under the “Mother, may I?” permission-based regulatory regime that encumbered the older information technology sectors.

Tech Lobbying sectoral breakdown

Finally, this paper offers strategies for stalling and diminishing the cronyism already taking root in the high-tech sector. We suggest several targeted reforms to limit or undo cronyism. Generally speaking, however, we note that, as economist David R. Henderson argued in an earlier Mercatus Center report, “There is only one way to end, or at least to reduce, the amount of cronyism, and that is to reduce government power.”

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd. The Scribd version is embedded down below. (Also, here’s some coverage of the paper over at the Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” from our old colleague Tim Lee. Here’s more coverage from Bloomberg Businessweek and the San Francisco Chronicle. And here’s a U.S. News oped that Brent and I wrote condensing our paper into just 600 words. Finally, a short 3-minute video of me discussing the problem of tech cronyism is also embedded below.)

A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector [Thierer and Skorup – July 2013] by Adam Thierer

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/07/02/new-paper-on-a-history-of-cronyism-capture-in-the-information-technology-sector/feed/ 1 45048 Avoiding Silicon Valley’s ‘Suicidal Impulse’: Strategies to Reduce Tech Cronyism https://techliberation.com/2013/01/29/avoiding-silicon-valleys-suicidal-impulse-strategies-to-reduce-tech-cronyism/ https://techliberation.com/2013/01/29/avoiding-silicon-valleys-suicidal-impulse-strategies-to-reduce-tech-cronyism/#comments Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:40:24 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=43574

In an important essay this week entitled “Silicon Valley’s ‘Suicide Impulse’,” Wall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz warns that “Silicon Valley has long prided itself on avoiding the lumbering relationship between big government and most industries, but somehow it has become one of the top lobbyists in Washington.” Crovitz is worried that Internet and technology companies are falling prey to what Milton Friedman labeled “The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse”: the persistent propensity to persecute one’s competitors using regulation or the threat thereof. “Rather than lobby government to go after one another,” Crovitz argues, “Silicon Valley lobbyists should unite to go after overreaching government. Instead of the ‘suicide impulse’ of lobbying for more regulation, Silicon Valley should seek deregulation and a long-overdue freedom to return to its entrepreneurial roots.”

Crovitz’s essay touches upon a dangerous trend I have written about here and elsewhere in the past: the increasing politicization of the Internet and information technology sectors and the gradual rise of rent-seeking (i.e., favor-seeking) over time. I’ve written about this problem in essays like:

These essays have documented how tech companies are increasingly vying for the attention of legislators and regulators in Washington, statehouses, and international capitals across the globe.

Why should we care about the increasing politicization of the information technology sector? In a forthcoming Mercatus Center working paper entitled, “A History of Cronyism & Capture in the Information Technology Sector,” Brent Skorup and I explain how “time and resources spent focusing on influencing politicians and capturing regulators represent time and resources that could better be spent competing and innovating in the marketplace. This can negatively impact consumer welfare in two ways: Not only are consumers denied more and better products and services, but they also may pay higher prices or higher taxes extracted by the corporate-government agreement.”

We document how rent-seeking and cronyism have had a corrupting influence on older information sectors and technologies, especially broadcasting and communications. We develop lengthy case studies from each sector to illustrate the costs that rent-seeking imposes on consumers, competitors, and ongoing innovation.

It’s a miserable history but one that is essential to recount if we hope to avoid it for newer sectors and technologies. That’s why Brent and I devote the closing section of our paper to a list of “Strategies to Limit Cronyism” in the Internet world before things get as bad as they have in the communications and media sectors. We argue that it is essential that we use a combination of institutional safeguards and market/social norms if we hope to head-off incessant rent-seeking and avoid the ‘suicidal impulse’ problem that Milton Friedman and Gordon Crovtiz identified.

Generally speaking, we must begin by acknowledging that, as economist David Henderson correctly notes, “There is only one way to end, or at least to reduce, the amount of cronyism, and that is to reduce government power.” Special interest rent-seeking and the chronic cronyism problems of modern America are fundamentally tied up with the constantly expanding horizons of government power. As Mancur Olson taught us in his 1965 book, The Logic of Collective Action, when benefits are concentrated and costs are dispersed (across all taxpayers or ratepayers, for example), we can expect groups to form to take advantage of those benefits. Those groups have a powerful motivation to create, preserve, and perpetuate government programs that favor their narrow interests at the expense of others, while those bearing the true costs of those policies or programs do not have the same incentive (or resources) to lobby government to reduce or end those burdens.

This leads to what economist Gordon Tullock called the “transitional gains trap”: once a policy or program is put in place to favor a certain interest, most of their gains come upfront and are factored into future earnings. Those benefiting from the policies would face large transitional losses if reform is undertaken, even if these policies impose large deadweight costs on society as a whole. This “trap” can frustrate beneficial reform efforts because the interest benefiting from the cronyist policies and programs will fight to the death to preserve them, no matter how costly or inefficient they may be for society as a whole.

There are several steps we can take if we hope to overcome the collective action problem in the tech sector and avoid Tullock’s transitional gains trap.

First, we must limit the scope of technology regulation whenever possible, and where existing rules open the door to cronyism, streamline or eliminate as many of them as possible. When policymakers deregulated other sectors in past—airlines, railroads, trucking, etc.—it helped eliminate the legal levers that industry could capture or influence. Consequently, deregulation forced companies to spend more time satisfying consumers as opposed to lawmakers and regulators.

Second, whenever possible we should rely on auctions and property rights to ensure that resources are being allocated according to market demand instead of political influence. The ugly history of spectrum cronyism is rooted in the misguided reliance upon the so-called “public interest” theory of regulation, which claimed that supposedly enlightened and benevolent regulators would steer resources and markets in more pro-consumer directions. The reality was just the opposite: the “public interest” became synonymous with the private interest of regulated entities, who largely “gamed” the system for their own ends. It was only when policymakers finally embraced the logic of auctions to allocate spectrum that America began to see cronyism dissipate in this sector. Auctions ensured faster allocation and more efficient distribution and development of this important resource. While full-blown spectrum property rights have not yet taken hold, the gradual movement in that direction helps minimize cronyism opportunities.

Third, the use of vouchers can help limit corporate gaming of social programs that are deemed essential. For example, America’s universal service program, which subsidizes phone and now broadband service, is a permanent fixture of communications policy. Unfortunately, cronyism is a permanent fixture of the system as well. Because the universal service system delivers assistance to end-users indirectly through favored local providers, it limits the potential for new entry and undermines competition. A means-tested voucher could have targeted assistance to those who needed it without creating an inefficient, unsustainable hidden tax or undermining competition.

Fourth, sunsetting provisions for new and existing laws and regulations can greatly limit cronyism opportunities. All new technology proposals should include a provision sunsetting the law or regulation within a few years of enactment and existing technology laws and regulations should be reopened and reassessed on a regular timetable as well to ensure they are not being abused. (Here’s a Forbes column I wrote last year with details about how to do so.)

Fifth, we need serious limits on congressional delegations of power to regulatory bodies and executive branch agencies. Too often, lawmakers “pass the buck” on to agencies and expect them to figure out how to interpret and administer arcane technology policy statutes. The result is abuse both by over-zealous regulators and interests looking to game the system. Congress should be more accountable and, at a minimum, must make their regulatory intent and standards clearer before delegating authority.

Finally, we need to encourage better norms inside the tech industry itself and encourage them to hold themselves to a higher standard. We should ask them to promise not to exploit government power that would discourage innovation or crush competition. Better yet, we should ask them to consider “strategic disengagement” with Washington and politics in general. Yes, I understand that sounds like a pipe dream since where power exists interests will likely look to exploit it. And, again, that’s the best reason for serious deregulation and strong limits on government power to begin with. But social pressure and market norms can also help in the absence of more sweeping reforms. Some firms already adopt the right approach. For example, Apple and Sony have largely shunned political engagement and instead focused on satisfying their customers in the marketplace. While their hands aren’t entirely clean, we should encourage more tech innovators to follow their general lead of not sending small armies of lobbyists to Washington and state capitals.

In the end, there is no silver-bullet solution that can forever cure cronyism. It would be foolish to pretend that we’ll be able to significantly curtail the scope of government powers in the short-term. Nonetheless, there are many sensible institutional reforms and marketplace norms that can help us keep cronyism in check before it begins running rampant in this important sector of our economy.

(Brent and I have just sent our paper on this topic off for peer review from some academic experts in this field, but we welcome thoughts from others about strategies to limit and reduce cronyism in this arena. We hope to publish this paper in a law review or poly sci journal later this Summer or Fall.)

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/01/29/avoiding-silicon-valleys-suicidal-impulse-strategies-to-reduce-tech-cronyism/feed/ 2 43574 The Troubling Growth of High-Tech Regulation, Lobbying, and Rent-Seeking https://techliberation.com/2012/12/02/the-troubling-growth-of-high-tech-regulation-lobbying-and-rent-seeking/ https://techliberation.com/2012/12/02/the-troubling-growth-of-high-tech-regulation-lobbying-and-rent-seeking/#comments Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:36:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=42970

I caught this tidbit today in a Washington Post article about Julius Genachowski’s tenure as Federal Communications Commission chairman:

He wound up presiding over a crucial period in which the powerful companies of Silicon Valley turned into Washington power players. Lobbying the FCC has become a major economic franchise. Each day, hundreds of dark-suited lawyers crowd the antiseptic, midcentury-modern agency building.

Can anyone think this is a good thing? To be clear, I don’t think Genachowski is solely responsible for Silicon Valley innovators getting more aggressive in Washington or for tech lobbying becoming “a major economic franchise” at the FCC. There’s plenty of blame to go around in that regard. Regardless, every legislative and regulatory action that opens the door to greater regulation of the information economy also opens the door a bit wider to unproductive rent-seeking and cronyist activities. Moreover, every minute and every dollar spent focusing on making legislators and regulators happy is another minute and dollar that could have better been spent making consumers happy in the marketplace. It’s a pure deadweight loss to society.

And there has been a remarkable expansion in such tech lobbying activity over the past decade, as the following charts illustrate. The first shows the dramatic growth of lobbying by computer and Internet companies relative to other sectors and the second shows lobbying spending by specific computer and Internet companies. [Click to enlarge.]

Sadly, this situation isn’t going to improve any time soon. As I noted in a 2010 Cato essay (“The Sad State of Tech Politics“) and other essays here (see them below), lobbying by information technology companies is absolutely exploding. Google and Facebook set quarterly records of their own recently, but it’s not just the big dogs like them. Everyone is beefing up. As the politics of the parasitic Belwway economy increasingly replace the cut-throat rivalry of the market economy, consumers and innovation will suffer.

These firms aren’t coming to Washington because they are just dying to be here. They first come here out of necessity: they are looking to cover their asses. The more Washington seeks to regulate, the more these firms come to believe that they have to be here to make themselves heard. And I can’t blame them. But very quickly they come to realize that all this regulatory activity can present opportunities as well as threats. Regulation is often used as a club to beat back new innovations and rivals. Here’s the sad history of that. Worse yet, lobbying activity eventually takes on a life of its own.  As political scientist Lee Drutman points out in his dissertation on the business of lobbying, “lobbying creates its own demand… (and) has a self-reinforcing dynamic. Once companies come to Washington, they stick around, and usually expand. And with each passing year, more companies come to Washington”:

once they hire lobbyists and set up lobbying offices and become active in trade associations, they start to see the benefits of political participation. Lobbyists are there to point out new potential opportunities and new threats, and to make the case that being engaged politically is good for the bottom line. Companies get involved in more issues and more ongoing battles. And once they’ve paid the start-up costs of learning about Washington and building relationships, the cost-benefit equation of being politically engaged shifts even more in favor of staying and doing more.

In other words, there’s a sort of “Say’s Law” of lobbying at work: supply creates its own demand. That certainly seems to be true for the high-technology companies and sectors mentioned above. They are falling over themselves in a mad rush to see who can beef-up their lobbying operations faster. They are doing this even though there isn’t always a compelling case for them to be doing so. But it doesn’t make a difference. Lobbying has taken on a life of its own. It is rationalized by tech leaders telling themselves that ‘we either do this or we get screwed,’ all the while being egged on to do so by a professional class of inside-the-Betlway lobbyists, consultants, PR people, trade associations, and reporters who all insist that it’s just the way business is done nowadays — and who all make their money by encouraging the grow of the parasite economy.

Pathetic.

Additional (Miserable) Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/12/02/the-troubling-growth-of-high-tech-regulation-lobbying-and-rent-seeking/feed/ 6 42970 DC’s LivingSocial Cronyism Experiment Already Going off the Rails https://techliberation.com/2012/11/29/dcs-livingsocial-cronyism-experiment-already-going-off-the-rails/ https://techliberation.com/2012/11/29/dcs-livingsocial-cronyism-experiment-already-going-off-the-rails/#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:48:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=42919

In July 2012, the D.C. Council approved the Social E-Commerce Job Creation Tax Incentive Act of 2012. The deal provided LivingSocial, a popular online coupon service, with corporate and property tax exemptions in Washington, D.C. worth approximately $32.5 million over five years beginning in 2015. Legislators feared that LivingSocial would relocate to areas with a lower tax rate. In exchange for the $32.5 million, LivingSocial said it would attempt to add 1,000 employees to its payroll (roughly doubling its number of employees in the District), although no contractual guarantee for job creation exists and even though the firm had never been profitable. Some of the few contractual obligations required for LivingSocial to receive these tax exemptions are that it must establish a program to mentor D.C. high school students, provide internships for D.C. students, and stay located in the District. LivingSocial must also ensure 50% of newly hired employees live in the District in order to receive the Act’s full $32.5 million in exemptions.

Just a few months after the deal was struck it had already become apparent just how risky of a bet the DC government has made with taxpayer dollars. In late November 2012, LivingSocial announced a net loss of $566 million for the third quarter and that hundreds of employees would be laid off. The promise to roughly doubling the size of its DC-based workforce seems fairly unlikely and some analysts doubt the company will survive much longer.

This serves as another case study for just how foolish it is for governments to make risky, taxpayer-backed bets on information tech companies. Sadly, it’s not the only case study in this regard. In a forthcoming white paper, Brent Skorup and I will be documenting the troubling rise of high-tech cronyism across America. Motorola, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Groupon, film studios, video game makers, and many other information technology companies are lining up with hat in hand and asking for handouts or special favors from state and local governments. Tax credits and other tax code-based inducements (such as tax rebates) are being tapped increasingly by state and local lawmakers who hope to encourage investment by these companies.

This cronyist activity is troubling for many reasons. As Brent and I will argue, tax credits and other benefits for digital technology companies are particularly misguided since (a) the most successful companies certainly don’t need them; and (b) the smaller companies or startups that might benefit from them today probably present a very risky investment for taxpayers. Many of these companies may be here today but gone tomorrow. That appears it could be the case for LivingSocial.

Tax credits can also become a time-consuming morass for innovators and distract them from the entrepreneurial activities they should be focused on. A recent Wall Street Journal report noted that “many companies are saying ‘no, thanks’ and are likely paying more taxes than legally required,” because “the tax deductions are either too cumbersome or too confusing. In some cases, the cost of obtaining the tax benefit is greater than the benefit itself.”

Policymakers should leave such risky investments to venture capitalists and others so that taxpayers are not on the hook when things go off the rails, just as they already have in DC with LivingSocial. Generally speaking, the best industrial recruitment / retention efforts are simple rules, low taxes, and light-touch regulation. That’s how to attract and retain a base of serious high-tech innovators without putting taxpayers at risk when things go wrong as they so often will in this sector.

Update: Shortly after I posted this piece I was contacted by representatives of the D.C. Mayor’s office asking me to clarify for readers that LivingSocial cannot claim any of these tax benefits unless it has 1,000 employees in city and unless it creates a 200,000 sq. ft. headquarters inside the District. They also asked me to again stress (as I noted in the opening paragraph) that these benefits will not begin until 2015-16. The exact terms of the deal can be found in the first link provided above (click the bill name).

In theory, such strings and stipulations could help the DC government escape this mess before it becomes an embarrassing fiasco for the city, but I would argue that they should not be putting taxpayers at risk like this to begin with. Moreover, while more strings might seem to provide greater accountability, added requirements and red tape also create more hassle and costs for firms. As I noted in my essay, that can affect future innovation and entrepreneurialism. Special deals for risky tech ventures remains unwise public policy.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/11/29/dcs-livingsocial-cronyism-experiment-already-going-off-the-rails/feed/ 5 42919 Cronyism: History, Costs, Case Studies and Solutions https://techliberation.com/2012/11/18/cronyism-history-costs-case-studies-and-solutions/ https://techliberation.com/2012/11/18/cronyism-history-costs-case-studies-and-solutions/#comments Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:22:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=42807

Here’s a presentation I’ve been using lately for various audiences about “Cronyism: History, Costs, Case Studies and Solutions.” In the talk, I offer a definition of cronyism, explain its origins, discuss how various academics have traditionally thought about it, outline a variety of case studies, and then propose a range of solutions. Readers of this blog might be interested because I briefly mention the rise of cronyism in the high-tech sector. Brent Skorup and I have a huge paper in the works on that topic, which should be out early next year.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/11/18/cronyism-history-costs-case-studies-and-solutions/feed/ 1 42807 Universal Service Subsidies & Public Choice Economics: Yet Another Case Study https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/universal-service-subsidies-public-choice-economics-yet-another-case-study/ https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/universal-service-subsidies-public-choice-economics-yet-another-case-study/#comments Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:30:12 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=41972

Those of you who spend a lot of time thinking about public choice economics and the problem of cronyism more generally might appreciate this little blurb I found today about the Universal Service Fund (USF).

It goes without saying that America’s “universal service” (telephone subsidy) system is a cesspool of cronyism, favoring some companies over others and grotesquely distorting economic incentives in the process. And the costs just keep growing without any end in sight. Just go to any FCC meeting or congressional hearing about universal service policy and listen to all the companies insisting that they need the subsidy gravy trail to keep on rolling and you’ll understand why that is the case. But plenty of policymakers (especially rural lawmakers) love the system, too, since it allows them to dispense targeted favors.

Anyway, I was flipping through the latest copy of “The RCA Voice” which is the quarterly newsletter of what used to be called the Rural Cellular Association, but now just goes by RCA.  RCA represents rural wireless carriers who, among other things, would like increased government subsidies for–you guessed it–rural wireless services. Their latest newsletter includes an interview with Rep. Don Young (R-AK) who was applauded by RCA for launching the Congressional Universal Service Fund Caucus, whose members basically want to steer even more money into the USF system (and their congressional districts). Here’s the relevant part of the Q&A with Rep. Young:

RCA VOICE: “How important is it for carriers serving rural areas to be engaged with their members of Congress on USF issues?”

REP. DON YOUNG (R-AK): “The more carriers engage with both their Representatives and Senators, the better. While the early bird may get the worm, the bird that doesn’t even try definitely won’t get any worms. The same applies to Congress.”

Well, you gotta admire chutzpah like that! It pretty much perfectly sums up why universal service has always been a textbook case study of public choice dynamics in action. Sadly, it also explains why there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that this racket will be cleaned up any time soon.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/universal-service-subsidies-public-choice-economics-yet-another-case-study/feed/ 10 41972 The FCC’s Exploding Universal Service Tax https://techliberation.com/2011/12/15/the-fccs-exploding-universal-service-tax/ https://techliberation.com/2011/12/15/the-fccs-exploding-universal-service-tax/#comments Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:54:19 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=39498

The FCC’s universal service tax is officially out of control. The agency announced yesterday that the “universal service contribution factor” for the 1st quarter of 2012 will go up to 17.9%.  This “contribution factor” is a tax imposed on telecom companies that is adjusted on a quarterly basis to accommodate universal service programs. The FCC doesn’t like people calling it a tax, but that’s exactly what it is. And it just keeps growing and growing. In fact, as the chart below reveals, it has been exploding in recent years. It was in single digits just a few years ago but is now heading toward 20%. And not only is this tax growing more burdensome, but it is completely unsustainable. As the taxable base (traditional interstate telephony) is eroded by new means of communicating, the tax rate will have to grow exponentially or the base will have to be broadened to cover new technologies and services. We should have junked the current carrier-delivered universal service subsidy system years ago and gone with a straight-forward voucher system. A means-tested voucher could have targeted assistance to those who needed it without creating an inefficient, unsustainable hidden tax like we have now. For all the ugly details, I recommend reading all of Jerry Ellig’s research on the issue.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/12/15/the-fccs-exploding-universal-service-tax/feed/ 3 39498 Fear Sells: Cybersecurity Chicken Littlism edition https://techliberation.com/2011/10/14/fear-sells-cybersecurity-chicken-littlism-edition/ https://techliberation.com/2011/10/14/fear-sells-cybersecurity-chicken-littlism-edition/#comments Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:38:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=38705

In my ongoing work on technopanics, I’ve frequently noted how special interests create phantom fears and use “threat inflation” in an attempt to win attention and public contracts. In my next book, I have an entire chapter devoted to explaining how “fear sells” and I note how often companies and organizations incite fear to advance their own ends. Cybersecurity and child safety debates are littered with examples.

In their recent paper, “Loving the Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy,” my Mercatus Center colleagues Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins argued that “a cyber-industrial complex is emerging, much like the military-industrial complex of the Cold War.” As Stefan Savage, a Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, told The Economist magazine, the cybersecurity industry sometimes plays “fast and loose” with the numbers because it has an interest in “telling people that the sky is falling.” In a similar vein, many child safety advocacy organizations use technopanics to pressure policymakers to fund initiatives they create. [Sometimes I can get a bit snarky about this.]

That Economist story cites new research by scholars who are dispassionately evaluating the actual evidence and finding that data about cybercrime is often exaggerated and skewed in various ways, often by proponents of greater government regulation — as well as greater government funding for their companies or organizations. Again, we’ve seen this at work for many years in the child safety arena, too. In my book, I discuss the online “predator panic” that many child safety groups blew completely out of proportion in past years.

So, next time you hear such folks advocating increased government regs and funding, ask them what they personally have to gain from it.  Chances are, quite a lot.

Additional reading:

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/10/14/fear-sells-cybersecurity-chicken-littlism-edition/feed/ 3 38705 On Facebook “Normalizing Relations” with Washington https://techliberation.com/2011/03/29/on-facebook-normalizing-relations-with-washington/ https://techliberation.com/2011/03/29/on-facebook-normalizing-relations-with-washington/#comments Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:15:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=36004

The New York Times reports that, “Facebook is hoping to do something better and faster than any other technology start-up-turned-Internet superpower. Befriend Washington. Facebook has layered its executive, legal, policy and communications ranks with high-powered politicos from both parties, beefing up its firepower for future battles in Washington and beyond.”  The article goes on to cite a variety of recent hires by Facebook, its new DC office, and its increased political giving.

This isn’t at all surprising and, in one sense, it’s almost impossible to argue with the logic of Facebook deciding to beef up its lobbying presence inside the Beltway. In fact, later in the Times story we hear the same two traditional arguments trotted out for why Facebook must do so: (1) Because everyone’s doing it! and (2) You don’t want be Microsoft, do you?   But I’m not so sure whether “normalizing relations” with Washington is such a good idea for Facebook or other major tech companies, and I’m certainly not persuaded by the logic of those two common refrains regarding why every tech company must rush to Washington.

In an essay I penned for the Cato Institute last November entitled “The Sad State of Cyber-Politics,” I reiterated arguments made a decade earlier by two brilliant men: Cypress Semiconductor CEO T. J. Rodgers and the late great Milton Friedman. Rodgers penned a prescient manifesto for Cato in 2000 with the provocative title: “Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington, D.C.” in which he argued that, “The political scene in Washington is antithetical to the core values that drive our success in the international marketplace and risks converting entrepreneurs into statist businessmen.” A year earlier, Friedman penned another Cato essay called “The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse” in which he lamented the persistent propensity of companies to persecute one’s competitors using regulation or the threat thereof. What both men stressed was that coming to Washington has a tendency to change a company’s focus and disposition, and not for the better — if you believe in real capitalism, that is, and not the abominable crony capitalism fostered by Washington.

But few in the high-tech world have listened to this logic, especially when the whole rest of the world was falling all over themselves to open a Washington, DC office first in an effort to cover their butts from regulatory encroachments and then later to figure out how the wield the hammer of Big Government to their corporate advantage. I documented numerous examples of the latter in my Cato essay.

I’m not saying that the folks at Facebook are going to be looking to screw over their competitors right away. In fact, I can’t currently think of any examples of how they might.  The company is still firmly in that “cover your butt” period that is common when a hot new digital innovator first comes to DC.  And I certainly can’t blame them for wanting to push back against many misguided forms of Internet regulation, such as free speech controls or heavy-handed privacy regulation.  But I fear there will come a day when they fall in line with many other high-tech companies and trade associations and seek to turn the regulatory state to their advantage.  Only time will tell. And I certainly hope I am wrong.

Regardless, as the folks at Facebook and other high-tech firms ponder their future inside the Beltway, let me ask them to return to the two premises for “normalizing relations” that I cited above and explain why they are not exactly true:

Premise #1: Everyone’s doing it!  Most are, but not all. How active are Apple and Sony to name just two companies without a major DC presence?  Most days of the week, Steve Jobs seems to be giving DC a big middle finger. I’m the last guy in the world you’ll ever hear giving Apple much credit since I hate their products, but Jobs is about the closest thing you’ll find to an Ayn Rand character in Silicon Valley these days.  He seems to do exactly what he wants to build innovative products for consumers and, in the process, ignore all his critics, especially those in Washington. Of course, not everybody can be Steve Jobs in this regard, but I can’t help but wonder: Why don’t more of them try? What if high-tech entrepreneurs just told Washington to buzz off?

Premise #2: You don’t want be Microsoft, do you? The Times article says, “legal analysts say Facebook is hoping to avoid mistakes made by predecessors like Microsoft. And they say the company is becoming politically savvy earlier in its life than Google, whose connections were firmly established once Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive, advised the Obama presidential campaign and the administration.”

I’ve never really bought into this argument. I think it’s pretty far-fetched to claim, as so many people in this field do, that if Microsoft would have just had a small army of lobbyists here on the ground back in the early 1990s that none of their antitrust problems would have popped up. And regarding Google coming to Washington in the hope of winning friends, well, how’s that working out for them?!  As I noted in my Cato essay:

Everybody — and I do mean everybody — wants Google dead, right now. Google currently serves as the Great Satan in this drama — taking over the role Microsoft filled a decade ago — as just about everyone views it with a combination of envy and enmity.

Indeed, no one could be happier about Facebook coming to town at this moment than Google!  They get to hand the “Great Satan” baton off to Facebook and wish them the best!  Of course, Google’s problems with Washington aren’t done by a long-shot, but I’m quite sure they’re relieved to see Facebook getting grilled more at hearings and events around town these days.

Anyway, in all seriousness, I’ll say the same thing to the fine folks in the Facebook DC office — several of whom I know well — that I’ve said to countless other tech companies here in the Beltway through the years: Stay true to the same principles that made your company so great to begin with.  It wasn’t Washington that built Facebook, or Google, or Microsoft, or any other high-tech innovators; it was entrepreneurial capitalism that did.  Free minds and free markets made the high-tech sector what it is today, not handouts and special favors from Washington. Stick to real capitalism; avoid the crony variety.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/03/29/on-facebook-normalizing-relations-with-washington/feed/ 5 36004 Toles Cartoon on Regulatory Capture https://techliberation.com/2011/01/20/toles-cartoon-on-regulatory-capture/ https://techliberation.com/2011/01/20/toles-cartoon-on-regulatory-capture/#respond Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:51:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=34571

Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles is certainly no fan of free markets, but his contribution to today’s paper offers us this humorous take on the dangers of regulatory capture, a subject we’ve spent much time documenting here on the TLF.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/01/20/toles-cartoon-on-regulatory-capture/feed/ 0 34571 The Sad State of Cyber-Politics https://techliberation.com/2010/11/19/the-sad-state-of-cyber-politics/ https://techliberation.com/2010/11/19/the-sad-state-of-cyber-politics/#comments Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:30:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=33109

When it comes to technology policy, I’m usually a fairly optimistic guy.  But when it comes to technology politics, well, I have my grumpier moments. I had at particularly grumpy moment earlier this summer when I was sitting at a hearing listening to a bunch of high-tech companies bash each other’s brains in and basically calling for lawmakers to throw everyone else under the regulatory bus except for them.  Instead of heeding Ben Franklin’s sound old advice that “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately,” it’s increasingly clear that high-tech America seems determined to just try to hang each other. It’d be one thing if that heated competition was all taking place in the marketplace, but, increasingly, more and more of it is taking place inside the Beltway with regulation instead of innovation being the weapon of choice.

That episode made me think back to the outstanding 2000 manifesto penned by T. J. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, “Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington, D.C.”  I went back and re-read it upon the 10th anniversary of its publication by the Cato Institute and, sadly, came to realize that just about everything Rodgers had feared and predicted had come true.  Rodgers had attempted to preemptively discourage high-tech companies from an excessive “normalization” of relations with the parasitic culture that dominates Washington by reminding them what Washington giveth it can also taketh away. “The political scene in Washington is antithetical to the core values that drive our success in the international marketplace and risks converting entrepreneurs into statist businessmen,” he warned a decade ago. “The collectivist notion that drives policymaking in Washington is the irrevocable enemy of high-technology capitalism and the wealth creation process.”  And he reminded his fellow capitalists “that free minds and free markets are the moral foundation that has made our success possible.  We must never allow those freedoms to be diminished for any reason.”

Alas, as I point out in my new Cato Policy Report essay “The Sad State of Cyber-Politics,” no one listened to Rodgers.  Indeed, Rodgers’s dystopian vision of a highly politicized digital future has taken just a decade to become reality. The high-tech policy scene within the Beltway has become a cesspool of backstabbing politics, hypocritical policy positions, shameful PR tactics, and bloated lobbying budgets. I go on in the article to itemize a litany of examples of how high-tech America appears determined to fall prey to what Milton Friedman once called “The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse“: the persistent propensity to persecute one’s competitors using regulation or the threat thereof.

It’s a sad tale that doesn’t make for enjoyable reading, but I do try to end the essay on an upbeat (if somewhat naive) note. If you are interested, you can find the plain text version on the Cato website here and I’ve embedded the PDF of the publication down below in a Scribd Reader.

Sad State of Cyber Politics (Cato Policy Report) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/11/19/the-sad-state-of-cyber-politics/feed/ 21 33109 Silicon Valley, If You Dance with the Devil, Don’t be Surprised When You Get Burnt https://techliberation.com/2010/10/07/silicon-valley-if-you-dance-with-the-devil-dont-be-surprised-when-you-get-burnt/ https://techliberation.com/2010/10/07/silicon-valley-if-you-dance-with-the-devil-dont-be-surprised-when-you-get-burnt/#comments Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:29:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=32165

I’m always amused when I read stories quoting high-tech company leaders bemoaning the fact that they supposedly don’t get enough respect from Washington legislators or regulators.  The latest example comes from a story in today’s Politico (“D.C. Crowd’s Path to Silicon Valley” by Tony Romm) which begins by noting that, “A trek to Silicon Valley has become a must-do for D.C. lawmakers seeking to stress their business and tech bona fides while developing relationships that could lead to big campaign donations down the road.”  And yet it ends with this ironic bit:

Silicon Valley types typically don’t mind hosting lawmakers, as the trips give businesses out West the chance to put issues and needs on the minds of their regulators. But tech bellwethers sometimes don’t take kindly to lawmakers who treat the valley as an endless ATM. “All too often, people see Silicon Valley as the wallet and set aside the words or wisdom that [it] can provide,” said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Well, boo-hoo.  If Mr. Guardino and his fellow Silicon Valley travelers don’t like being treated like an ATM, then they should stop behaving like one!  No one makes them give a dime to any politician.  And once you start playing this game, you shouldn’t be surprised by how quickly you’ll become entrenched in the cesspool that is Beltway politics and become less and less focused on actually innovating and serving consumers. I wish people like this would go back and read “Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington, D.C.” by Cypress Semiconductor President and CEO T.J. Rodgers.  Everything he said 10 years ago has come true.  “Government can do only two things here: take our money, limiting our economic resources; or pass laws, limiting our other freedoms,” he warned in 2000. “The political scene in Washington is antithetical to the core values that drive our success in the international marketplace and risks converting entrepreneurs into statist businessmen.”  “The collectivist notion that drives policymaking in Washington is the irrevocable enemy of high-technology capitalism and the wealth creation process.” Instead, the high-tech industry snuggles ever-tighter under the covers with Big Government and then dispenses the Benjamins from their “ATMs” even when the love affair goes sour and they get no respect in the morning.  They should get back to serving customers instead of courting politicians.
]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/10/07/silicon-valley-if-you-dance-with-the-devil-dont-be-surprised-when-you-get-burnt/feed/ 1 32165 Problems in Public Utility Paradise, Part 14: Muni Wi-fi Postmortem https://techliberation.com/2010/10/06/problems-in-public-utility-paradise-part-14-muni-wi-fi-postmortem/ https://techliberation.com/2010/10/06/problems-in-public-utility-paradise-part-14-muni-wi-fi-postmortem/#comments Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:50:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=32127

Many of the installments of our ongoing ”Problems in Public Utility Paradise” series here at the TLF have discussed the multiple municipal wi-fi failures of the past few years. Six or so years ago, there was quixotic euphoria out there regarding the prospects for muni wi-fi in numerous cities across America — which was egged on by a cabal of utopian public policy advocates and wireless networking firms eager for a bite of a government service contract.  A veritable ‘if-you-build-it-they-will-come’ mentality motivated the movement as any suggestion that the model didn’t have legs was treated as heresy.  Indeed, as I noted here before, when I wrote a white paper back in 2005 entitled “Risky Business: Philadelphia’s Plan for Providing Wi-Fi Service,” and kicked it off with the following question: “Should taxpayers finance government entry into an increasingly competitive, but technologically volatile, business market?,” I received a shocking amount of vitriolic hate mail for such a nerdy subject.  But facts are pesky things and the experiment with muni wi-fi has proven to be even worse than many of us predicted back then.

A new piece by Christopher Mims over at MIT’s Technology Review (“Where’s All the Free Wi-Fi We Were Promised?“) notes that “no technology happens in a vacuum, and where the laws of the land abut the laws of nature, physics will carve your best-laid plans into a heap of sundered limbs every time.” He continues, “the failure of municipal WiFi is an object lesson in the dangers of techno-utopianism. It’s a failure of intuition — the sort of mistake we make when we want something to be right.”  Too true.  Mims was inspired to pen his essay after reading a new paper, “A Postmortem Look at Citywide WiFi“, by Eric M. Fraser, the Executive Director for Research at the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation.  “Almost everyone was fooled by the promise of citywide WiFi,” Fraser notes, because of the promise of a “wireless fantasy land” that would almost magically spread cheap broadband to the masses.  But, for a variety of reasons — most of which are technical in nature — muni wifi failed.  Fraser summarizes as follows:

WiFi cannot deliver a citywide network because technical and regulatory limitations combine to require access points at least every few hundred feet outside and even closer together indoors. Mounting that many access points is generally too expensive and is nearly impossible inside private buildings. WiFi deployments require high-touch, high-density installations. Meanwhile, users often have WiFi access in homes, at work, at coffee shops, in hotels and airports, and in select government buildings. For users who require wireless access outside those areas, private cellular companies offer high-speed 3G wireless data networks using technologies better suited for widespread coverage (because of not only technical differences but also regulatory differences). As a result, the major public WiFi projects were destined for failure and municipalities instead should devote resources to small, focused networks.

Policy makers would be wise to remember the lessons of this experiment next time regulatory activists groups come knocking on their doors with more grandiose “public utility” or even “public media” schemes.  The recent experiment with muni wi-fi again points to the failure of the top-down driven model of planning complex networks and the risks inherent in letting government gamble taxpayer dollars on these risky bets.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/10/06/problems-in-public-utility-paradise-part-14-muni-wi-fi-postmortem/feed/ 5 32127 Governments Privatizing Public Utilities Even As Some Want to Convert Internet Into One https://techliberation.com/2010/08/23/governments-privatizing-public-utilities-even-as-some-want-to-convert-internet-into-one/ https://techliberation.com/2010/08/23/governments-privatizing-public-utilities-even-as-some-want-to-convert-internet-into-one/#comments Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:40:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=31295

Two articles of interest in today’s Wall Street Journal with indirect impact on the debate over the future of Internet policy. First, there’s a front-page story (“Facing Budget Gaps, Cities Sell Parking, Airports, Zoo“) documenting how many cities are privatizing various services — including some considered “public utilities” — in order to help balance budgets.  The article worries about “fire-sale” prices and the loss of long-term revenue because of the privatizations.  But the author correctly notes that the more important rationale for privatization is that, “In many cases, the private takeover of government-controlled industry or services can result in more efficient and profitable operations.”  Moreover, any concern about “fire-sale” prices and long-term revenue losses have to be stacked again the massive inefficiencies / costs associated with ongoing government management of resources /networks.

Of course, what’s so ironic about this latest privatization wave is that it comes at a time when some regulatory activists are clamoring for more regulation of the Internet and calling for broadband to be converted into a plain-vanilla public utility. For example, Free Press founder Robert McChesney has argued that “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”  That certainly doesn’t seem wise in light of the track record of past experiments with government-owned or regulated utilities.  And the fact that we are talking about something as complex and fast-moving as the Internet and digital networks makes the task even more daunting.

Government mismanagement of complex technology projects was on display in a second article in today’s Journal (“U.S. Reviews Tech Spending.”)  Amy Schatz notes that “Obama administration officials are considering overhauling 26 troubled federal technology projects valued at as much as $30 billion as part of a broader effort by White House budget officials to cut spending. Projects on the list are either over budget, haven’t worked as expected or both, say Office of Management and Budget officials.”  I’m pleased to hear that the Administration is taking steps to rectify such waste and mismanagement, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that this is the same government that the Free Press folks want to run the Internet.  Not smart.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/08/23/governments-privatizing-public-utilities-even-as-some-want-to-convert-internet-into-one/feed/ 4 31295 Who Cares about Broadband? https://techliberation.com/2010/08/12/who-cares-about-broadband/ https://techliberation.com/2010/08/12/who-cares-about-broadband/#comments Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:13:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=31120

The folks at the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project came out with another installment of their “Home Broadband” survey yesterday. This one, Home Broadband 2010, finds that “adoption of broadband Internet access slowed dramatically over the last year.” “Most demographic groups experienced flat-to-modest broadband adoption growth over the last year,” it reports, although there was 22% growth in broadband adoption by African-Americans.  But the takeaway from the survey that is getting the most attention is the finding that:

By a 53%-41% margin, Americans say they do not believe that the spread of affordable broadband should be a major government priority. Contrary to what some might suspect, non-internet users are less likely than current users to say the government should place a high priority on the spread of high-speed connections.

This has a number of Washington tech policy pundits scratching their heads since it seems to cut against the conventional wisdom.  Cecilia Kang of The Washington Post penned a story about this today (“Support for Broadband Loses Speed as Nationwide Growth Slows“) and was kind enough to call me for comment about what might be going on here.

I suggested that there might be a number of reasons that respondents downplayed the importance of government actions to spur broadband diffusion, including that: (1) many folks are quite content with the Internet service they get today; (2) others might get their online fix at work or other places and not feel the need for it at home; and (3) some may not care two bits (excuse the pun) about broadband at all.  More generally, I noted that, with all the other issues out there to consider, broadband policy just isn’t that important to most folks in the larger scheme of things. As I told Kang, “Let’s face it, when the average family of four is sitting around the dinner table, to the extent they talk about U.S. politics, broadband is not on the list of topics.”

I also noted that many Americans are getting increasingly fed up with the scope of government power and the sort of wasteful spending that is increasingly bankrupting our nation and future generations.  More specifically, to the extent people know about them, existing universal service schemes for telephone service are massively inefficient and a prime example of why many Americans don’t trust their government to deliver on such grandiose tech-entitlement promises. One government report after another lambastes the waste, fraud, and abuse that runs rampant today our universal service system, and yet, those programs just keep growing and growing, year after year.

That’s why I told Kang that extending the same kind of federal aid to broadband providers is not likely to be any more efficient. “My skepticism comes from a poor government track record on tech funding,” I told her.  And I suspect that many people are equally skeptical for such reasons, and that might be influencing their answers when responding to Pew or other surveys.

Finally, I bet there are some folks out there who believe that, to the extent government should have a role in the “spread of affordable broadband” at all, that role should be focused on (1) clearing the deck of unnecessary regulatory burdens that prevent quicker rollout of privately-funded networks, and (2) limiting any subsidies that may be needed after that to targeted state and local programs for the truly neediest, not grandiose federal tech-pork barrel schemes.  Indeed, that’s my own position.

Of course, as I’ve noted here many times before, liberty is a loser these days and the natural progression of history is for Big Government to just grow and grow and grow.  So, I am prepared to get in line for my own tech handouts, as I noted in my essay last October, “Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime).”

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/08/12/who-cares-about-broadband/feed/ 2 31120