Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • A critical look at BC’s new tax breaks and subsidies for LNG May 7, 2019
    The BC government has offered much more to the LNG industry than the previous government. Read the report by senior economist Marc Lee.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver April 30, 2019
    The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver is $19.50/hour. This is the amount needed for a family of four with each of two parents working full-time at this hourly rate to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children, escape severe financial stress and participate in the social, civic and cultural lives of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Time to regulate gas prices in BC and stop industry gouging April 29, 2019
    Drivers in Metro Vancouver are reeling from record high gas prices, and many commentators are blaming taxes. But it’s not taxes causing pain at the pump — it’s industry gouging. Our latest research shows that gas prices have gone up by 55 cents per litre since 2016 — and the vast majority of that increase […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

How To Fund Innovation

Just over a year ago, I wrote an opinion piece about the federal government’s “innovation strategy” and its impact on the post-secondary education sector. In the piece, I argue that the strategy has resulted in significant funding increases for university R&D. But I also argue in the piece that the strategy creates winners and losers–i.e. a “world class” doctoral student might get a $50,000/yr. scholarship, while student debt for most university students has increased very substantially in Canada since the mid-1990s.

Yesterday’s Globe and Mail features an article that I believe further highlights the inequities in this strategy. I think it also calls into question whether Canadian taxpayers are in fact getting bang for their buck.

On the issue of equity, the Globe and Mail article tells the story of Anand Agarawala, a University of Calgary student who benefited from a $20,000 university fellowship for assistance in developing his business, which he’s just sold to Google for a cool $30 million. I’m happy for Mr. Agarawala’s success, and I’m guessing that our taxation system will easily recoup the $20,000 and then some in light of the recent deal. But try telling that to a student working three jobs in order to pay record tuition levels in Ontario.

The Globe and Mail article also features the following excerpt:

“About 12 per cent of 2005 Canadian PhD graduates were living in the U.S. by 2007, and 21 per cent intended to leave Canada, according to a recent Statistics Canada study. So-called knowledge workers tend to be mobile, and some, like Mr. Agarawala, will always move away.”

In light of this phenomenon (and the apparent “leakage” that it creates), I wonder if the federal government’s current innovation strategy is a wise use of tax dollars.

I think I’d prefer to see innovation funding directed towards the development of the kind of sectoral development policy advocated in the CCPA’s Alternative Federal Budget; that kind of “innovation” policy would have a clear focus on creating well-paying, secure jobs in Canada, rather than on turning our computer science students into Silicon Valley superstars.

Enjoy and share:


Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: July 22, 2011, 11:54 am

Innovation, to me, is the largest undiscovered country in Economics.

It is such a marvel of a topic as well. I have been up down and all around it, and yet I feel as though I have barely scratched the surface. Generation after generation born into a layer of production and the social of the dead innovation, twisting and turning within its grasp striving to understand it and then deceivingly conquering it only to fill in the next few bricks on of the web of pathways towards seemingly randomly generated notions of expanding the surplus.

More capital, more bricks more production, more transformation more output more informating, more computing more dead data stored, more innovation more capital. (more to distribute hopefully, and more towards tail less normal distribution of the wealth.

(Sorry I have been in the sun today relaxing in the zero gravity chair)

Innovation- it is everything and yet it can result so easily be stupidly destructive when used for such idiotic human goals of shame. Even poetry died after WW II as there was no longer time to be for art as we had to prevent forever the scale and power of such innovative destructive capacity and that I would argue was the greatest acceleration in discovery and diffusion of innovation in all of history. Yet- I am not a fan of Schumpeter.

The marriage of economics and innovation is the key and always has been for the future of pulling the surplus producing capacity- hopefully in a direction that we can say is not rooted in evil. Even better shinny bauble production would be better goal than what the past has instrumental pushed innovation forward in the greatest capacity.

So giving the keys to Harper has been a complete and utter failure of the democratic notions of positive innovation. The surplus bulldozed into fighter aircraft, prisons, which leads to more and better killing and more an better incarceration. Every least cent of revenue put into such neolithic creative space is killing the human race- literally and figuratively. Ever cent of public money is political and points the cannons of innovation.


Comment from Donald Hughes
Time: July 22, 2011, 1:49 pm

This might sound like an odd question, but is there enough evidence out there for the CCPA’s AFB development bank scheme? As in, the AFB budgeted $1.2 billion in this fiscal year for a new bank. That would seem to suggest that the CCPA believes a large development bank could hit the ground running and that determinations of social benefits for long-term, high-risk projects would be largely unproblematic. Blunt interventions in industry selection seems like it is discounted as a policy by many economists, so it seems like a high test would be in order. Is there evidence for the specific development bank wed with sectoral development councils that beats a simple manufacturing tax credit or one-off funding and grants and so on?

Sorry if I haven’t researched this much yet.

Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: July 27, 2011, 7:45 am

Just a more concrete point on this topic than my last post.

Innovation is the solution to our problems. Innovation however in many areas not just tech. There is plenty of tech in the system, just much of it has not permeated the monopolist corporate gate keepers of consumption.

Hence the need for private investment and strategically targeted public investment.

Having the market and hence profits being the sole direction left up to innovation within the macro innovation strategy is not the solution, otherwise we end up with bigger suvs, thousands of new perfumes and better guns.

It needs to be an innovation that makes sense given the true needs of the world.

Imagine if the needs for entertainment were as market based profitable as say the need for food. I do think the whole world would be fed and rather well.

Demand side issues, in a much wider sense, in terms of innovative thinking are the solution. So when one think of innovation, I hope we can think in a much wider sense.

Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: July 27, 2011, 7:47 am

that should be the reverse.i.e. if food needs were as profitable as entertainment needs.

Write a comment

Related articles