The regional innovation policy is the mostunsuccessful

It is gratifying that our post about the Swedish innovation policy – specifically, the selective aid to undertakings that do not have any positive effects – causes debate.

Bengt Johannisson is addressed, however, in its reply, the check in issues we do not discuss, partly on the points that we agree with him. We ask him therefore read what we write more carefully. Peter A Jorgensen, however, argue in its reply that the equity gap is a problem and that business support is effective.

Here, policy has an important role. But without functioning markets that provide space for entrepreneurs to commercialise new knowledge, we get no innovation and no growth.

To tax the corporations, then let the authorities distribute targeted support to benefit specific companies have no or negative effects, and create various types of distortions and politikmisslyckanden. That, Jörgensen, refer to the individual success stories is not enough. Instead requires systematic analysis in which you compare with the other similar companies that have not received support, which we, within the framework of our research done in several scientific articles and a doctoral dissertation.

It is true nor not, the fact that our research sought to ”dismiss the need for a policy that looks at other than market interest,” which Johannisson claims. When it comes to regional innovation policy, which, in principle, all the studies and investigations see as the most unsuccessful, one may ask why billions should be spent on bets that do not give noticeable results when, for example, infrastructure and other public utilities outside of Sweden's urban centres is in great need of improvement.

entrepreneurship has become more prevalent in the welfare area in the last few decades has been a strong engine for a more diverse and equal small business, which we've written about in other contexts, but which is not related to the issue of selective support.

It is also not true that we are seeing the business community as "the community's only nourishing sector". Johannisson are welcome to read our report or any of the underlagsrapporterna, where it is evident that we are in complete agreement with him: the higher education Institutions ' main task is to promote the general advancement of knowledge and to bring out it in society via graduate students. Just as he suggests we have argued for apprenticeships. For learning at the workplace itself is also a need for involvement from the business community.

It is good. The capital markets also works significantly better in the day compared to the time when the company Jörgensen highlights started. This deserves to be repeated if policy makers continue to stare themselves blind on an alleged funding gap instead of a more svårgreppbart knowledge gap. Johannissons and others ' research is important to emphasise in this regard.