Ka riik saab olla ettevõtlik ja luua innovatsiooni

Kui USA riigiasutused ei oleks innovatsioonilisi ideid rahastanud, siis poleks meil täna nutitelefoni, kirjutab rahvusvahelise arengu konsultant Marje Aksli.

Miks on suured ja mõjukad firmad nagu Facebook ja Google tekkinud just Ameerikas? Mis teeb ameeriklased palju innovaatilisemaks kui Euroopa? Kas äkki pakutakse USAs start-up’idele mingeid erapankade finantstooted, mis pakuvad kõrge riskiga ettevõtetele laenusüste? Või arenevadki sealsed gasellid pelgalt selle tõttu, et maksukoormus on väiksem?

Hiljuti maineka Leontiefi auhinna saanud professor Mariana Mazzucato on just seda küsimust uurinud. Ta kirjutas raamatu “Ettevõtlik riik” just selleks, et Eestiski levinud puudulikku narratiivi lollist ja laisast riigist ning nutikast erasektorist ümber lükata. Eesti ettevõtjad, kes õhukest riiki ihalevad, peaks küsima, kes või mis rahastas tõeliselt innovaatiliste tehnoloogiate väljatöötamist USAs. Mazzucato selgitaks neile, et vidinad, mis meie nutitelefonid tegelikult nutikaks teevad – ehk siis internet, mobiilside, GPS, mikrokiibid, Siri ja puutetundlik ekraan – on tegelikult kõik riigi rahastatud.

Kui USA valitsusasutused ei oleks andnud innovatsiooni toetamiseks jaoks raha, siis ei oleks meil täna nutitelefoni. Seega, riik ei olnud mitte pelgalt passiivne äri võimaldaja, vaid aktiivne osaline teadusavastuste muutmisel kommertslikult tasuvaks, ning tihti ka strateegiliste innovatsiooniharude looja.

USA firmasid on oluliselt aidanud valitsuse rahastatud programmid väikeettevõtetele. Nii näiteks aitab Small Business Innovation Research (ehk SBIR) programm teatud väikeseid ettevõtteid teha kallist uurimus- ja arendustööd (R&D). Teine riigiprogramm, mis suures osas Ameerika väledaid gaselle aitab, on Small Business Technology Transfer programm (ehk STTR), mis koordineerib föderaalse innovatsiooni uurimus- ja arendustööd koos erasektoriga. See programm hõlmab erasektori kui avaliku sektori koostööd (PPP partnerlusi), ja õhutab koostööd väikefirmadele mõeldud investeerimiserakapitali ja mittetulunduslike uurimisasutuste vahel. See mudel nõuab, et väikefirma töötaks ametlikult koos uurimisasutusega, et aidata teaduslikke avastusi muuta turukõlbulikuks innovatsiooniks.

Kuna riskikapital otsib väga lühikese tagasitootlusmääraga investeerimisvõimalusi, ei ole nende lühike tähelepanuvõime suurte innovaatiliste läbimurrete jaoks piisav. Riigi eelis erasektori ees innovaatiliste leiutiste toetamisel ongi see, et riigil on palju pikem riskitaluvus: 15-20 aastat. Riigiprogrammid on ulatanud oma abistava käe just siis, kui erakapital ei julge veel investeerida. Neile olid kas riskid liiga suured või ei lubanud investeering kasumit vaid paari kiire aasta jooksul.

Näiteks nanotehnoloogia tõestab, et tihti tuleb just riigilt strateegiline visioon, kus suunas areneda. Sama kehtib ravimite kohta – tervelt 75 protsenti uutest innovaatilistest ravimitest on valitsuse rahade eest leiutatud.

Kui Eesti ärimehed seavad meile USAd innovatsiooni toetamisel eeskujuks, siis rääkigu nad ka ausalt sellest, kuidas sealsed teaduslahendused rahaliselt edukaks innovatsiooniks said. Hoopis riik on käitunud riskialtilt, panustades maksumaksjate raha riskantsetesse investeeringutesse, kus puudub selgus selle võimalikus kommertsväärtuses. See on aga hoopis vastupidine jutt kui see, mida Eestis laisast riigiametist ja hulljulgetest erainvesteerijatest räägitakse.

Praegu on USAst kui õhukese riigi eeskujust üldse kohatu rääkida. Tõi ju soss-sepast ärimehe Donald Trumpi võimule just see protestifenomen, et peaasjalikult innovatsiooni tõttu ja automatiseerimise käigus töö kaotanud inimesed ei leidnud endale enam majanduslikku rolli. Nende sissetulek kahanes, head töökohad haihtusid ja meeleheide oligi platsis. Neile oleks hädasti mõnda riigi pakutavat ümberõppe- või mujale kolimise programmi vaja läinud. Sama kehtib Eestis – ettevõtlikku riiki on vaja rohkem, mitte vähem.

Paljud Eesti ettevõtjad kiruvad süsteemi, mis võtab „inimestelt raha ära ja siis pakub neile tasuta teenustena tagasi“ osutades, et „vahepeal on veel „administreerimiskuludena“ suur osa sellest rahast juba ära kasutatud või tuuri pandud“. Kas on ikka nii, et inimesed ei vaja neid nn tasuta asju? Kas Eestis on tõesti liiga palju haridust ja tervishoidu, kõbusaid vanainimesi ja hästi toidetud lapsukesi? Ka valitsuse rahastatatud innovatsiooniprogrammid kasutasid maksumaksja raha, ning evisid administeerimiskulusid.

Eesti peab aru saama, et ilma kõrge kvaliteediga inimkapitalita ei saa innovatsiooni luua, mis ongi üks majanduse mootoreid. Just need tasuta teenused ongi kindlustanud selle, et väike ja USAst viis korda vaesem Eesti on suutnud USAga võrreldes pakkuda sarnase tasemega sotsiaalset heaolu. Eesti ebavõrdsuse indeks ehk Gini koefitsient annab aga aimu, et riigi rahastatavaid programme peaks veelgi tõhusamaks muutma, et heaolu laotuks endiselt ühtlasemalt Eesti elanike vahel, nii maal kui linnas. Innovatsiooni varjukülg ongi kahjuks sissetulekute kui varanduslik ebavõrdsuse kasv.

Oleks tore, kui Eesti riik panustaks USA eeskujul samuti idufirmadesse ja saaks paarikümne aasta pärast idufirmadesse tehtud kulutused kopsaka protsendiga tagasi. Just selleks, et globaliseerumise käigus kaotajaks jäänud täiendhariduseta kaevureid ja endisi tehasetöölisi 21. sajandisse aidata. Räägitakse USAs ju tõsimeeli sellest, et Facebook, kes meie tasuta saadud andmeid silmagi pilgutamata sularahaks vahetab, võiks meile kõigile palka maksta.

About the limitations of CSR

My interview with Mr. Ingram from NSI, published in 2012 The Rising Africa magazine

As the North-South Institute prepares for the NSI Ottawa Forum on Governance of Natural Resources for African Development, in May 2013, The Rising Africa talked to the former special representative of the World Bank to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, and the current President of The North South Institute, the leading development think tank in Canada, Mr. Joseph K. Ingram.

 

Our editor Marje Aksli visited Mr. Ingram in his office in Ottawa, and asked what the biggest challenge in Africa’s development is.

We all know that Sub-Saharan African economies are growing at an exceptional rate, and that the narrative of Africa is changing for the better. That is important, and I am not going to repeat their successes here. Yet in spite of these positive changes the biggest challenge in Africa remains its prevailing poverty and growing inequality. Most public policy experts would say that the most important factor in reducing inequality is providing meaningful employment opportunities to a growing youth population. Africa has serious problems with unemployment, even in the fast growing economies. Much of the unemployment is attributable to a huge youth surge – 60 percent of the total population in Sub-Saharan Africa is under the age of 30. This creates very high dependency ratios. South Africa, for example, has extremely high youth unemployment even though they have a relatively skilled labour force compared to other African countries.

How do you comment on some studies which claim that the younger the population, the lower probability that the country is democratic?

That theory is inconsistent with the fact that the number of democracies in Africa has risen from 8 to 23 in the last decade. Look at what has happened with the Arab Spring! It is largely young people who have brought about democratic change.  For the moment, it may not always be change that we like, but it is the first step towards an enduring democratic system.  A young population is a source of economic growth – you can’t have growth without adding to the labour force and increasing skill level of that labour. Also, history and empirical evidence show that with increased education there is increased demand for greater transparency and accountability, basic building blocks of democratic development.

So what do we know about the youth surge in Africa?

We know that if you do not meet youth’s expectations, there are going to be political problems, and a breakdown of social cohesion producing all kinds of negative outcomes including social discontent, surge in migration patterns, contestation over scare resources, extremism and religious fundamentalism. Groups take advantage of these problems to create challenges to the state. We are starting to see manifestations of that that fundamentalism in both the Maghreb, Somalia and the Sahel: in northern Mali, and even in Nigeria where religious violence has grown.

Is Africa’s challenge of jobless growth unique in the global scene?

The issue of jobless and job-poor growth is not unique to Africa: it is a problem we share globally, though not with the same outcomes. The U.S. and Canada are also experiencing the growing inequality and high levels of under and unemployment But clearly its outcomes are more acute in Africa where socio-economic conditions are much worse to begin with. Additionally, Africa has relatively weak political institutions. That said, there are significant improvements in the overall quality of governance.  We are talking about a continent with 54 countries.  Yet as we all know, democracy is fragile, as recent events in Mali have shown. Africa still has a legacy of corruption to deal with, as revealed by the indexes produced annually by Transparency International.

What research has NSI done in the area of governance of natural resources?

For almost a decade NSI has been doing field research on the subject of natural resource governance primarily in areas inhabited by first nations people in Canada and aboriginal communities in Latin America. Based on our findings we are increasingly shifting the focus of our research to sub-Saharan Africa. Our goal is to study the relationship between governance and the economic benefits of extractive activities.  Natural resources exploitation is important for all countries, and the wealth generated is critical to host governments, local communities and their populations.  Such resources should be exploited in a way which produces a win-win-win outcome:  a win for the host governments, for the local communities and for the mining companies.

What research projects does NSI work on?

We work very closely with two global initiatives. One is driven largely by the African Union and UN Economic Commission for Africa. Their African Mining Vision is an attempt to create a framework – standard setting for how African governments and investing companies should behave, and what the implications might be for home governments like Canada. A second initiative we have been involved with is led by one of the world’s leading development economists,  Prof. Paul Collier of Oxford University This initiative, the Natural Resource Charter, is also an attempt to create a set of regulatory principles by which host governments and mining companies would operate so that the exploitation of extractives as well as other natural resources, is done in an economically, socially, and environmentally responsible way producing the desired win-win-win outcome.

What should the companies do in a field of CSR when the governance is weak and civil society is not strong yet?

Let me start by explaining how we at NSI are planning to proceed in support of these global initiatives. The research we are going to undertake has several components, including the role of the private sector, the emerging powers, and going beyond CSR. We are also concerned with the impact that Canadian investments will have on long-term Canadian competitiveness and economic growth and poverty reduction in Africa. We have an interest in Canada being competitive as an investor in natural resources but at the same time we are also interested in how best that investment can enhance higher and more equitable growth outcomes.

In this context, we are also looking at the role of corporate social responsibility, including its limitations. African governments too are increasingly conscious of the limitations of self-regulation and in the context of the Africa Mining Vision are seeking to address them. Based on NSI’s past research in Canada and Latin America our conclusion is that CSR is a necessary but  not sufficient set of principles when it comes to ensuring the win-win-win outcome I referred to  earlier. Indeed a growing body of research, both empirical and academic, recognizes that there are serious limitations with relying solely on principles of corporate social responsibility. Although in general, Canadian companies have behaved well globally - often better than their competitors – a handful have not. And this has hurt both the Canadian brand and the sort of development outcomes we are all looking for from natural resource exploitation.

How has the limited scope of CSR hurt Canadian companies?

Companies have tended to rely on Corporate Social Responsibility principles alone.  But because CSR is a form of self-regulation, companies are often not accountable for whether they behave in a socially or environmentally responsible manner, especially in countries where local legislation and enforcement capacity are weak. 

Is reliance on self-regulated CSR going to produce the win-win-win outcome? What are the consequences if CSR fails to do so, especially in a context of high income inequality and poor socio-economic conditions? We have seen one possible outcome recently in the events at Marakana in South Africa where the violence in one mine has escalated and spread more widely creating a serious constraint on the country’s potential for economic growth. Incidences of violence have increased in frequency not only in Sub-Saharan Africa but also in parts of Asia and Latin America. While we recognise that CSR is necessary, we also need to ask ourselves if principles based on self-regulation are sufficient. Or do we need to look beyond CSR at more regulated forms of behaviour?

What direction is Africa moving in?

At this point it would appear that the work of the African Union and African governments is moving in the direction of stronger global standards and regulation. This may be in part due to the demands of a growing civil society in Africa demanding greater transparency and accountability.  The members of the African Union are cognisant of this important development which comes with democratic governance.

Is this what the forum you organize in May is about?

The Forum we plan to host in May of 2013 is titled  “The NSI Ottawa Forum on Governance of Natural Resources for African Development”  and we plan to have academics, CSO representatives and senior policy makers from Africa, Canada, Europe and the U.S. participating.

The Forum will examine not only how governments can best mobilize financial resources from natural resource exploitation but also how those governments can best spend the resources so that they contribute to the development of the national economy and their local communities. 

This is vital for the long term development and stability of the country. It is also vital for the mining companies themselves and their long run competitiveness. Their capacity to get contracts in the future will increasingly depend on how they are perceived both by host governments but also by the local communities.

So, you say that ...

... the more responsibly the companies behave, the more they consult with the local communities, the more positive the outcome will be in terms of strengthening their brand vis-a-vis their competitors.

But what if some investors buy up mining sites putting cash on the table, exceeding three-four times the market value?

Certainly this sort of thing happens but if that money is used for investment, to build infrastructure locally or to invest in adding value through local processing - rather than just shipping the raw minerals out – while creating more employment locally, this is going to help. This is what Canadian companies need to be doing with greater frequency, as well as talking to the local populations and taking their views into account before making investment decisions.

-xxx-