“Buy land,” Will Rogers is famous for having said, “They’re not making any more of it.” But the same constraint applies to a similar resource – electromagnetic spectrum, the real estate on which the economy’s future will be built. This week, the powerful Senate Commerce Committee will take steps in addressing this modern-day conundrum. And the end result could lead to a more competitive Internet while helping to meet the Obama Administration’s goal of closing the “digital divide.”
Spectrum is the range of radio waves that can carry mobile signals – voice, image, data, whatever you want, digitally morphed. And like the land that supports structures, spectrum supports our phones and their apps, remote education and healthcare, environmental monitoring, security and law enforcement, mobile entertainment, games, and other amusements, as well as the burgeoning “Internet of things,” from driverless cars to refrigerators that order groceries.
These innovations (which support 1.3 million jobs and $400 billion in annual economic activity, according to The Brattle Group) come so rapidly and pervasively that we often forget that it is spectrum that allows them to exist. Like land, there is only so much of it – the physical world provides only so wide a range of radio wave frequencies. But in the same way that skyscrapers make better use of land, technology that allows improvements in signal strength and compression make better use of spectrum over time.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) teamed up with Columbia University’s Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy to co-host a compelling symposium Nov. 6-7 in New York on revitalizing the U.S. economy. The event featured a distinguished roster of Richman Center economists and scholars, as well as PPI analysts and special guests, and more than two-dozen top policy aides to Members of Congress, Governors, and Mayors.
Held on Columbia’s Manhattan campus, the symposium examined the U.S. economy’s recent performance, as well as the causes of the long-term decline of productivity and economic growth. Against the backdrop of the 2016 election debate, the participants grappled with specific ideas for unleashing more economic innovation, modernizing infrastructure, reforming taxes, improving regulation, expanding trade and reducing inequality by ensuring that all children have access to high-quality public schools.
The discussions, which were off-the-record to encourage maximum candor, featured the following speakers and topics:
An overview of the U.S. economy’s recent performance by Abby Joseph Cohen, President of the Global Markets Institute and Senior Investment Strategist at Goldman Sachs.
A roundtable on key elements of a high-growth strategy, led by Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI, Andrew Stern, former head of the Service Employees International Union and now Ronald O. Perelman Senior Fellow at the Richman Center, and Philip K. Howard, Founder of Common Good, a nonpartisan reform coalition. The conversation touched on ways to improve the regulatory environment for innovation, including reducing regulatory accumulation and requiring faster permitting for big infrastructure projects, as well as a lively debate on the future of work in a tech-driven knowledge economy.
An insightful macroeconomic analysis of why productivity and economic growth have slowed, by Pierre Yared, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Yared highlighted three potential contributors to the slowdown: labor demographics and participation; “capital intensity” or business investment; and the “production efficiency” of U.S. companies.
A detailed examination of the impact of energy innovation—from the shale boom to renewables and the construction of a new, “smart” grid—on jobs and economic growth. Leading this segment were Jason Bordoff, formerly energy advisor to President Obama and Director of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, and Derrick Freeman, Director of PPI’s Energy Innovation Project.
A dinner conversation at the Columbia Club with Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel Laureate in Economics and Director of Columbia’s Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Drawing on his recent book, Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change, he stressed the importance of indigenous innovation in creating the conditions for broad upward mobility. He also emphasized the crucial role of “modern” or individualistic cultural values in sustaining the mass innovation and entrepreneurship America needs to flourish again.
A detailed look at business taxation and reform as a potential driver of economic growth. It featured Michael Graetz, Alumni Professor of Tax Law at Columbia Law School, David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and the Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics at the Columbia Law School and Co-director at the Richman Center, as well as PPI’s Michael Mandel. The discussion ranged widely over global tax frictions, including the OECD’s new “BEPS” project; the need for corporate tax reform; “patent boxes” and mounting U.S. interest in consumption taxes.
A roundtable on trade and productivity growth with Ed Gerwin, PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity and the versatile Michael Mandel. Noting President Obama’s controversial call for a Trans-Pacific Partnership, Gerwin stressed the agreement’s potential for “democratizing” trade by making it easier for U.S. small businesses to connect with customers abroad. Mandel underscored another PPI priority: raising awareness among policymakers of the growing contribution of cross-border data flows to growth here and abroad, and the need to push back against proposals that would impede “digital trade”
A luncheon presentation on “financial regulation after the crisis” by Jeffrey Gordon, Richard Paul Richman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Gordon described the new regime put in place by Dodd-Frank and other rules to guard against “systemic risk” of another financial meltdown, and suggested its “perimeter” may been to be expanded beyond banks.
The symposium’s final panel featured a vigorous discussion on K-12 education reform and the economy. The discussants were Jonah Rockoff, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and David Osborne, who directs PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, and is a co-author of the seminal “Reinventing Government.” Rockoff highlighted research showing that the returns to school improvement are enormous, and recommended reforms that could increase school quality. Osborne traced the evolution of school governance in America, and offered detailed looks at new models emerging in cities like New Orleans and Washington, D.C., both of which are leaders in the public charter school movement.
The symposium gave the policy professionals who participated a rare opportunity to delve deeply into complicated economic realities, guided by presenters of extraordinarily high caliber. The conversations were highly illuminating and will inform PPI’s work on Agenda 2016—a new blueprint for reviving U.S. economic dynamism and opportunity.
PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in a piece by The Guardian addressing the 2016 Democratic presidential candidates and the party’s shift to the left:
At Columbia University in New York this weekend, the Progressive Policy Institute, which helped Bill Clinton and Tony Blair pioneer so-called third way politics in the 1990s, held a closed-door strategy session for congressional staffers that was designed to find ways of promoting growth.
“There is no question that the prevailing temper of the Democratic party is populist: strongly sceptical of what we like to call capitalism and angry about the perceived power of the monied elite in politics,” said PPI president and founder Will Marshall.
“But inequality is not the biggest problem we face: it is symptomatic of the biggest problem we face, which is slow growth.”
Compared to the Republicans’ presidential cattle calls, the next Democratic debate will be an intimate affair, since the field has shrunk to just three candidates. They will gather in South Carolina Friday for a “candidate forum” moderated by MSNBC’s uber-progressive Rachel Maddow.
That sounds like a recipe for another rousing round of populism, business-bashing and exhortations by Sen. Bernie Sanders to Americans to stop worrying and learn to love democratic socialism. If so, it will spell trouble for the candidate everyone expects to emerge with the prize — Hillary Clinton.
After their first debate in Las Vegas, Democrats congratulated themselves on having been more substantive than the Republicans. True enough: No sentient viewer could confuse the GOP Gong Show with the PBS NewsHour.
But amid all the wonkery, something big was missing — a sense of economic optimism, buttressed by fresh ideas for stimulating innovation and growth. Working Americans want to know how they and their children can find opportunities and win in the global knowledge economy. Instead, Democrats dwelled at great length on how badly they are losing. They had plenty to say about inequality, but almost nothing about how to create new jobs, enterprises and wealth.
PPI’s Cheif Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was quoted by Sam Shead of Business Insider regarding the rise and impact of Uber:
Uber’s most significant innovation is not its widely-used taxi hailing app, an economist from a US think-tank said on Tuesday.
Speaking at the FT Innovate conference in London, Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington DC, suggested that ‘Uber’s real innovation has been in working with governments around the world’ where it has been ‘outstanding.’
Ed Gerwin, PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity, was quoted by Ana Campoy of Quartz talking about the importance and influence of Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership:
Aside from the lower tariffs that are part of any run-of-the-mill trade agreement, TPP has a whole chapter on international e-commerce, and another on small- and medium-sized companies. The specific provisions of the pact have not been released yet, but a public summary of its contents shows that the TPP ‘could be potentially transformative,’ Ed Gerwin, a trade expert at the Progressive Policy Institute, tells Quartz.
For example, the treaty promises to speed up the process of getting merchandise across borders by making import rules more easily accessible and transparent. If the agreement is approved, express packages would be expedited and customs officials would be encouraged to adopt time-saving measures such as electronic forms and signatures.
‘That stuff is a big deal,’ says Gerwin. ‘Having uniform rules is really important.’”
On real Main Streets across America, from Idaho to California to Maine, the Ex-Im Bank supports U.S. jobs.
On Main Streets across America, small businesses are a critical source of economic growth and good jobs. Over the past two decades, entrepreneurs and small firms have generated an astounding 65 percent of America’s net new jobs. Small businesses that export drive even greater growth.
According to shipping firm UPS, small firms engaged in global trade are 20 percent more productive and produce 20 percent greater job growth when compared to non-exporters. And because only about 4 percent of U.S. small businesses export, boosting small business trade can pay huge dividends for local communities and the overall American economy.
U.S. Export-Import Bank plays a key role in helping American small businesses seize export opportunities in foreign markets. Over the past four years, it has completed over 12,000 financing transactions for small firms—supporting nearly $50 billion in small business exports and well over 100,000 small business jobs—and has hosted over 75 small business export forums in communities nationwide. In 2014, 90 percent of the Ex-Im Bank’s transactions benefitted small businesses.
Despite this, critics like House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have suggested that gutting the Ex-Im Bank would somehow be a victory for the “Main Street competitive economy.”
In real “Main Street” communities across America, however, small businesses and workers that have benefitted from Ex-Im Bank financing support would certainly disagree. Indeed, more than a few of the small firms that the Ex-Im Bank has supported in recent years are actually located on “Main Streets” across America. Here are just a few examples:
FHC Inc., a producer of neurosurgical products located on Main Street in Bowdoin, Maine.
Jason Mills, LLC, a knit textile producer, on South Main Street in Milltown, New Jersey.
Halcyon Manufacturing Inc., a diving gear manufacturer located on South Main Street in High Springs, Florida.
Val-Co Pax Inc., a producer of equipment for poultry and pig operators, on East Main Street in Coldwater, Ohio.
Diamond Power International, Inc., a firm specializing in boiler cleaning and ash handling technologies, located on East Main Street in Lancaster, Ohio.
Estron Chemicals, Inc., a specialty chemical and coatings producer located on North Main Street in Calvert City, Kentucky.
SSD Control Technology Inc., a maker of fence production equipment, on South Main Street in South Bend, Indiana.
The Ex-Im Bank provides these and many other local companies with the real-world help they need to grow, support their communities, and create good jobs by selling globally. For instance, Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees enable NOW International, a small producer of dietary supplements in Bloomingdale, Illinois and Sparks, Nevada, to gain financial backing from local lenders for exports that directly support 35 jobs at the company.
And the benefits of Ex-Im support for larger companies like Boeing also flow to the thousands of U.S. suppliers and workers that participate in large company supply chains, including businesses that line the “Main Streets” of communities throughout America.
There are, no doubt, scores of government programs that need to be replaced or reformed. But the Ex-Im Bank isn’t one of them. Rather, the Ex-Im Bank is an efficient and prudent institution that drives exports and economic growth and supports good American jobs, all while actually making a $2 billion profit for the U.S. Treasury over the past five years. If that’s not a model for good governance, what is?
Main Street America is already increasingly frustrated with Washington. Let’s not fuel the fire by eliminating worthwhile programs that directly address Main Street’s real needs.
This piece was originally published in Republic 3.0.
Hillary Clinton’s decision to oppose President Obama’s top trade priority is beyond disappointing. It devalues two of her real assets – foreign policy expertise and political loyalty – while aligning her with the most economically retrograde voices on the “populist” left.
Political reporters naturally played up Clinton’s “break” with Obama, who has just wrapped up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after five years of arduous negotiations with 11 other Pacific Rim countries. Her untimely defection to the anti-trade camp will compound the president’s already difficult task of rallying Democratic support in Congress for TPP.
More troubling, though, is Clinton’s break with herself. As Obama’s first Secretary of State, she was a key architect of the administration’s strategy of “rebalancing” America toward the Asia Pacific. Integral to that strategy is TPP, which would create an economic counterweight to China – a vast free trade zone encompassing 40 percent of global GDP that includes advanced economies like Japan and Australia, and emerging markets like Malaysia and Vietnam.
At issue is whether the burgeoning Pacific economy will play by China’s mercantilist rules, or merge into the liberal, rules-based trading system championed by the United States and Europe. The stakes for U.S. workers and companies are enormous. In 2011, Clinton called TPP a model for future trade agreements, and indeed other Asian economies, such as South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand, have expressed interest in joining.
So TPP isn’t just another trade deal; it’s an impressive feat of U.S. economic diplomacy and leadership. Its rejection by Congress would deal a heavy blow to America’s influence in the region.
It would also damage America’s growth prospects. The U.S. economy is stuck in low gear, averaging a paltry two percent growth per year since 2000. Over the last decade, productivity growth also has slowed, which economists say goes a long way toward explaining why wage gains for most U.S. workers have been so meager. Our economy needs a lift – and TPP’s market-opening provisions will stimulate foreign demand for U.S. products.
This policy brief examines the positives and negatives of the patent/IP/ innovation box. This issue is increasingly relevant given the OECD’s recent release of new principles governing the global tax system.
On October 5, the OECD released the final reports of their Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS) Project. The comprehensive recommendations in the reports are designed to force multinationals to pay more taxes by substantially eliminating many of the tax avoidance strategies they currently use.
However, the BEPS reports do effectively bless one way to reduce taxes—the granting of tax incentives for innovation and R&D-related activities. As one BEPS report says:
“…it is recognized that IP-intensive industries are a key driver of growth and employment and that countries are free to provide tax incentives for re-search and development (R&D) activities, provided that they are granted according to the principle agreed by the [BEPS Report].”
In broad terms, there are two types of innovation-related tax incentives: R&D tax credits, and patent/IP/innovation boxes. The first provides a credit for R&D spending, whether or not it results in a useful product. The second provides for a lower rate on corporate profits that arise from innovation-related investment. In other words, the patent/IP/innovation boxes favor those companies who are successful with their innovation.
The terminology difference between a patent box, an IP box, and an innovation box reflects the breadth of the intangibles covered, ranging from simply patents, to other types of intellectual property such as copyrights, or a broader range of spending related to innovation. The OECD uses the technical term ‘IP regime’ to cover all three.
Referencing a recent report by Michael Mandel, The Washington Posts‘ Robert J. Samuelson discusses corporate investment:
Of course, businesses haven’t stopped investing entirely. In 2014, they spent $2.2 trillion on buildings, equipment (computers, machinery, trucks), software and research. For many large firms, the amounts are huge, estimates economist Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. In 2014, AT&T led in business investment in the United States at $21.2 billion, followed by Verizon at $16 billion and Exxon Mobil at $12.4 billion.
Today the European Court of Justice invalidated the “Safe Harbor” agreement that allowed thousands of US companies to transfer personal data from Europe to the US, including personal data of employees at their European subsidiaries. As the WSJ wrote:
In a victory for privacy advocates, the European Court of Justice ruled that national regulators in the EU can override the 15-year-old “Safe Harbor” pact used by about 4,500 companies, including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, because it violates the privacy rights of Europeans by exposing them to allegedly indiscriminate surveillance by the U.S. government.
Leaving aside the legalities, this ruling indicates a rising mood of digital protectionism which is likely to hurt Europe far more than the US. Data traffic flows both ways, after all, and efforts to keep personal data inside the EU is likely to end up keeping useful data out as well. The future belongs to those countries who participate fully in the global digital economy.
Multinationals are about to get hit with a big tax penalty for operating in the United States. Is it finally time for corporate tax reform?
On Monday October 5 the OECD will release the “final package of measures for a co-ordinated international approach to reform the international tax system.” These BEPS recommendations (standing for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) are intended to address “gaps and mismatches in existing rules which allow corporate profits to ‘’disappear’’ or shift to low/no-tax locations, where no real value creation takes place.” In other words, the goal is to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of taxes globally. This is a laudable objective.
But BEPS also exposes the huge difference between the U.S. corporate tax rate, and that of many of our rivals. According to KPMG, the posted U.S. corporate tax rate, including both federal and state, stands at about 40%. By comparison, the average corporate tax rate in the European Union is about 22%. That includes Ireland (12.5%), United Kingdom (20%) and Germany (roughly 30%). To put this in perspective, a company earning an extra $1 billion in profits in the United States would pay roughly $400 million in corporate taxes, versus only $200 million in taxes if the profits were booked in the United Kingdom. That difference of $200 million could fund thousands of jobs.
Before BEPS, many U.S.-based multinationals were able to legally reduce their U.S. tax bills by shifting income to other countries with lower rates. They used a variety of tax strategies. The result for the companies: Lower effective taxes. The result for the United States: Higher competitiveness, since multinationals could avoid the full brunt of the excessively high U.S. corporate income tax rate. Continue reading “Understanding the Meaning of BEPS for the United States”→
Back in 2012, the Progressive Policy Institute identified the shortfall in business capital spending— or the “investment drought”, we termed it—as one of the major economic problems facing the U.S. economy. As we wrote then, “su1stainable economic growth, job creation, and rising real wages require domestic business investment.”
Unfortunately, three years later, the United States is still suffering from an investment drought. Capital per worker-hour has fallen since 2010, meaning that the average American worker has less equipment, buildings, and software to use, exactly the opposite of what we would want. More worrisome, this is not simply a short-run trend. In fact, the 10-year growth rate of productive capital is only 2 percent, by far the lowest in the post-war era (Figure 1).
Leading economists are increasingly concerned that the weakness in domestic investment is making it hard for businesses to boost productivity, measured by output per hour. The 10-year growth rate of nonfarm business labor productivity is only 1.3 percent, compared to 3 percent as recently as 2005. In a recent speech, Jason Furman, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers called the decline in prod2uctivity growth “an investment- driven slowdown.”
A 2015 report by the OECD on productivity addresses the recent productivity slowdown and the question of whether it is temporary or “a sign of more permanent things to come.” They assert the importance of innovation for achieving growth, writing “productivity is expected to be the main driver of economic growth and well-being over the next 50 years, via investment in innovation and knowledge-based capital.”
International engagement is integral to PPI’s mission of policy innovation, going back to the “third way” dialogues we helped to launch back in the 1990s. In addition to multiple visits to Brussels and other European capitals over the past several years, PPI went to Australia last summer to unveil a unique study of the “App Economy” Down Under. Underscoring the value of such global outreach, the host for that July 2014 event, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, just became Australia’s Prime Minister.
Extending our efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, we’ve just returned from a fascinating two-week foray to Japan, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Here’s a brief report on our trip, which centered on two new studies of the App Economy in Southeast Asia, as well as our work to support President Obama’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
It began on Sept. 7 (Labor Day) in Tokyo, where PPI’s traveling party was briefed by top officials of Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) on Japan’s priorities for the TPP negotiations, Among other things, we discussed TPP’s importance in supporting increased trade by small and mid-sized U.S. and Japanese firms, and we emphasized TPP’s critical role in promoting the cross border data flows on which the global economy increasingly depends.
At the Ministry of Defense, we received a broad survey of regional security concerns, including China’s “creeping expansion” and island-building activities in the South China Sea. This briefing helped to provide context for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s controversial new security proposals, which are intended to allow Japan’s armed forces more latitude in joining mutual defense efforts in the region, including joint exercises with U.S. forces.
Energy also figured prominently in our talks. From directors of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy and Office for International Nuclear Energy Cooperation, we learned that the post-Fukushima shutdown of nuclear energy has left Japan importing an amazing 96 percent of its energy, leaving it hugely dependent on coal and Middle East oil. Little wonder that Japan is gradually bringing nuclear reactors back on line and trying to tilt its portfolio more toward natural gas and renewable solar and wind power. The United States could support these efforts by a key ally by lifting outdated restrictions on U.S. oil and gas exports.
Other key meetings in Tokyo included a wide-ranging conversation on U.S.-Japan relations and the progress of “Abenomics” with the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), as well as a roundtable discussion with the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan on the investment climate in Japan, the government’s efforts to stimulate economic growth, and the attempts to stimulate innovation in regenerative medicine.
PPI next traveled to Vietnam, a country in the throes of rapid economic development and modernization. In Ho Chi Minh City, we met with city officials eager to lower legal and regulatory barriers to foreign investors, as well as leaders of the city’s University of Technology and Education, an American-founded college that is trying to meet the economy’s insatiable demand for engineers and technicians.
If Ho Chi Minh City is Vietnam’s business center, Hanoi is the seat of a government firmly controlled by the Communist Party. There, PPI released“Vietnam and the App Economy,“ a report by our chief economic strategist Michael Mandel. Using a methodology Mandel pioneered in measuring the number of U.S. app-related jobs since the introduction of the smartphone in 2007, the study shows that Vietnam ranks surprisingly high in app job growth – first, in fact, in Southeast Asia (including Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines).
The report warns, however, that new regulations under consideration – for example, a rule that would prohibit data from leaving Vietnam – could crimp the development of the country’s nascent digital sector. What’s more, the wisdom of a heavy state role in certain sectors, such as telecom and mobile broadband, was the subject of some very spirited discussions with our hosts.
PPI’s visit and Dr. Mandel’s report were well-received in the Vietnamese media, gaining positive coverage from the Vietnam News Agency, ICT News Vietnam,Vietnam Breaking News, The Voice of Vietnam, andVietnamPlus.
PPI also released a second report, “TPP and the Benefits of Freer Trade for Vietnam: Some Lessons from U.S. Free Trade Agreements,”at an event organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi, which included leading Vietnamese economists and economic reformers. Written by Ed Gerwin, who directs PPI’s Trade and Global Opportunity project, the report shows how countries that use high-standard free trade agreements to enhance transparency and the rule of law, adopt higher labor and environmental standards, and make other key reforms often see significant growth in foreign investment, greater innovation, and broader participation in global commerce. Gerwin’s report garnered media coverage in The Hill and theCommunist Party of Vietnam’s Online Newspaper.
Our schedule also included meetings with top-level officials from Vietnam’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Information and Communication, and Science and Technology, as well as visits to Saigon Hi-Tech Park, the U.S. Embassy, Viettel Corporation, FPT Software, and Vietnam Silicon Valley.
From Hanoi it was on to our final destination, Indonesia. At a packedpublic forum in Jakarta hosted by Mastel, an association of leading Indonesian and foreign companies, we released another Mandel study, “Indonesia: Road to the App Economy.”That was followed by a roundtable featuring top Indonesian government officials, business leaders and economists. PPI’s core premise – that emerging market economies, such as Indonesia, should not overlook possibilities for growth arising from the intangible, or data-driven economy, as well as traditional, labor-intensive manufacturing – sparked a lively discussion.
The report and Dr. Mandel’s public comments were quoted inCNN Indonesia, Bisnis Indonesia (the leading business print newspaper in the country), Detik.com (the number one online news outlet in Indonesia), andKompas Online(the number one print newspaper by circulation).
The PPI delegation included Will Marshall, Michael Mandel, Lindsay Lewis, Cody Tucker, and Ed Gerwin. We will continue to find ways to engage on policy issues globally, as the new economy being fostered by U.S. innovation needs better international understanding and increased appreciation. We hope you will find the opportunity to join us in the coming year as we push for unique policy solutions at home and abroad.
Every once in a while, personal injury lawyers come up with new ways to sue that can be real head scratchers. Courts usually weed out these theories, but they get through on occasion. This happened last year in Alabama, where the Alabama Supreme Court held that a company can be subject to liability, not for its own products, but for products entirely made and sold by its competitors. This theory for liability has been dubbed “innovator liability” because it is used primarily against companies that invent new products even though the plaintiffs in the cases are alleging that they have been harmed only by similar or “knock-off” products of other companies.
In May, the Alabama Legislature and Governor, in a swift bipartisan manner, overturned their state Supreme Court’s innovator liability ruling. Alabama’s policymakers appreciated that it makes no legal or economic sense for innovators to own the liability for an entire product line. In addition to being legally unprincipled, this liability theory punishes innovation, which could have devastating long-term impacts on consumers and businesses alike. The downsides of such liability are too great.
JAKARTA—The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new policy report at a public forum in Jakarta, which measures the growing contribution of digital innovation to the Indonesian economy, compares the environment for investment in Indonesia to other locations in Southeast Asia, and warns of potential policy pitfalls and regulations that might harm future digital growth and economic prosperity in the country.
The report, “Indonesia: Road to the App Economy,” is an effort to measure the thousands of app-related jobs created in Indonesia since the introduction of the smartphone in 2007. Based on a methodology PPI Chief Economic Strategist Dr. Michael Mandel has developed to estimate app job growth in the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and Vietnam, the study is the first to quantify the number of Indonesian jobs directly related to the building, maintenance, support and marketing of applications for smart-devices.
“Up to this point, Indonesia has not been focused on app development. Nevertheless, the country has a rapidly growing number of app developers—these are the people who design and create the apps distributed domestically and internationally,” said Dr. Mandel, author of the report. “Moreover, Indonesian companies that do app development also have to hire sales people, project managers, database programmers, and other types of workers. Finally, each app developer supports a certain number of local jobs.
“In this paper, we estimate that Indonesia has roughly 22,000 App Economy jobs across the entire country. In addition, we show that Indonesia comes in third in our App Economy ranking of major Southeast Asia countries, behind Vietnam and just behind Singapore.
“Why is this important? The implication is that production of mobile apps—both for the domestic and global economies—could become an increasing source of growth in coming years for Indonesia. The Indonesian government is facing an important economic policy decision. Countries are better off nurturing a strong position in mobile app development. The key to growth is to be a creator of mobile apps, not simply a user. That strategy creates a workforce with the right skills and training to prosper in the global economy going forward.”
