The Economist magazine hosts a series of debates on current questions and issues. The current debate expores the timely question-Do governments help or hinder innovation? As of today the public vote is split evenly 50% for PRO and 50% for CON. What do you think?
Here are the details:
Does government help or hinder innovation?
Live dates: March 22nd-28th
Current round: Opening
Dear Reader,
Does government intervention stifle creative thought or does it play a pivotal role in bringing new technologies to life? Our debate starts today and our speakers have posted their opening arguments. Now we want to hear what you have to say.
Moderator's comments
What is the right role for government in spurring innovation? One side often argues that governments inevitably get it wrong when they get too involved: picking the wrong technology winners, say, or ploughing subsidies into politically popular projects rather than the most deserving ones. The other rebuts that given the grave global challenges we face today, governments need to do much more to support innovation.
This time, both sides have some exciting new arguments that will breathe life into this age-old debate. So please don't sit on the fence—tell us which side you stand on and why.
Pro: Amar Bhidé
"Entrepreneurial leaps into the dark are best sustained by great caution in expanding the scope of government intervention." Read more
Con: David Sandalow
"Governments spur innovation. Governments shape innovation. Many of the most important innovations in recent decades grew from the work of governments." Read more
==========================================
Current round: Rebuttals
Dear Reader,
Our debate on innovation has got off to a fiery start. Our speakers have posted their rebuttal statements and now we want to hear what you've got to say. Get involved and tell us where you stand.
Moderator's comments
Despite minor gestures of conciliation, it is clear that neither debater is really willing to concede much ground. The battle lines are drawn. Our combatants are intellectually clear on their differences, and not afraid to attack the other side's weaknesses. Which side do you believe has the upper hand? Cast your vote now.
Pro: Amar Bhidé
"Revolutionary advances—Darwin's research on evolution, for example—occurred even when government funding for scientific research was minimal." Read more
Con: David Sandalow
"Government functions such as basic research, education and patent protection are central to innovation. Would innovation work best with less of such things? Quite the contrary." Read more
================================
Current round: Closing
Dear Reader,
Today our speakers have posted their closing statements in our debate on innovation, making this your last chance to have your say. Get involved and tell us which way you're voting and why.
Moderator's comments
Our debate is drawing to a close, and it is running neck and neck. The side in favour of the motion started off on the back foot, but has gained enough ground to keep this an unusually close affair. The side opposite has lost a bit of the initial starting advantage, but remains just as well positioned to pass the post first. Both debaters have ginned up their final arguments in the hopes of emerging the winner. Cast your vote now, as this debate promises to be a nail-biter. Read more
Pro: Amar Bhidé
"People must see their government play the role of an even-handed referee rather than be a dispenser of rewards or even a judge of economic merit or contribution. Picking winners—this technology or that developer—makes us all losers." Read more
Con: David Sandalow
"Government has unique capabilities and a full toolbox for helping spur the innovative process. There may be times when government should do less, but there will never be a time when it should do the 'least'." Read more
This is your final opportunity to post your comments and vote on The Economist online. You can also discuss the issue on our Facebook page, or stay updated via Twitter.
Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran
Debate Moderator
Correspondent
The Economist
Pro 50% |
Con 50% |
Closing statements
Winner announcement
Recent Comments