”The state enterprises are expensive and solves no problems,” write the professors Nils Karlsson, Christian Sandström and Karl Wennberg linked to the Ratio. ”State adds almost 30 billion per year on supporting companies with capital, based on the assumption that there is a lack of capital that prevents the emergence of new innovations.” See DN 2018-12-29. The study is called the Financing of innovation and the goal has been to contribute to policy development.
These scientists are wrong. For Sweden’s capacity for innovation have different forms of state support was extremely important.
Now, shall be first stated that the report focused on the agencies that support innovation in different forms, and this support is a fraction of the 30 billion the researchers are talking about in the title. The accuracy of the article could have been higher.
the Cornerstone of the researchers ‘ reasoning is that it is difficult to demonstrate the existence of market failures. Well, as you ask, you get answers. A good starting point should have been ”Have the inventors and the entrepreneurs benefited from the existing policy?”
the Time for an invention or business concept to become a widely acclaimed innovation is rarely less than ten years. Here are some examples, which have several decades. These companies have received funds from the Swedish Board for Technical Development (STU) or NUTEK.
the Values upon disposal, respectively:
Axis: 24 b.
Qlink: 27 billion
Arcam: 8.5 billion
ReadSoft: 1.7 billion
market values in the autumn of 2018:
Mycronic: 12 billion
Sectra: 10 billion
Cellavision: 7 billion
Tobii: 3 billion
about 15 million in today’s money. The private investment has been many times greater. The allocations have been very early and in situations where other financiers have either been very dubious or non-existent. Data from a further 70 supported companies are in a study, which was initiated by Lars-Birger Larsson. Göran Reitberger has written the report Perspectives on public seed funding in Sweden after STU’s formation in 1968.
the Question is if it is the Axis or Tobiiprojekt of today’s start-up companies or established businesses, who do not find funding? Today, there are many times more private capital than it did in 1975. It goes although this is not to claim that all good projects find investors 2019. In the early stages and if the business idea is innovative, it is guaranteed to be difficult to find financiers. Unfortunately, it is not possible either to say that today’s stödapparat surely find these companies.
There are many flaws in the current framework for the development of innovation. It has Ratioforskarna pointed out, and here they are right. It applies, among other things optionsbeskattning, investeraravdrag, skills shortages, follow-ups, the priorities within the stödapparaten and erosion of the patent system.
the changes in policy have not benefited from Ratioforskarnas issues and how they lit them. Sometimes, the desire to reassert their position too strong. Our politicians may be led to believe that it is not necessary to support the development of innovations. Should policy development be taken forward, the picture must be supplemented.
