What do you think?
Rate this book
Jump-Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream
The untold story of how America once created the most successful economy the world has ever seen and how we can do it again.
The American economy glitters on the outside, but the reality is quite different. Job opportunities and economic growth are increasingly concentrated in a few crowded coastal enclaves. Corporations and investors are disproportionately developing technologies that benefit the wealthiest Americans in the most prosperous areas -- and destroying middle class jobs elsewhere. To turn this tide, we must look to a brilliant and all-but-forgotten American success story and embark on a plan that will create the industries of the future -- and the jobs that go with them.
Beginning in 1940, massive public investment generated breakthroughs in science and technology that first helped win WWII and then created the most successful economy the world has ever seen. Private enterprise then built on these breakthroughs to create new industries -- such as radar, jet engines, digital computers, mobile telecommunications, life-saving medicines, and the internet-- that became the catalyst for broader economic growth that generated millions of good jobs. We lifted almost all boats, not just the yachts.
Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson tell the story of this first American growth engine and provide the blueprint for a second. It's a visionary, pragmatic, sure-to-be controversial plan that will lead to job growth and a new American economy in places now left behind.
The American economy glitters on the outside, but the reality is quite different. Job opportunities and economic growth are increasingly concentrated in a few crowded coastal enclaves. Corporations and investors are disproportionately developing technologies that benefit the wealthiest Americans in the most prosperous areas -- and destroying middle class jobs elsewhere. To turn this tide, we must look to a brilliant and all-but-forgotten American success story and embark on a plan that will create the industries of the future -- and the jobs that go with them.
Beginning in 1940, massive public investment generated breakthroughs in science and technology that first helped win WWII and then created the most successful economy the world has ever seen. Private enterprise then built on these breakthroughs to create new industries -- such as radar, jet engines, digital computers, mobile telecommunications, life-saving medicines, and the internet-- that became the catalyst for broader economic growth that generated millions of good jobs. We lifted almost all boats, not just the yachts.
Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson tell the story of this first American growth engine and provide the blueprint for a second. It's a visionary, pragmatic, sure-to-be controversial plan that will lead to job growth and a new American economy in places now left behind.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published April 9, 2019
120 people are currently reading
1377 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
March 10, 2020
I wish all politicians would read this book. Best takeaway: Private sector R&D is very short term focused on labor saving technology. This is why we have had stagnant wage and productivity growth, as well as a dwindling middle class.
June 13, 2019
A good reminder that federal spending on basic science and the application of science has created many of the tech hubs we have today. And that we can do it again! It's why rocket scientists still move to Huntsville, and why Boston and SF became the tech hubs they are.
November 9, 2019
Jumpstarting America is an excellent read, a compelling case for more public investment in innovation, and a manifesto for an innovative plan to accomplish this goal that the authors argue is a good combination of politics and economics. Jon Gruber and Simon Johnson marvel at the rapid growth and change of Kendall Square, the MIT neighborhood they both work in, and ask whether this same transformation is possible in cities across America. Their answer: yes it is, but it will require an ambitious effort.
Jumpstarting America is a mash-up of a history of big science in the United States (starting with radar in World War II), a presentation of some of the economics of the economics of R&D and the geography of the economy—an unusual combination that the authors use to motivate their novel plan.
The history centers around the United States funding big science starting with World War II. It talks about the public-private partnership and how it was centered at a university, in this case MIT, and the scientific and technological spill offs that came from it and how it transformed an area. The authors provide a similar treatment for the space program and, more briefly, the human genome project. Some unusual suspects also make an appearance, like learning that Orlando is a leader in modeling and simulation of aerospace.
The economics is the standard model for R&D, that it has spillovers that are not captured by private companies so will tend to be underprovided. The other part of the economic story is one told by Enrico Moretti, that we used to see convergence between places but we are increasingly seeing divergence as the most successful cities pull away from all the others, while also putting up barriers to movement through zoning and other rules.
Gruber and Johnson’s proposal combines these two sets of observations: they propose a massive increase in research funding but want a substantial portion of that funding to go to new hubs that would be selected by a competitive application process. The proposal gets a bit more creative when they suggest the federal government should own the associated land, make money on the increase in land values, and distribute this as a dividend like Alaska does with oil revenue. So instead of focusing on how to pay for this plan, they emphasize the way it would pay for all of us.
The proposal should get serious attention but also serious critical scrutiny. They are stronger on successes for place-based policies than their many failures. Would we do a good job selecting the places? Should we really pick a diverse set of places, potentially undermining some of the synergies and positive spillovers that we already have in successful places like Boston and the Bay Area? Would we really be able to capture many of the benefits sufficiently to provide a dividend? Is some R&D investment just about driving up the salaries of researchers and discovering things slightly earlier? How would we select the more applied technologies they think we should invest in? To Gruber and Johnson’s credit they are explicit that many of the investments would fail, pointing out that in venture capital only a tiny fraction of super successes pay for the many experiments that try and fail.
Overall, Jumpstarting America is an enjoyable read that should help to refocus the public debate on the importance of growth, innovation and place.
Jumpstarting America is a mash-up of a history of big science in the United States (starting with radar in World War II), a presentation of some of the economics of the economics of R&D and the geography of the economy—an unusual combination that the authors use to motivate their novel plan.
The history centers around the United States funding big science starting with World War II. It talks about the public-private partnership and how it was centered at a university, in this case MIT, and the scientific and technological spill offs that came from it and how it transformed an area. The authors provide a similar treatment for the space program and, more briefly, the human genome project. Some unusual suspects also make an appearance, like learning that Orlando is a leader in modeling and simulation of aerospace.
The economics is the standard model for R&D, that it has spillovers that are not captured by private companies so will tend to be underprovided. The other part of the economic story is one told by Enrico Moretti, that we used to see convergence between places but we are increasingly seeing divergence as the most successful cities pull away from all the others, while also putting up barriers to movement through zoning and other rules.
Gruber and Johnson’s proposal combines these two sets of observations: they propose a massive increase in research funding but want a substantial portion of that funding to go to new hubs that would be selected by a competitive application process. The proposal gets a bit more creative when they suggest the federal government should own the associated land, make money on the increase in land values, and distribute this as a dividend like Alaska does with oil revenue. So instead of focusing on how to pay for this plan, they emphasize the way it would pay for all of us.
The proposal should get serious attention but also serious critical scrutiny. They are stronger on successes for place-based policies than their many failures. Would we do a good job selecting the places? Should we really pick a diverse set of places, potentially undermining some of the synergies and positive spillovers that we already have in successful places like Boston and the Bay Area? Would we really be able to capture many of the benefits sufficiently to provide a dividend? Is some R&D investment just about driving up the salaries of researchers and discovering things slightly earlier? How would we select the more applied technologies they think we should invest in? To Gruber and Johnson’s credit they are explicit that many of the investments would fail, pointing out that in venture capital only a tiny fraction of super successes pay for the many experiments that try and fail.
Overall, Jumpstarting America is an enjoyable read that should help to refocus the public debate on the importance of growth, innovation and place.
December 5, 2023
Loved the beginning of this book and was weirdly invested but then respectfully it got so boring and kind of repetitive in the last chapters. What I do know is that we need public funding to go towards research and development #stem #business #extracreditbookgoneRIGHT
April 28, 2019
This is a wonderful book, one that I suggest reading, that blends economics, history, and public policy into a practical action plan. Importantly, it is a plan that if generally followed would benefit large portions of the United States, creating economic benefits across many regions, industries, and groups of people.
The proposal is to locate innovation-driven commercial centers in promising cities. The method is to reinvigorate the tradition of broadly-distributed Federal funding for research and development. Money put toward research and development produces new scientific knowledge and practical discoveries that would flow into an institutional arrangement involving the research center, private sector actors, and government entities, each playing a different role, but collectively working to create economic growth and to promote the common good.
It is an appealing idea, since it would achieve several important things at once – creating growth and opportunity outside of the glamor-metros; providing a money source for risky or long-term research work that the private sector disfavors; and establishing a model of how public and private sectors can work cooperatively in a way to produces both collective and individual benefits. Also appealing is the prospect that the funding could serve as a corrective to the sector bias in private capital flows toward digital or less capital intensive projects (e.g., software), and away from more physical or capital intensive projects (e.g., manufacturing something).
The proposal mostly works within existing institutional structures, and would be using money flows to encourage new activity and to change the working dynamic between the institutions. Although there would likely be a substantial need for new property, technical facilities, infrastructure, etc., existing organizations would provide the oversight. The work and risk around new entity formation would be centered on creating companies based on the discoveries and inventions.
Since knowledge production benefits from well-educated workers, part of the money would go toward investments in education.
The authors are realistic in seeing a substantial private sector role, recognizing that researchers and inventors, as well as the government, will need help shaping their knowledge into a product that can succeed in a market.
There are also creative ideas of how to handle the site selection process, and intriguing thoughts around how to socialize the economic benefits that are created.
The authors’ funding suggestion is $100 billion per year, which seems modest when compared to the $400 billion per year it would take to match Federal innovation spending during its 1960s peak. A number somewhere in between could make more sense, as it would be a shame to develop a strong plan only to underfund it.
The proposal is to locate innovation-driven commercial centers in promising cities. The method is to reinvigorate the tradition of broadly-distributed Federal funding for research and development. Money put toward research and development produces new scientific knowledge and practical discoveries that would flow into an institutional arrangement involving the research center, private sector actors, and government entities, each playing a different role, but collectively working to create economic growth and to promote the common good.
It is an appealing idea, since it would achieve several important things at once – creating growth and opportunity outside of the glamor-metros; providing a money source for risky or long-term research work that the private sector disfavors; and establishing a model of how public and private sectors can work cooperatively in a way to produces both collective and individual benefits. Also appealing is the prospect that the funding could serve as a corrective to the sector bias in private capital flows toward digital or less capital intensive projects (e.g., software), and away from more physical or capital intensive projects (e.g., manufacturing something).
The proposal mostly works within existing institutional structures, and would be using money flows to encourage new activity and to change the working dynamic between the institutions. Although there would likely be a substantial need for new property, technical facilities, infrastructure, etc., existing organizations would provide the oversight. The work and risk around new entity formation would be centered on creating companies based on the discoveries and inventions.
Since knowledge production benefits from well-educated workers, part of the money would go toward investments in education.
The authors are realistic in seeing a substantial private sector role, recognizing that researchers and inventors, as well as the government, will need help shaping their knowledge into a product that can succeed in a market.
There are also creative ideas of how to handle the site selection process, and intriguing thoughts around how to socialize the economic benefits that are created.
The authors’ funding suggestion is $100 billion per year, which seems modest when compared to the $400 billion per year it would take to match Federal innovation spending during its 1960s peak. A number somewhere in between could make more sense, as it would be a shame to develop a strong plan only to underfund it.
October 14, 2021
This book presents a clear summary of many of the ideas in the intellectual ferment I've been immersed in for the last seven or so years. There was very little I wish it had included, and it had some nice examples I hadn't seen before. There are some combinations of idea people who know you know that you can't do anything but love, and this book presented many of them.
August 21, 2019
This book is an interesting retrospective on what set America up for the explosive growth and dramatically increased living standards of the 1960s. Presents a compelling case for what we can do to experience something like this again. Living in the city that is the top candidate for a location to make this happen, I am excited and I'm going to try to get other people in town to read it and put our heads together to make it happen.
April 7, 2020
For those folks that wearing MAGA hats this is a book with roadmap about how to get there. The author's hypothesis and supporting information map well together, the book is readable and well organized. The authors make the case for public funding for science and innovation obvious and well researched.
July 4, 2019
Outstanding book and well worth reading. Highly recommended.
June 2, 2025
One of those books that's 3 stars but also still a super important read. Extra sad reading seeing how much worse the U.S. research funding situation has gotten in the last 6 months alone.
January 19, 2020
Vannevar Bush, formally Dean of engineering at MIT and was running the Carnegie Institute of Science when he decided to try meet with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He did meet him and in fifteen minutes convinced the president to start the N.D.R.C. (the National Defense Research Committee) in 1940. The US was now in the R&D business focused initially of technologies to be needed in the coming war. It proved spectacularly successful at developing Radar/sonar/magnetic solutions for detecting U boats, making safe transport of fuel, supplies, and troops to Europe.
Nuclear, rocketry, digital, genetics and other technologies followed. Budgets for research in all types of new technology was funded by a budget reaching 2% of GDP during the 1950’s and 60’s. Now it’s .7% of GDP!
The point is that this effort sparked the economic miracle of the second half of the century.
The authors argue that corporations research is only funded for proprietary reasons, only done to increase profits, and not shared!
Studies have shown that the governments investment are repaid from profit taxes and income taxes.
They propose to increase the Federal governments investments in primary research!
Next the authors determine places where concentrations educated people, university access, access to a concentration of technology workers. Low housing cost and pleasant places to live can create new hubs of new enterprises.
One of their examples is from the Nordic countries. Nokia’s leadership in developing advanced cellular standards and how their leadership and those of others have created hubs!
This is a handbook on how to maintain the world leadership in technology started by Mr. Vannevar Bush, a not very well known American Hero!
Policy makers should read this book!
Nuclear, rocketry, digital, genetics and other technologies followed. Budgets for research in all types of new technology was funded by a budget reaching 2% of GDP during the 1950’s and 60’s. Now it’s .7% of GDP!
The point is that this effort sparked the economic miracle of the second half of the century.
The authors argue that corporations research is only funded for proprietary reasons, only done to increase profits, and not shared!
Studies have shown that the governments investment are repaid from profit taxes and income taxes.
They propose to increase the Federal governments investments in primary research!
Next the authors determine places where concentrations educated people, university access, access to a concentration of technology workers. Low housing cost and pleasant places to live can create new hubs of new enterprises.
One of their examples is from the Nordic countries. Nokia’s leadership in developing advanced cellular standards and how their leadership and those of others have created hubs!
This is a handbook on how to maintain the world leadership in technology started by Mr. Vannevar Bush, a not very well known American Hero!
Policy makers should read this book!
July 23, 2019
'“At the same time, the general trend of technology development continues. Other countries, including China, have taken note and are stepping into the gap that American hesitation has created. These countries will increasingly capture the good jobs that are associated with technology creation, and they are also more likely to set the rules for critical regulatory and ethical issues that arise with new technologies."
July 1, 2021
Argues that the US should commit $100B/year to science research to grow the entire economy and cites historic cases of this happening (like TVA, military bases, etc.) that benefited more than just well educated researchers.
Even though the argument was good it didn't need to be a 200 page book. You would have learned as much from a blog post.
Even though the argument was good it didn't need to be a 200 page book. You would have learned as much from a blog post.
August 3, 2023
In Jump Starting America, Gruber and Johnson, two MIT econ. professors, lay out a plan to return the US to its leading spot in global R&D. Evolution of the argument is loosely as follows:
1) starting in 1940, America began to invest heavily in Science R&D under Vannevar Bush, this lead to the US being responsible for many wartime innovations that had commercial applications. Develpment of atomic theory, radar, etc. directly led to US prominence in jet plances, computers, nuclear energy. etc.
2) During the 70s, public funding of R&D fell due to tax cuts that reduced the budget, rising concerns over ethical and environmental ramifications of some inventions cast a shadow over science as a whole (read Silent Spring), politicians and scientists became more at odds.
3) Although private R&D funding has increased, it has not been able to fill the void that public funding did because: 1) corporate R&D underinvests in projects that could benefit or "spillover" to its competitors, 2) Venture capital funds usually have 10 year lifecycles and so underinvest in longer term projects (this is why VC is so software oriented usually). 3) Private companies don't inform their competitors when certain experiments fail/succeed causing wasted time 4) Patent lags drive pharma companies to focus on developing drugs with shorter timespans
4) Public R&D has a track record of success even though it's been scaled back. The Human Genome Project is a publicly funded project that birthed a whole new industry. The NIH is the single biggest public funder of biomedical research in the world, comprised of 27 centers and institutes, the research it's done has contributed to important cures, vaccines, etc. The Small Business Innovation Research program is the largest federal gov. spending program that supports private R&D, typically supports 5-7 times more startups than private VC through its grants.
5) America has lowered the amount of public R&D funding as a percent of GDP over the past few decades. Meanwhile, talent and technology hubs have aggregated to a few "superstar" cities. This has led to larger disparities in income, higher political polarization, and less access. America needs to return to its pre-1970's R&D funding levels, in particular with a focus on developing new technology hubs around the US (there are many qualified candidates based on quality of life, access to education, and overall size) that connect the research and the development/manufacturing capabilities with one another to increase productivity and generate massive returns for local and ultimately federal economies.
6) We are falling behind our international rivals, investing less in R&D in relation to our GDP and it shows. If the US wants to continue to be at the forefront of global innovation and thus have the most powerful seat at the table in terms of influencing ethical, environmental, and economic facets of new technology, we need to invest public funds in R&D.
1) starting in 1940, America began to invest heavily in Science R&D under Vannevar Bush, this lead to the US being responsible for many wartime innovations that had commercial applications. Develpment of atomic theory, radar, etc. directly led to US prominence in jet plances, computers, nuclear energy. etc.
2) During the 70s, public funding of R&D fell due to tax cuts that reduced the budget, rising concerns over ethical and environmental ramifications of some inventions cast a shadow over science as a whole (read Silent Spring), politicians and scientists became more at odds.
3) Although private R&D funding has increased, it has not been able to fill the void that public funding did because: 1) corporate R&D underinvests in projects that could benefit or "spillover" to its competitors, 2) Venture capital funds usually have 10 year lifecycles and so underinvest in longer term projects (this is why VC is so software oriented usually). 3) Private companies don't inform their competitors when certain experiments fail/succeed causing wasted time 4) Patent lags drive pharma companies to focus on developing drugs with shorter timespans
4) Public R&D has a track record of success even though it's been scaled back. The Human Genome Project is a publicly funded project that birthed a whole new industry. The NIH is the single biggest public funder of biomedical research in the world, comprised of 27 centers and institutes, the research it's done has contributed to important cures, vaccines, etc. The Small Business Innovation Research program is the largest federal gov. spending program that supports private R&D, typically supports 5-7 times more startups than private VC through its grants.
5) America has lowered the amount of public R&D funding as a percent of GDP over the past few decades. Meanwhile, talent and technology hubs have aggregated to a few "superstar" cities. This has led to larger disparities in income, higher political polarization, and less access. America needs to return to its pre-1970's R&D funding levels, in particular with a focus on developing new technology hubs around the US (there are many qualified candidates based on quality of life, access to education, and overall size) that connect the research and the development/manufacturing capabilities with one another to increase productivity and generate massive returns for local and ultimately federal economies.
6) We are falling behind our international rivals, investing less in R&D in relation to our GDP and it shows. If the US wants to continue to be at the forefront of global innovation and thus have the most powerful seat at the table in terms of influencing ethical, environmental, and economic facets of new technology, we need to invest public funds in R&D.
January 16, 2020
This is an excellent book about the need for government investment tin R&D.
1. Countries that invest more reap the rewards more. They set the standards, get the jobs and earn the royalties. Every company would like to invest in that country. Just look at Silicon Valley.
2. Although knowledge is universal, know-how and institutional support is often local. Places with already-strong leads in certain industries attract more investments. People flock to cities and so cities end up with all the skilled workers and more companies want to invest there. People leave the country side and so skilled labor disappears from there and jobs become few and more people leave.
3. R&D does not only provide highly skill jobs. Studies showed that semi-skilled and unskilled jobs also increase. Every PhD will need 10 technicians, and they need to eat and do their laundry.
4. America had always been at the forefront of R&D before, but funding had been cut recently. Other countries are catching up, and have even surpassed it in some cases, such as China and AI, IoT and 5G.
5. Private companies would only invest if they think they can make a profit. Almost all successful research stemmed from government investment in basic science or defence.
6. R&D has high failure rates, but the single winner can cover all the costs and still provide a bonanza in returns. We must therefore cut the government some slack and not be over-critical (though Solyndra did fake the numbers...)
7. Other countries are supposedly doing it right, such as Finland’s telecom companies, and Singapore’s Biopolis. China is of course investing in everything.
1. Countries that invest more reap the rewards more. They set the standards, get the jobs and earn the royalties. Every company would like to invest in that country. Just look at Silicon Valley.
2. Although knowledge is universal, know-how and institutional support is often local. Places with already-strong leads in certain industries attract more investments. People flock to cities and so cities end up with all the skilled workers and more companies want to invest there. People leave the country side and so skilled labor disappears from there and jobs become few and more people leave.
3. R&D does not only provide highly skill jobs. Studies showed that semi-skilled and unskilled jobs also increase. Every PhD will need 10 technicians, and they need to eat and do their laundry.
4. America had always been at the forefront of R&D before, but funding had been cut recently. Other countries are catching up, and have even surpassed it in some cases, such as China and AI, IoT and 5G.
5. Private companies would only invest if they think they can make a profit. Almost all successful research stemmed from government investment in basic science or defence.
6. R&D has high failure rates, but the single winner can cover all the costs and still provide a bonanza in returns. We must therefore cut the government some slack and not be over-critical (though Solyndra did fake the numbers...)
7. Other countries are supposedly doing it right, such as Finland’s telecom companies, and Singapore’s Biopolis. China is of course investing in everything.
April 18, 2024
This is an optimistic book about the effects of science funding and how we should return to the good old days of 2% or higher GDP funding for R&D. The author advocates for public funding, at the federal level, and uses evidence to support the claim.
I personally agree with the spirit of the thesis, and I think the author would be happy about the science provisions in the CHIPS Act passed a few years after this was published. However, the author also doesn't spend much time on discussing organizational structure. Sure, DARPA does big things. Private R&D isn't incentivized to give competitors an edge. But if we dumped a ton of money into NIH or the NSF, would that money be used effectively?
Probably! And the current dearth of funding through the 2010s certainly led to a stagnation of innovation in some regards. In other regards, advances in mRNA and CRISPR are two off the top of my head that were groundbreaking. There are many projects that miss the cut in our current low-grant regime.
In the last two years or so I've become more interested in meta-science. It's not just that we need to fund science (we should). But how do we ensure the money is used well? We could drop a trillion dollars into science, but how do we pick the right projects? How do we incentivize risk over safety? How do we develop a political coalition that is technocratic over populist to support these programs?
This is a decent book. I like it. But it feels a lot like an introductory book. Like a real "Jump-Start", it starts a conversation but doesn't last long. Instead, there are probably more books out there that can answer my questions, or at least keep the conversation going.
I personally agree with the spirit of the thesis, and I think the author would be happy about the science provisions in the CHIPS Act passed a few years after this was published. However, the author also doesn't spend much time on discussing organizational structure. Sure, DARPA does big things. Private R&D isn't incentivized to give competitors an edge. But if we dumped a ton of money into NIH or the NSF, would that money be used effectively?
Probably! And the current dearth of funding through the 2010s certainly led to a stagnation of innovation in some regards. In other regards, advances in mRNA and CRISPR are two off the top of my head that were groundbreaking. There are many projects that miss the cut in our current low-grant regime.
In the last two years or so I've become more interested in meta-science. It's not just that we need to fund science (we should). But how do we ensure the money is used well? We could drop a trillion dollars into science, but how do we pick the right projects? How do we incentivize risk over safety? How do we develop a political coalition that is technocratic over populist to support these programs?
This is a decent book. I like it. But it feels a lot like an introductory book. Like a real "Jump-Start", it starts a conversation but doesn't last long. Instead, there are probably more books out there that can answer my questions, or at least keep the conversation going.
December 30, 2020
Overall, I found it compelling. I wish it gave more insight into the debate within government of increased vs. decreased public R&D investment- that is, a more rigorous assessment of why government hasn't realized what the authors point out, or why it’s been difficult to implement so far.
High level summary of what the book explores:
- Some history of how high public investment in basic science and technology led to great economic growth beginning in the 1940s, positioning the U.S. as a leader along many dimensions relative to other countries
- How this spending has gone down, a little bit on why it may have gone done (distrust of scientists proposed, Silent Spring mentioned)
- Limits of private R&D, why increased public R&D is the only solution to the problem of funding for certain kinds of innovation (very interesting classic public finance lessons)
- How other countries are surpassing the U.S. in technological innovation-led growth through increased public R&D investment, and how this has made and will continue to make the U.S. fall behind along many dimensions, relative to other countries
- A proposal to create more geographically diverse superstar cities and reduce economic inequality through increased public R&D (with examples of sectors to invest in), research hubs (that experience key agglomeration economies when universities, companies, and manufacturing are geographically close) in key cities that meet certain criteria to support growth (proposed list of cities to consider), and an innovation dividend to all Americans (so that everyone shares in benefits of growth) funded by rents from gov’t-owned land in these superstar cities
High level summary of what the book explores:
- Some history of how high public investment in basic science and technology led to great economic growth beginning in the 1940s, positioning the U.S. as a leader along many dimensions relative to other countries
- How this spending has gone down, a little bit on why it may have gone done (distrust of scientists proposed, Silent Spring mentioned)
- Limits of private R&D, why increased public R&D is the only solution to the problem of funding for certain kinds of innovation (very interesting classic public finance lessons)
- How other countries are surpassing the U.S. in technological innovation-led growth through increased public R&D investment, and how this has made and will continue to make the U.S. fall behind along many dimensions, relative to other countries
- A proposal to create more geographically diverse superstar cities and reduce economic inequality through increased public R&D (with examples of sectors to invest in), research hubs (that experience key agglomeration economies when universities, companies, and manufacturing are geographically close) in key cities that meet certain criteria to support growth (proposed list of cities to consider), and an innovation dividend to all Americans (so that everyone shares in benefits of growth) funded by rents from gov’t-owned land in these superstar cities
June 1, 2023
Excellent book— must read for economic development. Focus is on national policy, not state level initiatives though they are mentioned as key to the proposed revenue generating scheme from R&D and Tech Hub investments by the government.
Key is that in the past, public investment in R&D— primarily funneled to universities— was critical for economic growth for the US stemming back to WWII. We have fallen from our previous peak at 2.2% of GDP dedicated to R&D to just .7% today. A large part of the loss is the decline in public funding for R&D. Today we rely mostly on private investments for our R&D (70% of all money is private), however structurally (lack of info sharing due to proprietary knowledge & market-share considerations) this is less productive than if the research was public in origin and took place in academia.
Big picture: By rekindling public investments today in research & higher education— and spreading this funding across the country, not just to big name universities— and addressing some of the urban issues affecting metro areas like cost of housing and congestion, the US can grow its economy and increase equality.
Unfortunately if you’re Alaska or Hawaii, or a territory for that matter, you’re left out of the discussion or consideration for the policy proposals made by the authors.
Key is that in the past, public investment in R&D— primarily funneled to universities— was critical for economic growth for the US stemming back to WWII. We have fallen from our previous peak at 2.2% of GDP dedicated to R&D to just .7% today. A large part of the loss is the decline in public funding for R&D. Today we rely mostly on private investments for our R&D (70% of all money is private), however structurally (lack of info sharing due to proprietary knowledge & market-share considerations) this is less productive than if the research was public in origin and took place in academia.
Big picture: By rekindling public investments today in research & higher education— and spreading this funding across the country, not just to big name universities— and addressing some of the urban issues affecting metro areas like cost of housing and congestion, the US can grow its economy and increase equality.
Unfortunately if you’re Alaska or Hawaii, or a territory for that matter, you’re left out of the discussion or consideration for the policy proposals made by the authors.
January 15, 2020
This book is both informative and entertaining. The basic argument that Gruber and Johnson make is that the US should spend more money funding scientific research. An argument like that certainly raises a lot of questions, and the authors do a great job of addressing all of them: “What do we gain from this?” “What will it cost?” “How should the money be spent?” “What about private investment in research?” “Has this been successfully implemented before?” The authors provide well-researched, satisfying answers to these questions and more.
If you think that this sounds way too dry and academic to be fun, you’re mostly wrong. There are certainly some dry parts of the book, but most of it is very enjoyable. If you don’t like numbers, you can easily ignore them, and just enjoy the narrative. The history of technological growth in mid-20th-century US is a fun story, as are the anecdotes about countries and cities that have found ways to stimulate technological growth in the past few decades.
If you think that this sounds way too dry and academic to be fun, you’re mostly wrong. There are certainly some dry parts of the book, but most of it is very enjoyable. If you don’t like numbers, you can easily ignore them, and just enjoy the narrative. The history of technological growth in mid-20th-century US is a fun story, as are the anecdotes about countries and cities that have found ways to stimulate technological growth in the past few decades.
March 25, 2021
Fascinating insight into the "debatable role of public funds" in funding necessary research and innovation, necessary for jump-starting economies or providing the support system or sustenance for the commercialization of new ideas, economic growth and prosperity of nations. Author is firm in his belief that America's circumstantial entry into WWII and the fortuitous breakthroughs of its research and innovation systems (public-funded military research) led to unprecedented highs in new American ideas, entrepreneurship, products, and manufacturing prowess, enabling it become the powerhouse it is today. Of course not forgetting the timely roles of the IGOs in lowering trade barriers and protectionist walls the world over, allowing America's newly commercialized products find new consumer driven markets! Unfortunately, this pathway to prosperity, argues the author, has since waned because of diminishing public funded research and partisan bickering, while America is being rivalled gradually by other countries' rise in ideas and products with investment support in research and science.
July 27, 2019
wow! I went it in with fairly moderate expectations and this book blew it out of the water. Fantastic overview of the history of science funding and its impact on the economy. Amazing analysis of the current state of our broken science-to-innovation pipeline. Really compelling arguments against private company’s R&D and venture capital being sufficient. Very deep and nuanced analysis fo the positive and negative role government can play in stimulating scientific research and breakthrough innovation. Really original take on how to promote tech-driven economic growth in a more distributed manner to include everyone in the US. If you are into economics, development, social policy, science, or tech this book will supercharge you with realistic optimism.
August 1, 2021
A timely book, which expresses a point of view, that is important on many levels, but there is some silver lining; the problem is the current economy in the USA, has a lot numbers reporting back incorrectly due to the quantative easing mechanism. So the problem is, will politicians and perhaps economists working for certain groups, declare victory in the absence of one? Romer's model is based fundamentally on productivity gains; however all such metrics or barometers, have flaws- but the criticism of Huawei, probably on some level was a criticism leveled a Japanese firms- excessive levels of R&D relative to their U.S. counterparts. Is this something that the author would like to see changed?
June 24, 2023
I love this topic and this book fit into a similar vein as others in the genre. While it's convincing that more research would be beneficial to the country I don't find it convincing that the government will get the results advertised under its current funding regime. Will the country truly benefit, at the margin, of increasing government funded research? Crowding out is not at all considered: maybe the non-research activities our country currently pursues actually have higher returns than more government funded basic research. I don't believe this, and think we should increase government funded basic research, but I want more convincing evidence. Even better, I want more efficient research.
September 18, 2019
A really insightful book and easy to digest, as the authors present a clear economic and historical context. This helps demonstrate that rebooting the US economy is not such a mammoth undertaking and that it can be achieved because we don’t need to become overwhelmed by the complexity of our modern age. What is needed above all else is for politicians to work together and for a committed return to bipartisanship, alongside a supporting backdrop of other players such as government institutions, universities and private businesses. Will any politician(s) leverage of this book and the framework it provides to turn things around?
August 23, 2022
Excellent blend of history, economics, and public policy. This book provides a clear, compelling argument in favor of increased R&D spending by the federal government in order to promote economic activity outside of "superstar cities" (NYC, Silicon Valley, Boston, etc). In my opinion, this book aligns well with some of the other books I've read in the past that also propose specific initiatives for sustainable, equitable economic growth: Smart People Should Build Things by Andrew Yang, The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones, amongst others. Looking forward to read more books like this!
April 12, 2021
This book presents a lot of good data. Before reading I expected to hear more ways to "Jump Start America." This book focuses 100% on how research and development funding by the government is the way to go.
May 20, 2019
Old fashioned proposal
WELL WRITTEN DETAIL
WELL WRITTEN DETAIL
June 1, 2019
Thoughtful, informative, detailed, data-backed. Makes a persuasive case for targeted public investment to spur private development.
March 20, 2020
Lol yeah nah I don’t agree with this at all. Clusters of innovation aren’t going to solve income inequality
March 8, 2021
Valuable insight, but in the end this could have been written into a shorter book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews