|Taoiseach Brian Cowen, in New York, Monday, July 12, 2010, talks about the country's austerity measures and outlook for the banking system. Cowen, speaking with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television's "InBusiness," also discusses a State-run venture capital fund, Ireland's growth strategy and the implementation of stress tests on the European banking system. Video
Taoiseach Brian Cowen's announcement of the new technology fund 'Innovation Fund
Ireland' in New York on Monday, will enhance job creation policy tools but it's
unlikely to spur the creation of the huge number of Irish start-up firms and
consequent failed entrepreneurs, which is required to have a significant impact
Last week, the OECD, the Paris-based think-tank for 31 mainly developed country
governments, said in its 2010 Employment Report that Ireland needed
318,000 new jobs to return employment to pre-crisis levels - - in the Irish boom
there was virtually no growth in employment in the international tradable goods
and services sectors (Irish Times article). Also last week, the
Kauffman Foundation in the US published a study which shows that both on
average and for all but seven years between 1977 and 2005, existing firms were
net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year. By contrast, in
their first year, new firms added an average of 3 million jobs.
In Ireland, employment in foreign-owned firms is back to the1998 level and while
exports from the pharmaceutical/medical devices sectors, which account for more
than 50 per cent of total merchandise exports, rose 25 per cent in the period
2004-2009, employment remained almost unchanged at about 40,000. The engine of
growth has to be home-grown start-ups.
It is important to understand that over 90 per cent of the firms which survive
are termed 'micro firms' and never exceed more than nine employees. High tech
firms have a 25 per cent chance of getting beyond their seventh birthday and
while the survival rate rises to about mid thirties for non-science sectors,
the challenge of generating start-ups in new growth areas as well as in domestic
market sectors, is enormous. Not only will bank credit availability not return
to a reasonable level anytime soon, growth in developed economies will be
hampered by high public debt for many years.
Last week, Enterprise Ireland, the State agency which supports Irish-owned firms
with export potential, said it had invested in over 800 start-up companies over
a 20 year period (1989 - 2009), which has yielded more than €1 billion in Irish
exports and in excess of 14,000 jobs.
There were 35 spinout firms from university research in 2009. From data provided
last year, staff numbers range from 2 to 10.
The agency doesn't track survival rates of its start-ups. Nevertheless, the low
headline figure illustrates the extent of the challenge
State grant awarding agency, Science Foundation Ireland, said in 2009 that it
expected 30 'high-potential' start-ups from its research groups by 2013.
It is a common myth that most US entrepreneurs, in particular in the high tech
and life science sectors, have easy access to venture capital.
Americans certainly have a greater propensity for entrepreneurship than
Europeans and during the Irish boom, there was also a surge in new
property-related firms in Ireland.
US also has the advantage of attracting foreign talent who are generally
educated at US universities and in California’s Silicon Valley, an estimated 50
per cent of start-ups are either launched by an entrepreneur who was born
overseas or one who is among the founding partners. The national average is 25
As for funding, data published in 2009 challenges the traditional view,
including likely that of Irish policymakers. The Kauffman Firm Survey (KFS)
collects data on an annual basis on a panel of almost 4,000 new businesses
founded in the US in 2004 and will track them up to 2011. Until now, results
from the first four years (2004-2007) have been released and allow a unique
glimpse at the financing patterns of very young firms.
Across the sample, new businesses started with a capital base of around $80,000
on average. Banks and credit-card companies provided almost $32,000 - - the
biggest part of the initial capital injection. Of this amount, more than 80 per
cent comes from banks and the rest from credit card companies. The owners
themselves held about $28,500 as owner equity. The family contributed debt and
equity worth $6,000.
Scott Shane, a professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve
University and author of Illusions of
Entrepreneurship: The Costly Myths That Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Policy
Makers Live By, wrote recently in BusinessWeek magazine,
that despite the hype surrounding equity capital, very few start-ups raise money
from outside investors. The Census Bureau's most recent Survey of Business
Owners shows that only 2.7 per cent of US companies obtained start-up financing
from a venture capital firm, strategic investor, friend, or family member. Even
raising external equity after the start-up stage is uncommon. Data from
Angelsoft, a provider of angel investment tracking software, reveal that only
2.8 per cent of those seeking money from angel groups receive it. The share of
successful requests for venture capital is even lower. The US government's Small
Business Administration estimates that only 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent of
funding requests made to VC (venture capital) firms result in an investment.
Prof. Shane says that estimates by several sources show that start-ups need to
expect to generate at least $10 million in sales within six years of starting
for most external investors to consider investing.
Investors are only interested in companies that have the potential for very high
returns and only about 400 of the more than half a million new employer
businesses founded annually achieve $100 million in sales within six years of
prosperity and innovation exceeded the
expectations of John Stuart Mill and Adam
certainly important in driving
innovation, but it is by no means
paramount. Even in the most
entrepreneurial economies, very little
saving finds its way to innovators.
Victorian British inventors lived under
a regime that spent a large proportion
of its outgoings on interest payments,
sending a signal that the safest thing
for rich folk to do with their money was
to collect rent on it from taxes on
trade. Today plenty of money is wasted
on research that does not develop, and
plenty of discoveries are made without
the application of much money. When Mark
Zuckerberg invented Facebook in 2004 as
a Harvard student, he needed very little
R&D funding. Even when he expanded it
into a business, his first investment of
$500,000 from PayPal founder Peter Thiel
was tiny compared with what
entrepreneurs needed in the age of steam
little evidence that patents really
drive inventors to invent. In the second
half of the 19th century, neither
Holland nor Switzerland had a patent
system, yet both countries flourished
and attracted inventors. The list of
significant 20th-century inventions that
were never patented includes the
automatic transmission, Bakelite,
ballpoint pens, cellophane, cyclotrons,
gyrocompasses, jet engines, magnetic
recording, power steering, safety
razors, and zippers. By contrast, the
Wright brothers effectively grounded the
nascent aircraft industry in the United
States by enthusiastically defending
their 1906 patent on powered flying
A large 2003 study by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that government
spending on R&D has no observable effect on economic growth. Indeed, it
'crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private
sector, including private R&D.' Governments have almost completely
ignored this rather astonishing conclusion....
emerge from the coming together of
existing technologies into wholes that
are greater than the sum of their parts.
Henry Ford once candidly admitted that
he had invented nothing new: He had
'simply assembled into a car the
discoveries of other men behind whom
were centuries of work.' Inventors like
to deny their ancestors, exaggerating
the unfathered nature of their
breakthroughs, the better to claim the
full glory (and sometimes the patents)
for themselves. Thus Americans learn
that Edison invented the incandescent
light bulb out of thin air, when his
less commercially slick forerunners,
Joseph Swan in Britain and Alexander
Lodygin in Russia, deserve at least to
share the credit....
Matt Ridley (rationaloptimist.com)
is the author of The Rational Optimist
The €500 million Innovation Fund Ireland will have half its capital provided by
the State and the other half by VC companies. In addition, the National Pensions
Reserve fund may make direct investments in companies. The Taoiseach
said the "Innovation Fund – Ireland will result in the
establishment of the European operations of a number of leading or ‘top
quartile’ international VC Fund managers in Ireland. It is a key pillar in the
Government’s strategy to make Ireland one of the most attractive places for
entrepreneurial activity and job creation."
The new fund is modelled on the Yozma Program (Initiative in Hebrew), a State
fund of funds launched in 1993 to promote venture capital funding with
investments from US firms.
In the early 1990's, Israel had highly trained graduates in both its defence
forces and the defense industries. At that time, in the aftermath of the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and influx of close to one million people,
Israel's overall population increased by 20 per cent. Nearly 40 per cent of
these immigrants held academic degrees, many of whom were scientists, engineers
and specialised technicians.
A thriving independent local VC industry, which began as growth of the US
high-tech sector was accelerating, has been established comprising close to
80 VC funds with the total capital under management in excess of $10 billion.
Sixty-five Israeli companies with a total market capitalisation of over $50
billion are listed on the US Nasdaq Stock Market. These companies represent 90
per cent of the total number of Israeli companies listed on a US exchange.
The director of Israeli high-tech incubator programs told a committee of the
Knesset (parliament) last January that two thirds of high-tech companies
nurtured by Israel's technology incubators program had closed down; only 61 per
cent managed to raise investment, and the firms were defaulting on state loans
granted to them.
According to figures on the period between 1993 and 2009, 444 of 1,209 companies
established through the program (37 per cent) are still in operation, 55 per
cent continued to operate for less than three years, and just 26 per cent
have managed to survive for at least ten years.
Ireland's innovation policy is focused on university research which is primarily
not geared towards responding to market needs.
The international tradable goods and services sectors are dominated by foreign
firms. Many of these firms do not have research or marketing functions in
Ireland and there is limited local autonomy.
So the international Research and Development (R&D) spending target of 3 per
cent of GDP (gross domestic product) is relevant for economies like Sweden and
Finland but shouldn't be viewed as sacrosanct for Ireland.
The State would spend about two-thirds of R&D spending annually - - about €3
billion - - three times the current science budget if the target is to be met.
Everything would be banked on having the luck of developing high-growth firms,
'gazelles' by Americans. Even if that was to transpire, an Irish firm with
great potential would likely be acquired by a US firm long before there would be
any significant employment impact in Ireland.
We could alternatively focus on sectors like drink and food and work to
establish international brands which would give high value added at home via
employment and use of local resources. Is that crazy?
Israel and Silicon Valley are used as the templates but we have an example
closer to home.
One of the first high tech clusters in Europe was in the UK county of
Cambridgeshire, the location of Cambridge University. It is called Silicon Fen
and has five times more research and development jobs than the UK average. There
are more than 30 leading research institutions across the East of England, and
the area is said to be characterised by a culture of science-based start-ups and
However, a comparison between Cambridgeshire and Santa Clara County in
California (the Silicon Fen and Silicon Valley) has shown that although they are
the same geographic size, economic output in Silicon Fen is six times smaller
and average earnings less than a third of US counterparts. After 30
years, Cambridgeshire has about 30,000 jobs in technology companies and the
majority of firms employ less than 10 people.
In the US, products with potential have one huge market in which to get
Ireland needs to generate a lot more jobs and like entrepreneurs in the US,
funding will have to come from the banks.
Brian Cowen's fund is for the few and while there could be a Nokia down the
road, what happens if there isn't?
Exports from indigenous firms have hardly changed in real terms since 1990 and
we expect to create about 120,000 jobs from research in the next 10 years while
after 50 years we have just slightly above that level currently in foreign-owned
There has been no dissent in the Oireachtas on the Government's approach and
academics in research areas have cheered the bonanza coming their way.
The academics can become entrepreneurs without any personal risk and with
one of the world's best public sector pension schemes, sink or swim, they have a
meal ticket for life.
In Ireland, the most
vocal advocates of entrepreneurialism are politicians, career policy makers,
university presidents and research academics -- all protected by a
well-threaded safety net and with no experience of the business world.
Ireland won’t change in a decade and the best path to sustained riches
is going to remain aspiring for the high pecking order in the
It is however, surely time for a reality check on where the focus of job creation should be.
All the Irish eggs shouldn't be in one basket!
article, March 12, 2010; Innovation Ireland Taskforce's aspirational report
One crucial aspect that is ignored in
the report is the market for the output of thousands of new high-tech and
Public sectors are often the biggest
customers by far of the output of a country's IT industry.
A key aspect of the
taskforce report, is using Silicon Valley as a template:
“It is instructive to
consider the example of Silicon Valley. The Silicon Valley area has a population
of approximately 2.5 million and an employment pool of 1.4 million (by way of
comparison, total employment in Ireland is approximately 2.1 million out of a
population of 4.5 million). It is estimated that 320,000 people are employed in
5,500 high technology firms.
Were Ireland to achieve
levels of employment in high-tech firms comparable with Silicon Valley, the
numbers would increase substantially. More realistically, Ireland might aspire
to be a leader in Europe and aim to have 15% of employment concentrated in
high-tech firms. This would result in almost 346,000 people being employed in
high-tech firms by 2020 - - a net increase of 215,000 jobs over the period.”
Silicon Valley has a market
of more than 300 million and consumers with a propensity to try new products!
SEE: Finfacts article, July02, 2010;
Digital Economy Rankings 2010: Nordic countries excel; Asia's digital leaders
outperform Europe/ North America in new broadband quality indicators