The Entrepreneurial State

Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths

By: Mariana Mazzucato

Narrated by: Callie Beaulieu

Length: 9 hrs and 33 mins

Publisher's summary

The world's most popular products, from the iPhone to Google Search, were funded not by private companies, but the taxpayer.

In this sharp and controversial international best seller, an award-winning economist debunks the pervasive myth that the government is sluggish and inept, and at odds with a dynamic private sector. She reveals in detailed case studies that the opposite is true: The state is, and has been, our boldest and most valuable innovator. Denying this history is leading us down the wrong path. A select few get credit for what is an intensely collective effort, and the US government has started disinvesting from innovation. The repercussions could stunt economic growth and increase inequality. Mazzucato teaches us how to reverse this trend before it is too late.

©2015 Mariana Mazzucato; foreward copyright 2018 by Mariana Mazzucato (P)2019 Tantor

Required Reading...

This should be required reading for any conscious Citizen, as it proof of how the State influences innovation and provides the undergirding foundations of Capitalism. Now, we simply need to reapply the rigors of state innovation and embrace socially responsible and sustainable capitalism that thrives on inclusive invention.

Myth Breaker-a new model for innovation

"Read" via Audio Book.

Interesting packaging of important theories of 'value creation' - who does what and who gets what (share of profits generated by a new electronic product (iPAD) as an example produced by a company utilizing a New Economic Business Model.

Mariana Mazzucato's basic thesis involves DeToxification of the various (self-serving) Private Sector Myths which relegate Government to an administrative or correcting market failure function - which does not recognize what a properly organized Government has done and yet could do.

Mariana uses several models to support her thesis - the basic one being Apple - in a nutshell although Jobs/Apple were indeed brilliant 'systems integrators' - the basic elements of iPADs, iPODS, iPhones - digital screen, micro disks, internet, gps were based upon discoveries funded by (D)Arpa, Xerox Parc and others labs from the U.S. Government. Apple licensed/appropriated these technologies; improved them; and performed system integration on these and other technologies - and created the market for personal electronic devices.

Apple licensed/appropriate these technologies but paid the U.S. Government only a modest amount if any amount.

Mariana discusses the work necessary to create a system wide demand and system wide supply of Green Environment Product (Photo-Voltaic cells; Wind Turbines and etc). This is a market and eco system that needs assistance as the IT market did before the Internet reached critical demand and supply 'mass'.

Another example is the Solyndra versus Tesla grants from ARPA-E. Solyndra went backrupt but Tesla thrived. Solyndra was the poster child for the Right Wing to beat Obama to death about his incompetence - however viewed from a portfolio perspective these investments yielded positive results in both a technology and market laced with uncertainty. Tesla has profited. Tesla received loans and grants - but the United States Government took no interest in the Company - wasn't paid back.

Mazzucato - believes the government has a role to play in systemic development of a wide spread innovation system - where the Government acts as a portfolio manager - with patient, long-term capital - for this they need to receive some of the upside when a company the Government invests in 'makes it' - for example they should take x% of the business as a fee.

Mazzucato details the significantly reduced levels of R&D ongoing within the United States versus China and others.

Mazzucato's thesis deserves wider discussion and modification before any possible implementation - but I feel it's "going the right way".

However as I write this I'm not hopeful that any such 'sea change' in the role of Government will be forthcoming in the near future in the U.S. Unless the United States becomes more aware of and competitive (in our mechanics - savings rate - technical education level of our people) with China - I'm not sure where all this 'ends up'. Unless there is some change -we'll run Fiscal and Trade Deficits as far as the eye can see.

An interesting theory - worth reading alone for the discussion about the creation of economic value (as in where is the economic value of an iPAD is created) - versus where a product is produced (iPAD in China) - and where the product is taxed (Apple has Utah, Ireland and British Virgin Islands Tax Subsidiaries). This legally allows Apple and others to avail themselves of U.S. Government technologies, paying little or nothing for them; and then limit the amount of U.S. Federal Income Tax they pay the entity that supplies some of their baseline technology. This, clearly is unsustainable - but cheered on by the 'free marketeers' - disciples of Milton Freedman - and Grover (Starve the Beast) Nordquist.

Should be of interest to those who read about technology and economics.

Carl Gallozzi
[e-mail]

Very insightful and interesting

Details about how state funding of innovation should be done in there that I couldn’t find anywhere else. Very helpful.

It’s pronounced “nuclear”, not “nucular”

A good work that helps illuminate the necessary and ever evolving relationship between private and public capital allocations, risk alignment, and implementation of shared goals fairly. The one thing that drove me nuts throughout the whole reading was the performers inability to correctly pronounce “nuclear”.

Insightful thesis, but could have been an essay.

While a very insightful and detailed thesis is put forward by a brilliant economist, this whole book could have been a third of its length and still conveyed thoroughly its main idea and all the supporting facts needed.

Grossly Propogandist

The title says it, the book is filled with statements of an almost bullying nature to call out doubters. If you need to put that it your work, your work doesn’t speak for itself. Throughout, examples are used to support what I can only call a hypothesis, being theres nothing provided backing it up. If I were a teacher and this was a thesis, Mariana would have failed. Hope this helps someone else