El estado emprendedor: La oposición público-privado y sus mitos
- Downloads：6326
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-12-09 08:17:04
- Update Date：2025-09-24
- Status：finish
- Author：Mariana Mazzucato
- ISBN：8430625526
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
This book debunks the myth of the State as a large bureaucratic organization that can at best facilitate the creative innovation which happens in the dynamic private sector。 Analysing various case studies of innovation-led growth， it describes the opposite situation， whereby the private sector only becomes bold enough to invest after the courageous State has made the high-risk investments。
The volume argues that in the history of modern capitalism， the State has generated economic activity that would not otherwise have happened， and has actively opened up new technologies and markets that private investors can later move into。 Far from the often heard criticisms of the State potentially 'crowding out' private investments， the State makes them happen， shaping and creating markets， not only 'fixing' them。 Ignoring this reality only serves ideological ends， and hurts effective policymaking。
This book examines case studies ranging from the advent of the Internet to the emergence of the biotechnology and nanotechnology industries。 In particular， the volume debunks the myth that Silicon Valley was created by entrepreneurial venture capital。 A key chapter focuses on the State investments behind Apple's success， and reveals that every major technology behind the iPhone owes its source to public funds。 Thus， while entrepreneurial individuals like Steve Jobs are needed， their success is nearly impossible without their ability to ride the wave of State investments。 And if Europe wants its own Googles， it needs more State action， not less。
Two forward-looking chapters focus on the emergence of the next big thing after the internet: the 'green revolution'。 Both solar and wind technology are currently being led by State spending， whether through the US ARPA-E programme or the Chinese and Brazilian State investment banks。 The discussion refreshingly moves beyond the usual division between proponents of austerity vs。 the proponents of fiscal stimulus。 It argues that State investments not only help kick-start growth during periods of recession， but that they also， even in boom periods， lead to productive investments in radical new technologies which later foster decades of growth。
The book ends with a fundamental question: if the State is so important to investments in high-risk innovation， why does it capture so little direct return？
The volume argues that in the history of modern capitalism， the State has generated economic activity that would not otherwise have happened， and has actively opened up new technologies and markets that private investors can later move into。 Far from the often heard criticisms of the State potentially 'crowding out' private investments， the State makes them happen， shaping and creating markets， not only 'fixing' them。 Ignoring this reality only serves ideological ends， and hurts effective policymaking。
This book examines case studies ranging from the advent of the Internet to the emergence of the biotechnology and nanotechnology industries。 In particular， the volume debunks the myth that Silicon Valley was created by entrepreneurial venture capital。 A key chapter focuses on the State investments behind Apple's success， and reveals that every major technology behind the iPhone owes its source to public funds。 Thus， while entrepreneurial individuals like Steve Jobs are needed， their success is nearly impossible without their ability to ride the wave of State investments。 And if Europe wants its own Googles， it needs more State action， not less。
Two forward-looking chapters focus on the emergence of the next big thing after the internet: the 'green revolution'。 Both solar and wind technology are currently being led by State spending， whether through the US ARPA-E programme or the Chinese and Brazilian State investment banks。 The discussion refreshingly moves beyond the usual division between proponents of austerity vs。 the proponents of fiscal stimulus。 It argues that State investments not only help kick-start growth during periods of recession， but that they also， even in boom periods， lead to productive investments in radical new technologies which later foster decades of growth。
The book ends with a fundamental question: if the State is so important to investments in high-risk innovation， why does it capture so little direct return？
Reviews
Rodrigo Mella
，
Ahora entiendo las declaraciones de varios ministros del gobierno。 Me sentí leyendo una obra inspiradora del Frente Amplio。 Y hace muchísimo sentido。 Uno podría rebatir varios pasajes e ideas del libro， pero vale la pena recordar que es solo una opinión。 Una opinión bien fundamentada， producto de años de investigación。 Pero una opinión al fin y al cabo。 Creo que la autora hace un excelente trabajo en presentar su investigación en un formato "non-fiction" entretenido。 La tendencia de académicos q Ahora entiendo las declaraciones de varios ministros del gobierno。 Me sentí leyendo una obra inspiradora del Frente Amplio。 Y hace muchísimo sentido。 Uno podría rebatir varios pasajes e ideas del libro， pero vale la pena recordar que es solo una opinión。 Una opinión bien fundamentada， producto de años de investigación。 Pero una opinión al fin y al cabo。 Creo que la autora hace un excelente trabajo en presentar su investigación en un formato "non-fiction" entretenido。 La tendencia de académicos que escriben libros para todo público es ya la nueva normalidad， pero muchos de ellos sucumben en el tecnicismo， la estadística o la extensa muestra de ejemplos。 Mazzucato no cae en esos problemas。 Por eso es sencillo de leer。Me cuesta entender cómo este tipo de libros tiene un alcance tan elevado en países en desarrollo cuando están escritos con un énfasis claro en las experiencias de países desarrollados。 No todos los Estados son iguales。 Y me resulta dificil ver estas ideas en contextos menos sofísticados。Ahora bien， el problema no es de la autora， sino de los barra-brava que creen que ésta es la respuesta a todos los males de la economía。 。。。more
Gonzalo
，
Vivimos tiempos propios para la lectura de El Estado Emprendedor （Mariana Mazzucato， Ed。 RBA， 2012）。 En efecto， cuando se plantea el reparto de una ingente cantidad de fondos europeos para afrontar la recuperación de la recesión provocada por la pandemia， es preciso plantearse hasta qué punto una crisis sanitaria ha forzado el cambio de paradigma económico， en el que el impulso público no es solo el medio por el que se distribuye el flujo financiero sino que es el selector y priorizador de los Vivimos tiempos propios para la lectura de El Estado Emprendedor （Mariana Mazzucato， Ed。 RBA， 2012）。 En efecto， cuando se plantea el reparto de una ingente cantidad de fondos europeos para afrontar la recuperación de la recesión provocada por la pandemia， es preciso plantearse hasta qué punto una crisis sanitaria ha forzado el cambio de paradigma económico， en el que el impulso público no es solo el medio por el que se distribuye el flujo financiero sino que es el selector y priorizador de los destinos de los mismos。Este reparto de fondos públicos viene acompañado por una retórica que nos habla de que toda crisis lleva implícita su oportunidad y， que en este caso， la misma viene en forma de ocasión para transformar nuestro modelo productivo y afrontar así las reformas tantas veces postergadas。 Así， se habla de un modelo productivo tecnológico， digital， sostenible， igualitario， inclusivo y demás。Pero， al margen de toda esta propaganda， existe una corriente de pensamiento económico que ha sobrevivido a la predominancia neoliberal de las décadas recientes y que se ha venido rearmando en los últimos tiempos。 Éste es el momento en el que estas nuevas teorías tienen la ocasión de ser llevadas a la práctica puesto que la opinión pública parece favorable a cualquier medida que pueda sacarnos del embrollo económico que nos ha traído el Covid。Las resonancias históricas del New Deal se hacen evidentes， pero ha llovido mucho desde que todas aquellas políticas se pusieran en marcha y las propuestas se han afinado。 Uno de los nombres más citados en cuanto a la inspiración de esta lluvia de fondos y las oportunidades que nos ofrecen es la economista italiana， afincada en Londres， Mariana Mazzucato。Si bien tiene obras más recientes， lo cierto es que， la situación económica actual invita a elegir este libro， publicado en 2012， para adentrarse en el pensamiento de su autora。Mazzucato comienza dibujando el relato comúnmente aceptado sobre un Estado hipertrofiado， incapaz de adecuarse a las exigencias de la innovación y el desarrollo， un agente entorpecedor de la actividad privada， tan solo preocupado por tratar de expoliar el beneficio que los arriesgados emprendedores privados logran sacar en contadas ocasiones dada su perseverancia y el juego del libre mercado por el que se benefician grandemente en las ocasiones en que logran el éxito， compensando así el resto de ocasiones en que sus inversiones resultan desastrosas。Mazzucato propone una visión alternativa。 Hasta el comienzo de la liberalización en torno a los años ochenta， el Estado era el principal inversor de riesgo。 De hecho， señala cómo todas las tecnologías que han alimentado el crecimiento económico en los últimos cuarenta años han sido fruto del esfuerzo inversor previo del Estado。 Internet， la biotecnología， las energías renovables， todo ello tiene su origen en fondos estatales， empresas públicas， oficinas gubernamentales o subvenciones de las que se beneficiaron empresas que hoy pretenden ser las creadoras e innovadoras cuando realmente deberían ser consideradas como las beneficiarias de un esfuerzo público y del sacrificio impositivo de quienes ahora no están recibiendo de vuelta la parte correspondiente。 Son los Estados que más y mejor invirtieron en sectores que， en su momento， no ofrecían posibilidades de retorno económico， pero que supieron apostar por tecnologías que podían dar frutos a largo plazo los que han logrado consolidar una industria privada fuerte。 Es ese esfuerzo previo del Estado el que discrimina qué tecnologías serán viables y cuáles no， permitiendo así que el capital-riesgo privado pudiera arriesgar sus inversiones con una cierta seguridad。Es la crisis de los años setenta la que genera dudas sobre la actuación estatal y la que empuja los procesos de desregulación y desinversión pública， las privatizaciones， y enaltece al sector privado como único agente capaz de arriesgar sus recursos para mejorar la economía， cambiando el relato comúnmente aceptado sobre el papel del Estado。La autora dedica sucesivos capítulos a estudiar concretos sectores en los que justificar su teoría。 La industria farmacéutica o las grandes tecnológicas como Apple son puestas en un comprometido lugar puesto que se viene a evidenciar que sus aportaciones al crecimiento o a la innovación son más bien escasas。 Como mera ejemplificación， citaré que Mazzucato viene a reducir a Steve Jobs a un mero papel de organizador de las oportunidades creadas por el Estado y a la facturación de esas tecnologías de las que se apropia bajo un diseño atractivo。 Poco riesgo asumido， poca aportación de base al mundo de la innovación tecnológica， poca apuesta por el futuro。 Ni el logaritmo de Google， ni Siri， ni las pantallas táctiles existirían de no ser por la inversión estatal previa。 Mazzucato plantea que resultaría adecuado que el Estado recuperara parte de los fondos invertidos en el desarrollo de estas innovaciones mediante un sistema fiscal equitativo que gravase los beneficios obtenidos por el sector privado en la explotación de los sectores impulsados por las agencias gubernamentales。Sin embargo， pronto abandona este enfoque para centrarse de una manera decidida en su visión del Estado como un agente empresarial privilegiado， no un mero recaudador， capaz de reorientar la actividad económica con sus decisiones。Para ello， es necesario en primer lugar， modificar el relato y admitir el papel emprendedor del Estado adecuando los criterios con los que se mide la eficacia de éste。 Se habrá de admitir， que la inversión en sectores estratégicos tiene efectos a largo plazo y no siempre las tecnologías desarrolladas tienen aplicación para la industria o fines pensados inicialmente。 También hay que asumir que este papel innovador conlleva， de manera inevitable， la certeza de que muchas inversiones resultarán infructuosas sin que este hecho deba comprometer la visión que tenemos del Estado。 Ni los criterios contables actuales， ni las teorías sobre inversión pública que se vienen manejando resultan aplicables a este nuevo escenario。Aunque es algo simple reducir una teoría económica al contenido de un libro y， más aún， pretender que los párrafos anteriores recojan de una manera clara y completa lo que El Estado Emprendedor nos ofrece， lo cierto es que Mazzucato tiene una visión de la inversión pública que va más allá de las antiguas teorías keynesianas。 Ella misma relata de manera expresa la distancia con ese legado。 Según la teoría clásica de Keynes， podría invertirse dinero público en el mero vaciado de un inmenso agujero lleno de arena y esto， sin ofrecer utilidad práctica alguna， ya reportaría un importante beneficio económico al pagarse a los trabajadores y poner así en circulación recursos económicos que se expandirán por todo el sistema con los correspondientes efectos multiplicadores que cualquier estudiante de Economía bien conoce。Muy al contrario， el Estado en el que confía Mazzucato es un ente capaz de tomar decisiones arriesgadas， de mantenerlas en el tiempo， con independencia de los vaivenes políticos。 Es un Estado que puede asumir pérdidas considerables en inversiones que no llegan a buen puerto con la esperanza de que otras sí lo harán generando un relevante crecimiento económico cuyos efectos beneficiarán a todos， ciudadanos y empresas privadas y de los que también el Estado deberá tomar su parte， precisamente， para continuar con su labor emprendedora。 En esta visión el Estado asume el papel de empresario que describía Schumpeter como fuerza de creación y destrucción de modelo económico。La autora ocupa un posicionamiento que， aunque puede estar muy de actualidad y tener todo el sentido en nuestro contexto actual， no resultará del agrado de muchos。De una parte， quienes defiendan la idea de un sector privado capaz de generar todo el progreso， la innovación y la inversión arriesgada que necesitan nuestras economías de una manera más eficiente y económica para el contribuyente que lo que pueda hacer el sector público， mantendrán sus posiciones firmes frente a cualquier modo de intervención estatal， siempre sospechosa de estar guiada por decisiones políticas， ideológicas o de interés electoral más que por mera eficacia económica。Pero， por otro lado， este Estado de Mazzucato no parece contemplar las funciones que otros muchos le reclaman como redistribuidor de riqueza， protector de los consumidores， impulsor de las medidas de género， proveedor de servicios educativos， sanitarios， de protección al desempleado， al trabajador， al pensionista， etc 。 Este Estado parece aceptar el papel del capitalismo y reivindicarlo para sí， implica una visión del sector público centrada en lo macroeconómico más allá de ideologías。De hecho， este último punto resulta trascendente。 Aunque， por orgullo， cada generación gusta de creer que vive en un punto de inflexión de la historia， lo cierto es que solo el paso del tiempo permite vislumbrar la trascendencia de acontecimientos que hoy nos parecen cruciales y que fuerzan un cambio de tendencia。 Y es precisamente en los últimos tiempos cuando emerge para muchos países， especialmente aquellos que están en vías de desarrollo， una expresión tan anticuada como desafortunada， la referencia de modelos económicos centralizados que se muestran como más exitosos que los del primer mundo。De ahí que una tesis tan vacía de ideología， al menos， aparentemente， como la presentada por este libro， pueda ser abrazada por un gobierno democrático o uno autoritario sin mayor problema。 Y es precisamente este punto el que más reparos me ha despertado， más allá de algunas exageraciones en la preponderancia del papel del Estado y la minusvaloración de la labor realizada por el sector privado que funciona como detonante del debate y del replanteamiento que exige la autora。Pero lo que Mazzucato no aclara， al menos no en esta obra， es qué persigue el crecimiento económico de este Estado emprendedor。 ¿Tan solo generar oportunidades que permitan a las economías continuar despuntando frente a las industrias de otras naciones？， ¿generar beneficios que puedan repartirse mediante un esfuerzo impositivo？。 Quizá en este punto podamos volver al interrogante que planteaba J。 K。 Galbraith en The Affluent Society y preguntarnos precisamente para qué queremos crecer， qué queremos hacer con ese crecimiento。 Y para esta pregunta， tendremos que seguir buceando en otras obras de esta nueva economía que Mazzucato， entre otros muchos， abandera。 。。。more
Adrian Fanaca
，
Hmm。。 This book is controversial。 As a native of post-communist Eastern Europe to talk positively about the state is some unheard of。 But let's hear what the author has to say。 She takes the example of the iPhone and looks at its component parts and concludes that most of the iPhone was created by research done by the state。 For example， she mentions silicone， touchscreen， SIRI， GPS， and HTML or TCP protocols， all invented by research of the US government， especially military， or European CERN。 Hmm。。 This book is controversial。 As a native of post-communist Eastern Europe to talk positively about the state is some unheard of。 But let's hear what the author has to say。 She takes the example of the iPhone and looks at its component parts and concludes that most of the iPhone was created by research done by the state。 For example， she mentions silicone， touchscreen， SIRI， GPS， and HTML or TCP protocols， all invented by research of the US government， especially military， or European CERN。 However， she mentions also HDD as done by the government， but then IBM claims also the first commercial HDD， so here starts the madness。 It's almost impossible to know or claim if government or private companies are really the innovators and creators because most probable always it is a combination of both， most probably because people have fuzzy incorporations， and possibly working for both at the same time。 Anyway， a good try to save the state， but not thanks。 Good read though。 。。。more
Jordingdong
，
Que decirles a todos aquellos que te cuentan que todo lo que vale la pena en este mundo es gracias a la inteligencia， habilidad y riesgos asumidos por genios como Gates， Jobs， musk？？ Pues que se documenten: todo aquello que sospechábamos pero carecíamos de convicción para refutar。。。
Chad
，
The author does an excellent job of establishing the case for government involvement in basic and applied research as well as early stage venture capital。 The basic roadmap for optimizing government and private involvement， however， remains lacking。 The issue and various incorrect solutions appear clear， less obvious is what to do about it。
andy noble
，
Thought provoking A timely book to challenge the myths around the innovation of the private sector。 The book details how state innovation has driven technology change across the world。 Without this intervention there would be no Apple。
Julia Wojciechowska
，
This is the first book I read by Mazzucato and definitely not the last one。 Reading it， 9 years after it was published， makes me wonder: Am I late to the rethinking capitalism party？I have been doubting the fairness of the current financial system， and this book has helped me organise my thinking around the topic。 She might overstretch some arguments， but focusing on them would be missing the point of her work。 Mazzucato writes with a sense of urgency in a form similar to that of political pamph This is the first book I read by Mazzucato and definitely not the last one。 Reading it， 9 years after it was published， makes me wonder: Am I late to the rethinking capitalism party？I have been doubting the fairness of the current financial system， and this book has helped me organise my thinking around the topic。 She might overstretch some arguments， but focusing on them would be missing the point of her work。 Mazzucato writes with a sense of urgency in a form similar to that of political pamphlets of the 1800s。 She does not cover her ideas with fancy language， which makes the book accessible。 She draws important links between innovation and inequality， and the role of the entrepreneurial state within it。 Mazzucato is courageous in her thinking， and I admire her for it。 Her ability to ask the right questions overshadows any failed attempts at providing the answers。 If you are interested in her work， I would recommend the Institute of Innovation and Public Purpose， which she founded at University College London: https://www。ucl。ac。uk/bartlett/public。。。。 。。。more
Juan Francisco
，
Gran contribución al debate económico。 Con conocimiento en la materia， se aprecia mejor。。。 pero es accesible al público general。 Excesiva deificacion del estado
Patrick
，
Finished this， after picking it up and putting it down a few times。 Interesting and conceptually useful， though I think you have to acknowledge it’s a polemic and take some of its claims with the requisite grain of salt。 It provides some helpful counterpoints to the standard arguments against industrial policy and state-led attempts at commercial innovation。 Sometimes the examples seem a bit tenuous or “just so，” though it’s hard to evaluate without all the facts and some advanced training。
Alec Flowers
，
This was a tour de force by Mazzucato。 The Entrepreneurial State has completely changed my perception of government and the innovation ecosystem。 Being born and raised in Silicon Valley I was a disciple of the zeitgeist that saw venture capital and private enterprise as the sole originators of innovation and worshipped the tech visionaries such as Jobs， Musk， Gates， Dorsey， and Hoffman who “singlehandedly” brought innovative products to the world。 I feel as though a veil has been lifted and I am This was a tour de force by Mazzucato。 The Entrepreneurial State has completely changed my perception of government and the innovation ecosystem。 Being born and raised in Silicon Valley I was a disciple of the zeitgeist that saw venture capital and private enterprise as the sole originators of innovation and worshipped the tech visionaries such as Jobs， Musk， Gates， Dorsey， and Hoffman who “singlehandedly” brought innovative products to the world。 I feel as though a veil has been lifted and I am re-evaluating ideas of free-market capitalism， income inequality， climate change， and short-term thinking。 The main idea that runs through Mazzucato’s book is that the state is the true origin of innovation。 People think the state is slow， bureaucratic， and the antithesis of innovation。 People think the state often “picks losers”， a moniker for funding firms that fail， and should leave innovative activities to private business and venture capital， whose returns prove that they know all about successful innovation。 Mazzucato busts this myth over and over to highlight the essential role in innovation the state plays， especially in the riskiest and earliest phases where private enterprise won’t go。 It is the state that takes the biggest risks by investing in basic science， research， and early ventures that are too risky for VC’s。 She shows that the state not only invests in innovation， but chooses the next innovation direction through a concerted effort in aligning its funding， tax， rebate， and subsidy strategy。 How consistent the state's message and incentives decide how successful a given direction will be。 The biggest problem with this myth is that it feeds a hyper-capitalist ideology。 Proponents say we should make the government smaller and leave innovation to private enterprise。 Clearly， competition and a free market are needed to produce groundbreaking innovation。 This ideology feeds legislation that gets turned into law and skews the relationship between risk and reward。 One example is in the 1970s the National Venture Capital Association succeeded in lobbying for a 50% fall （40% to 20%） in capital gains tax over 5 years。 In the US we are firm believers in capitalism。 It is an economic system that has led us and many other countries to be successful in building wealth， adjusting dynamically to new times and innovations， and allocating capital in an optimal manner。 The problem with capitalism is that in an unrestricted nature it leads to inequality。 People and firms exploit areas that I will call “arbitrage” where they get an outsized return for the risk they take。 Examples of these areas of arbitrage are venture capital returns， underwriting safe insurance premiums on large public work projects （Robert Moses would give these to favored banks）， executive compensation based on short-term metrics that can be gamed through finance tricks such as stock buybacks， monopolistic pricing such as the duopoly of visa and MasterCard who make ~50% margins based on their duopoly and ability to fleece sellers， platforms becoming sellers on their own platform （amazon basics， Kirkland brand， Whole Foods 360）。The nature of regulation is to plug gaps as they appear。 Therefore， regulation is always behind the curve barely able to keep up。 Regulation is hindered further because it is a part of this system and influenced by people with power and money who want to protect themselves。 The people who are being exploited have little representation。 They have no power。 They have no money。 In this way， capitalism ends up benefiting a subset of people who are able to exploit others by risking less and still taking the majority of the return。 These people tell stories of how they are deserving of such outsized returns because of the risks they took and how much good they do for society in the way of jobs， productivity， and products。 They use their money and power to lobby and propagandize to keep things from changing and entrench their position in the world。Income inequality has reached staggering proportions in recent years。 This is a problem。 Inequality is necessary。 We need to reward people who innovate。 We need to give higher returns to those who take more risks。 But， it is unfair the outsized reward people at the top command。 We have to shrink these gaps。 To push the wealth levels closer together。 In the end， a more equal society will be healthier and happier。There must be equality between the amount of risk taken and the reward received。 Studies show when this relationship is equal， innovation decreases inequality。 When this relationship is unequal， innovation increases inequality。 What happens is that risk is socialized， and profit is privatized。 This means the state， which is subsidized by taxpayers， takes on the role of de-risking by investing in the earliest stages of innovation。 Once an innovation has been de-risked by the state， venture capital and private enterprise jump in， much closer to commercialization where financial gains are realized， and reap an outsized portion of the rewards。 The main vehicle to return investment back to the state is through taxes。 Unfortunately， the main actors who reap outsized financial rewards from state-funded innovation， can use their money and lobbying powers to avoid taxes and retain a majority of their return （arbitrage）。 It is important that the state capture a share of the returns of de-risking innovative technologies more in line with the risk it took。 With these returns， the state can directly fund investments in future innovation and create a virtuous cycle。 The green revolution is the most important innovation revolution in front of us。 It is time-sensitive and requires immediate action now。 Otherwise， many people will suffer and the economic consequences will be huge， hurting growth and hindering our ability to develop solutions。 I do not believe climate change will be solved through individual action。 As individuals， we can make decisions to use less water， less electricity， and less co2 emitting machines。 However， this requires a conscious commitment that hurts an individual's quality of life with no apparent result to the overall system。 Also， one person's restriction has no impact on the major polluters which are large corporations and wealthy individuals who will not willingly curtail their emissions。 Outside forces can make changes to the system。 COVID-19 wildly reduced CO2 emissions as travel was forcibly curtailed by governments。 In Europe， energy solidarity enforced by governments helps countries wean themselves off of Russian gas。 It is at the government level where change must occur。For governments to be successful they must have a comprehensive strategy that includes direct investment， tax incentives， subsidies， and most importantly commitment that does not change or waver from year to year。 It is the long-term commitment that will allow a system to thrive with the knowledge that they have the full support of its government。 Private enterprises can make investments now that will become profitable 10 years from now， knowing that the subsidies and support will be there。 I see tension between the short term and the long term as fundamental in this discussion。 We as humans are short-time horizon thinkers。 Our current society has been set up to focus on the short term。 This is easier。 It is very difficult to forecast what the future will look like and how our actions now will affect the future。 But， we have to try。 We know if we don’t take steps now， climate change will cause trillions of economic damage and kill many people。 It is always a balance。 The right balance between long-term and short-term。The right balance of inequality。The right balance of free market capitalism and regulation。 The pendulum is too far on the side of the short term， of free market of capitalism， of inequality。 As a society how do we go about dragging the pendulum from its current resting place to one that provides for a fairer and happier society？ Can we create an economic system that keeps the benefits of capitalism but helps us more effectively tackle big problems like income inequality and climate change？One idea is to shift our time horizon back。 We can try to see the long term and incorporate this into our thinking and decision-making。 A concrete idea put forth by Kim Stanley Robinson is to create a Ministry for the Future that fights for the rights of those not born yet。 If these people could get legal standing， then litigation could be brought against corporations that are not respecting their rights。 This would force our current system to actually think about how decisions now will affect future generations。 Another idea is to reward time more than money invested。 Time is a finite resource that everyone has the same amount of。 It is not subject to the Pareto rule like money and power are。 This would mean that companies should reward workers more than shareholders。 Workers in firms funded by venture capital should capture a larger percentage of the return than the 10%-15% that is normally allocated to the employee pool。 A last idea is that the state could take a 1% stake in every US company that is created， public or private。 That way it is equally invested in the long-term success of every company and is incentivized to provide an environment that makes these companies successful。 The state can’t be cheated out of its return on investment like corporations currently do with taxes。 While the state would have a huge amount of assets， these would be very un-liquid。 This idea requires a bit more thought and fleshing out。 In conclusion， this book has made me rethink my relationship with government and how I view capitalism。 A career as a public servant looks more appealing than it once did。 。。。more
Kevin
，
Great review of the State’s role in innovation and research。 The premise is that venture capital and private equity are unwilling to make long term investments because they seek max profits ASAP and aren’t willing to develop new manufacturing capacity and costly supply chains。 The government may stimulate innovation by having a longer timeline for things with greater public good ex: renewable energy， pharmaceuticals etc。 One more issue with venture capital is when public goods and research are c Great review of the State’s role in innovation and research。 The premise is that venture capital and private equity are unwilling to make long term investments because they seek max profits ASAP and aren’t willing to develop new manufacturing capacity and costly supply chains。 The government may stimulate innovation by having a longer timeline for things with greater public good ex: renewable energy， pharmaceuticals etc。 One more issue with venture capital is when public goods and research are co-opted and used to privatize the profits and benefit。 The public should benefit from publicly funded research。 I loved the author’s premise and well-reasoned arguments。 She uses great examples and case studies to back her logic。 Highly recommend this book。 。。。more
Ruben Seijbel
，
3。5 Het idee van dit boek is interessant， maar de voorbeelden soms net wat droog。 Als je wat sneller door hoofdstukken 4-8 gaat kan dat niet heel veel kwaad。
Carolyn Elrod
，
Pretty technical
Mike
，
Really good walk through public-private partnership， and evidence for government support for the really early investment on the really big ideas。
David Tyler
，
5。4/10。 Why use one word when fifty will do！
Mickey Dubs
，
I see that I have finished this before David Tyler so I am going to spoil the ending for him:In this very dry book， Mariana Mazzucato quite methodically tears apart the argument of the free marketeers that business is dynamic and innovative only when left alone by 'Big Government'。Instead， Mazzucato finds that the State often acts as the early investor who takes large risks by funding research into new technologies and that big tech corporations like those in Silicon Valley are just freeloading I see that I have finished this before David Tyler so I am going to spoil the ending for him:In this very dry book， Mariana Mazzucato quite methodically tears apart the argument of the free marketeers that business is dynamic and innovative only when left alone by 'Big Government'。Instead， Mazzucato finds that the State often acts as the early investor who takes large risks by funding research into new technologies and that big tech corporations like those in Silicon Valley are just freeloading off of public research。Mazzucato is not making a grand argument against capitalism here; she is just pointing out that the 'common sense' approach of reducing bureaucratic red tape and slashing spending to set free the mythical dynamism of the private sector has no empirical basis in a capitalist economy。 It is pure ideology。 。。。more
Marcel Schwarz
，
Mariana Mazzucato takes on the myth of the entrepreneurial state - while rewards of innovation usually go to the private sector， the initial risks are usually taken by the public sector。The message is important but the text feels repetitive。 Although some of the examples （Apple， renewables） are interesting this book could be shorter than it is。
Alessandro Pesa
，
Repetitive， too much pro state and against private sector。 It seems that everything there is nowadays is thanks to US Gov。 An interesting approach on some points of view。 Mazzucato is Italo American and if you read this book in Italian and in Italy you would call it socialist。
Zaheer Ahamed
，
Very slow read with some good insights but falls short on detailing exactly how such a entrepreneurial state would exist in the present VC world。
ALEKOS VENERIS
，
This book is very important。 It helped me better understand the world of our days。 The most interesting debunking ，imo， was this of VCs。 In financial community and the world in general we hear every about the super heroes that 'break things' and bring the innovation to our door。 The reality is so different。 The technology start-ups mostly create some more entitled rich guys that help the economy because they pay few dollars to some 'servants'。 This is their only contribution to the economy the This book is very important。 It helped me better understand the world of our days。 The most interesting debunking ，imo， was this of VCs。 In financial community and the world in general we hear every about the super heroes that 'break things' and bring the innovation to our door。 The reality is so different。 The technology start-ups mostly create some more entitled rich guys that help the economy because they pay few dollars to some 'servants'。 This is their only contribution to the economy the most times。 Their hollowness is evident nowadays ，when the inflation is rampant because the only investments that made the previous years were bullshits。 If the state was more involved to the real investments ， the situations would be much better。 Because of this 'the entrepreneurial state' remains relevant and visionary 。。。more
Manuel Barahona
，
Repensar el Estado y sus roles desde una lógica pragmática e inclusiva Enjundiosa obra que debate sobre el rol del Estado en la economía sin preconcepciones y atavismos。 En palabras de la aurora: “Vivimos en una era en la que se está reduciendo el papel del Estado。 Se externalizan los servicios públicos， se recortan los presupuestos y muchas estrategias nacionales las dicta el miedo en lugar del valor。 Gran parte de estos cambios se están llevando a cabo bajo la excusa de hacer a los mercados má Repensar el Estado y sus roles desde una lógica pragmática e inclusiva Enjundiosa obra que debate sobre el rol del Estado en la economía sin preconcepciones y atavismos。 En palabras de la aurora: “Vivimos en una era en la que se está reduciendo el papel del Estado。 Se externalizan los servicios públicos， se recortan los presupuestos y muchas estrategias nacionales las dicta el miedo en lugar del valor。 Gran parte de estos cambios se están llevando a cabo bajo la excusa de hacer a los mercados más competitivos y dinámicos。 Este libro es un llamamiento a cambiar nuestra manera de discutir sobre el Estado， su papel en la economía y las imágenes e ideas que utilizamos para describir este papel。” 。。。more
elias
，
Interesting concept but the author does not go hard enough to the core issues （in my opinion）。 The author wants the state to reap the benefits of capitalism while failing to scrutinize capitalism itself as a viable option。 she also treats the state as a single actor with homogenous interests。 The writing style was hard to get through。 Very detailed case studies， and lots of repetition。
Stein
，
Interestimg inputt。 A little dense and work to get trough。 Not sure I needed a whole book for the core thesis but for sure was interesting
Wend Wendland
，
I’m not an economist but I found this utterly fascinating and compelling。 She has a direct， concise and uncluttered writing style which I also like。 Highly recommended， including for other intellectual property lawyers like myself。
Philippe Fanaro
，
An amazing reference to this counter-point。 I hope at some point this reaches the mainstream。。。The only criticism I have is the at least the last third or half feels kind of redundant。 I feel like the first third carries 80% of the message and the rest is a bit repetitive。
Chunyang Ding
，
A remarkably thoughtful book about how the state has already funded innovation and growth， while also proposing ways for this to be more of a win-win situation for both private industry as well as for the national government。 I most appreciated Mazzucato's writing in the ways that she tackled headon the "myths" that tech bro/startup culture tries to propagate - in particular， about the self-made-man view that Silicon Valley often has for itself。 Instead， Mazzucato brings scores of citations to t A remarkably thoughtful book about how the state has already funded innovation and growth， while also proposing ways for this to be more of a win-win situation for both private industry as well as for the national government。 I most appreciated Mazzucato's writing in the ways that she tackled headon the "myths" that tech bro/startup culture tries to propagate - in particular， about the self-made-man view that Silicon Valley often has for itself。 Instead， Mazzucato brings scores of citations to the argument that both large corporations and lean startups benefit greatly from the derisking of technological innovations that the national government。 This is done through basic science research funded by the NSF， NIH， and DOD/（I）（D）ARPA/DOE， and the main way that the private businesses help in this process is through better integration and shinier marketing。 While it is true that such activities are indeed necessary for allowing adoption， it would be too simplistic to attribute all of the innovation purely to the private industry and its competition。 One of the more interesting parts of the book is Mazzucato's proposal of how the state ought to create better incentive structures and also capture more of the benefits of such investment into innovation。 Mazzucato argues that one of the reasons for the decline of basic research funding is because the American taxpayer， as well as our legislators， are unable to clearly see the direct economic benefit of such long-term， capital intensive investments， especially when businesses are able to undertake shady tax-shielding strategies。 Instead， Mazzucato recommends for the state to earn some guarantee of return for the research that they successfully fund， either through stocks of a company， a dividend payment， or some other method to fund an even larger pool of funding for the future。 Overall， very thoroughly researched by an expert in the field。 Some parts of the book were harder to follow because Mazzucato was anticipating pushback from other economists， and tries to preempt those arguments。 However， to a non-subject matter expert， it sometimes seemed as if she was setting up strawman arguments。 （Speaking to an expert did clarify this tremendously！） Other parts of the book are a bit dry （the Apple chapter is really an example of "proof by exhaustion"）， but the flow of the book overall is quite good。 。。。more
Chris
，
Audiobook read by: Callie BeaulieuWorth a listen。 Has some interesting recommendations and good information， but can be repetitive。
Jeff
，
Some interesting points about how many parts of the tech ecosystem start with large bets on leap ahead technologies placed by the federal government （often for military projects）。 But there’s often a surprising lack of citation and assertions of conclusions as facts。 Moreover， this book is the type where one could get 80% of the value from an 18 minute TED Talk。
Sebos
，
Decent enough， ignore the halfwit libertarians in reviews。
John Igo
，