Blog Layout

Where to next for Australia?

By Beth Webster

Research into innovation reveals it takes multi-decade efforts to reap results. Economists and scientists need to better align now for the country to see optimal outcomes by 2050.

Relying on serendipity or the magic-of-the-market for our future material wellbeing is a triumph of hope over evidence. The world bumbled along, buffeted by chance and good fortune, for thousands of years. But since World War II, several developed nations have taken calculated steps towards securing a comparative advantage in one or more industries. It was not just a matter of doing things smarter. Often, they created new industries and unleashed latent needs. Consequently, products such as white goods and smart phones, and entities such as the Internet and digital entertainment, have become necessities and colossal sources of wealth creation. 


The US is a case study in this curated development. After the war, on the advice of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, the Truman administration increased strategic and mission-orientated R&D by more than 10-fold. This spawned clusters of technological excellence – biomed, radar, communications, electronics, weapons – that by the 1970s had increased employment by over 60 per cent relative to the counterfactual. Since the 1970s, other developed countries have similarly geared up. Rapid economic development in Japan, Israel, South Korea and Germany is testament to a focused and bipartisan approach to science and technology.


Australia, too, has sought a piece of the action. After the war, the Country and National party leaders, Earle Page and John McEwen, garnered considerable community support for an agricultural research and development bureau. In the 1980s, these early rural R&D institutions were streamlined into R&D corporations by Labor’s Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin. This model of mission-driven R&D, with in-built translation, has been crucial to the success of Australian agriculture. Our mining industry – another export success story – has had decades of organised support from the logistics, R&D, education and training sectors. Australia led the world in autonomous vehicles and now leads the world in digital mining.


The 1980s Hawke-Keating plan for industry restructuring – closing inefficient tariff-reliant industries and creating new value-added downstream industries – got us only so far. We hastened the death of the inefficient automotive and clothing industries, but failed to create the downstream, high value-added industries that we had anticipated. In the 1990s, we were rescued by the rise of China and its burgeoning demand for higher education services, iron ore and coal. But in the face of rising geopolitical tensions, the single-buyer model of export success is looking decidedly fragile.


So, where to from here? Do we continue to rely on agriculture, mining and education for the bulk of our export income? Or do we refresh our national business model and catalyse emerging areas of economic promise?


If the latter, then we need to get serious. It took decades of investment into R&D to build the sophisticated institutions and complex industry ecosystems that underlie Silicon Valley, the Nagoya industrial precinct and the German Mittelstand community. Success requires not only large-scale government funding into R&D and technological procurement, but supportive formal and informal institutions. Universities, industry groups, businesses and unions need to find a degree of consensus on a collective approach to the task, while governments, in turn, need to lend their weight via a package of complementary regulations and fiscal interventions. 


As things stand, we are far from achieving a productive level of consensus in Australia. The national policy paralysis is attributable to the failure of economists and scientists to converse in a common language. The science community continues to advocate for funding by presenting case studies that policymakers can easily dismiss as unrepresentative. Cost-benefit analysis is the workhorse of good policy, not stories. Although no one in their right mind would approve a new pharmaceutical drug based on ad hoc evidence, science advocates seem to think this is an acceptable approach when pushing for funding. The reflexive response of economists in government agencies is to assume that all calls for business support are rent-seeking. This suspicion is understandable given the history of rent-seeking by business for tax, tariff and investment attraction grants. But it is economists’ rudimentary theoretical and empirical understanding of the role of science and institutions in economic development that is the nub of the problem. The economics of knowledge is barely taught in most universities. The gulf between the two parties remains.


In recent years, the effect of public funding for research and innovation has been subject to objective, data-based evaluation. Swinburne and the evaluation units of multiple Australian governments have found that industry interventions to promote business efficiency and access to new markets do work.


Presently, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly the top priority. However, we should also see this crisis as an opportunity to pause, take stock and refresh our economic plans. COVID should not consume all the oxygen in the policy room. What do we want 2050 to look like?


Professor Beth Webster is Director of the Centre for Transformative Innovation at Swinburne University of Technology, and Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Impact and Policy. She has a PhD in economics from the University of Cambridge and an M.Ec and B.Ec (Hons) from Monash University. She is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences Australia.

This article is taken from the recently published digital book

Australia's Nobel Laureates Vol III State of our Innovation Nation: 2021 and Beyond

click here

By By Harley Paroulaksis, CEO Paspalis, CEO Darwin Innovation Hub 20 May, 2023
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
20 May, 2023
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
By By Shiv Meka 20 May, 2023
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
28 Mar, 2023
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
By Gillian Cumming 28 Mar, 2023
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
By Dr Saraid Billiards - CEO of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. 27 Mar, 2023
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
27 Jan, 2023
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
27 Jan, 2023
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
By Andrew Downs 27 Jan, 2023
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
By By Ben Kehoe 27 Jan, 2023
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
More Posts
Share by: