At Macroscience, I’ve argued frequently for a vision of improving science that imagines a revitalized role for government. I believe we need courageous public institutions, armed with potent new policy tools, in order for us to have a well-functioning economy of science. I don’t believe that those institutions are a sufficient condition, but they’re certainly necessary.
> What evidence do we have that the government is any better at counterbalancing than the market?
I do think the standout case here is something like the Federal Reserve, or more controversially something like antitrust policy. These are places where the market hasn't been necessarily self-correcting (or "counterbalancing", in the parlance of macroscience), and where economic policy has played a role in maintaining the health of the whole.
> you could say the same thing about philanthropy, or even corporate labs.
There's a super valuable debate to be had here since I'm still sharpening my views. My general sense is that the government is a uniquely positioned entity here because of its (a) public institutional incentives, (b) longevity / persistence, and (c) potential as a more neutral player than a corporate or philanthropic org. If you're building a credible counterbalancing regime, all three features seem like genuinely hard to get out a private effort.
What evidence do we have that the government is any better at counterbalancing than the market?
I agree that this would be a great role for the government, but you could say the same thing about philanthropy, or even corporate labs.
> What evidence do we have that the government is any better at counterbalancing than the market?
I do think the standout case here is something like the Federal Reserve, or more controversially something like antitrust policy. These are places where the market hasn't been necessarily self-correcting (or "counterbalancing", in the parlance of macroscience), and where economic policy has played a role in maintaining the health of the whole.
> you could say the same thing about philanthropy, or even corporate labs.
There's a super valuable debate to be had here since I'm still sharpening my views. My general sense is that the government is a uniquely positioned entity here because of its (a) public institutional incentives, (b) longevity / persistence, and (c) potential as a more neutral player than a corporate or philanthropic org. If you're building a credible counterbalancing regime, all three features seem like genuinely hard to get out a private effort.