Three Big Ideas #48
Charting a continental comeback, perfectly imperfect proxies, and firming up R&D funding
Welcome to our fortnightly Three Big Ideas roundup, in which we serve up a curated selection of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
đȘđș Philip Salter, Founder
Stagnation now threatens Europeâs ability to fund its welfare states, stay globally competitive and defend its values. (Those values, I should add, are also ours in the UK â despite Brexit.)
As The Constitution of Innovation argues, Europeâs original project â free trade, an internal market and peace through economic interdependence â has gradually been crowded out by an ever-expanding regulatory agenda. This bureaucratic accretion is holding the continent back, helped along by acts of self-sabotage such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act.
Economists Luis Garicano, Bengt Holmström and Nicolas Petit call for Europe to refocus on the fundamentals of innovation, market integration and economic dynamism. Instead of constant mission creep, they propose limiting the Union to its essential economic competences. Central to their argument is the need for vigorous enforcement of the internal market and removing barriers to entry and exit for firms so innovation can thrive.
Their recommendations include sharply reducing the use of directives in favour of directly applicable regulations; creating specialised EU-level commercial courts to enforce internal market rules swiftly; and establishing a truly supranational â28th regimeâ to give Europe-wide companies a workable legal infrastructure, instead of forcing them to navigate dozens of national systems.
By trying to take on everything, Europe has undermined its ability to do the things that matter most. That institutional drift is one key reason many free-market supporters in the UK lost faith in the European project, giving the Brexit campaign more legitimacy â and more votes â than it deserved.
But the Old World shouldnât be counted out. As the authors note, European institutions have twice delivered extraordinary growth: first in the three decades after the Second World War, and again in Eastern Europe in recent decades. Few institutions can claim not one but two of the great economic catch-up stories of the past century. Itâs time for a third.
đ„ Eamonn Ives, Research Director
British politicians simply canât resist giving a speech on higher education without boasting about the global pre-eminence of our universities. Institutions like Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College routinely occupy top spots in world rankings, and attract thousands of gifted students a year â no doubt partly because of those accolades. But what if their claims were built on flawed evidence? What if the system of ranking universities is fundamentally unfit for purpose? Thatâs a challenge laid down by Elizabeth Gadd, who argues in a recent Nature article:
â[R]eliance on rankings means that universities are shaped not by the needs of society or by innovations driven from inside the international higher-education community, but by unappointed third-party ranking agencies.â
Iâm not entirely unsympathetic. Indeed, previous research by The Entrepreneurs Network has highlighted the flaws in using university rankings to inform public policy making. A recent graduateâs eligibility for Britainâs innovative High Potential Individual visa depends not on their own talents, but on how well their alma mater performs on university rankings. (Incidentally, we proposed an alternative system which would be based on real-world market data, and would open up the eligibility pathway for many more colleges.)
Yet at the same time, I can only extend my support so far. In the messy reality of the world we live in, quantifying anything like what the worldâs best university is will always be fraught with challenges. Methodologies will always need to be somewhat arbitrary. Gaddâs suggestion to band universities instead into clusters of âhighâ, âmediumâ and âlowâ will still ultimately entail sharp lines and judgement calls.
Moreover, even if current ranking systems are not impeccable, we should consider the long-run effect they might have in terms of driving up standards. If I can go on a small tangent, I draw a parallel here with football. Manchester City won the Premier League by a whisker in 2012, with Sergio AgĂŒeroâs late strike famously denying their cross-city rivals a 20th title. The next season, Manchester United invested in a prize striker of their own, whose haul of goals enabled them to romp to victory. Competition, even when based on fine margins, incentivises improvement.
Of course, we should be discerning when public policy is based on partial proxies. But, equally, we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If we still get net beneficial outcomes as a result, we might just need to make our peace with things. The answer isnât to abandon measurement, but to use it more intelligently.
đ Rebecca Hill, Public Opinion and Involvement Manager, Campaign for Science and Engineering
Research and development can transform lives and livelihoods; it tackles major societal challenges, helps grow our economy and creates jobs and opportunities for people of all ages.
Despite this, support for it from both policymakers and the public canât be taken for granted. Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) works to champion R&D as a political and societal priority, including by exploring how the public think and feel about R&D, to help the sector make R&D matter to more people.
Our latest landmark opinion study â Public Attitudes to R&D 2025 â clearly shows the opportunity and the challenge our sector faces.
The research, which took in the views of a nationally representative sample of more than 8,000 adults in the UK, found broad awareness and support for R&D â but suggests that this support is shallow, and fragile.
On the positive side, a majority say they have heard of âresearch and development,â 88% think it is important for the Government to invest in R&D, and 71% agree that the private sector has an important role to play in UK R&D.
However, the people, processes and places linked to R&D are opaque, and the public feels disconnected from R&D and its benefits. Just 29% said they felt a connection or personal interest in R&D, and its benefits feel vague and hard to articulate, especially on a personal level.
Nor do the public necessarily see R&Dâs role in their highest priority issues. Although 94% said reducing the cost of living should be a priority for the UK, only 58% said that R&D had an essential or important role to play in addressing it.
Such weak connections pose a risk. British R&D has benefited from support spanning successive governments, but if this political backing fractures, we will need more than shallow public support to see our sector through.
We must act now to strengthen the foundations. Our research emphasises that place, purpose and involvement are powerful connection points with the public. CaSE is working closely with our members and the wider sector to make R&D more local, and more human.
 | A guest post by
|