companies, the really cool companies,

很酷的公司，

the innovative ones, the creative,

那些有創意、懂創新的

new economy-type companies --

新經濟型的公司 — —

Apple, Google, Facebook --

蘋果、 谷歌、臉書— —

are coming out of one particular country,

都來自同一個國家

the United States of America?

美國呢？

Usually when I say this, someone says, "Spotify!

通常當我談到這一點時，有人會說，

That's Europe." But, yeah.

"Spotify！那是歐洲的公司。” (註：Spotify是瑞典起源的線上音樂平台)

It has not had the impact that these other companies have had.

但，不如剛才的那幾個公司有影響力

Now what I do is I'm an economist,

我是一名經濟學家，

and I actually study the relationship

我所研究的是

between innovation and economic growth

在公司、 業界和國家層面上

at the level of the company, the industry and the nation,

創新和經濟增長之間的關係。

and I work with policymakers worldwide,

我與各國的政策制定者合作，

especially in the European Commission,

特別是歐盟委員會，

but recently also in interesting places like China,

最近是在有趣的地方，如中國

and I can tell you that that question

我可以告訴你，我一開始問的那一問題

is on the tip of all of their tongues:

他們也都同樣問過

Where are the European Googles?

歐洲的谷歌在哪裡？

What is the secret behind the Silicon Valley growth model,

矽谷經濟模型的秘密是什麼？

which they understand is different

他們的做法和

from this old economy growth model?

舊的經濟模型有何不同？

And what is interesting is that often,

有趣的是，

even if we're in the 21st century,

即使我們現在處於 21 世紀，

we kind of come down in the end to these ideas

我們多少會得出

of market versus state.

市場和政府相對抗的思維。

It's talked about in these modern ways,

這被認為是現代（市場運作）方式。

but the idea is that somehow, behind places like Silicon Valley,

然而像矽谷的地方，

the secret have been different types of market-making mechanisms,

秘密反而是不同的市場開拓機制。

the private initiative, whether this be about

私人融資，不管這個是否

a dynamic venture capital sector

關於動態風險投資範疇，

that's actually able to provide that high-risk finance

實際上這些創新型公司

to these innovative companies,

都能夠得到高風險融資。

the gazelles as we often call them,

被稱為「羚羊企業」的這些領軍公司所需要的融資

which traditional banks are scared of,

是那些傳統銀行所害怕接手的。

or different types of really successful

另外，不同類型的一些頗有成效的

commercialization policies which actually allow these companies

商業化政策實際上允許這些公司

to bring these great inventions, their products,

把他們絕妙的發明、他們的產品

to the market and actually get over this

直接推向市場，實際上得以

really scary Death Valley period

安然度過可怕的「死亡谷」時期。

in which many companies instead fail.

其他的很多公司卻在這個時期一敗塗地。

But what really interests me, especially nowadays

特別是現在，

and because of what's happening politically around the world,

源於世界上的政治動向，

is the language that's used, the narrative,

真正讓我感興趣的是 (商業中)使用的語言、敘述方法、

the discourse, the images, the actual words.

話語、 圖像和實際使用的詞彙。

So we often are presented

所以我們常常聽到

with the kind of words like that the private sector

諸如私營部門之類的詞彙

is also much more innovative because it's able to

都是更有新意的，因為它能

think out of the box.

跳出慣常的思維，

They are more dynamic.

更具有活力。

Think of Steve Jobs' really inspirational speech

回想史蒂夫 · 賈伯斯

to the 2005 graduating class at Stanford,

於2005年在史丹佛大學給畢業生做的演講。

where he said to be innovative,

他當時說： 要有創新精神，

you've got to stay hungry, stay foolish.

求知若飢，虛心若愚。

Right? So these guys are kind of the hungry

對吧？這些人都是些如饑似渴、

and foolish and colorful guys, right?

懵懵懂懂又個性鮮明的傢伙，對吧？

And in places like Europe,

在像歐洲這樣的地方

it might be more equitable,

社會更公平，

we might even be a bit better dressed

甚至比美國人穿得更講究，

and eat better than the U.S.,

吃得更好。

but the problem is this damn public sector.

但問題是討厭的公共部門。

It's a bit too big, and it hasn't actually allowed

它們太龐大了，它實際上沒法讓

these things like dynamic venture capital

像動態風險資本

and commercialization to actually be able to really

和商業化這樣能夠結出

be as fruitful as it could.

商業碩果的事物存在。

And even really respectable newspapers,

即使那些很受人推崇的報紙，

some that I'm actually subscribed to,

有些我也有訂閱，

the words they use are, you know,

你知道的，他們把

the state as this Leviathan. Right?

美國形容成「利維坦大怪獸」。對吧？ (譯註：利維坦是聖經中的一種獸)

This monster with big tentacles.

有著巨大觸角的怪獸。

They're very explicit in these editorials.

他們在社論裡非常明確地這樣說。

They say, "You know, the state, it's necessary

他們說，"你知道，美國有必要

to fix these little market failures

去修復這些小小的市場失靈。

when you have public goods

當你擁有公共物資

or different types of negative externalities like pollution,

或那些負面的外部因素比如污染時。

but you know what, what is the next big revolution

你知道嗎，在資訊網絡之後

going to be after the Internet?

下一次的大革命是什麼嗎？

We all hope it might be something green,

我們都希望它可能是一場綠色的革命。

or all of this nanotech stuff, and in order for that stuff to happen," they say --

或者是奈米技術，而要成功達成"

this was a special issue on the next industrial revolution --

這是關於下一次工業革命的特殊議題 —

they say, "the state, just stick to the basics, right?

他們說，"政府就是要專注於基礎，對吧？

Fund the infrastructure. Fund the schools.

投資於基礎設施和學校建設

Even fund the basic research, because this is

也投資於基礎科學研究，因為這是

popularly recognized, in fact, as a big public good

公眾的共識。事實上，私人公司不想為

which private companies don't want to invest in,

大型的公共設施投資。

do that, but you know what?

這是國家需要做的，你知道嗎？

Leave the rest to the revolutionaries."

然後把剩下的（市場）留給革新者。"

Those colorful, out-of-the-box kind of thinkers.

那些個性鮮明、不拘一格的革新家，

They're often called garage tinkerers,

通常被稱為車庫發明家。

because some of them actually did some things in garages,

因為他們中確實有人是在車庫裡工作的，

even though that's partly a myth.

即使這些故事都被傳成神話了。

And so what I want to do with you in, oh God,

所以我想和你們講的是，天哪，

only 10 minutes,

只剩10 分鐘了！

is to really think again this juxtaposition,

（我要講的）是我們要再考量（政府和市場的）並行

because it actually has massive, massive implications

因為這種並行有非常非常巨大的影響力，

beyond innovation policy,

甚至超越了在某些地區

which just happens to be the area

我合作的決策者

that I often talk with with policymakers.

的創新政策之上。

It has huge implications, even with this whole notion

它有非常巨大的影響，甚至影響到整個國家的決策

that we have on where, when and why

我們在何時、何地、為什麼

we should actually be cutting back on public spending

要削減公共開支

and different types of public services which,

和其他公共服務部門的開支。

of course, as we know, are increasingly being

當然，正是由於這種並行，一些公共服務部門的工作

outsourced because of this juxtaposition.

已經被更多的外包出去了。

Right? I mean, the reason that we need to maybe have free schools or charter schools

對吧？我是說，我們需要有公立學校或特許學校

is in order to make them more innovative without being emburdened

通過國民必修課程等重要手法

by this heavy hand of the state curriculum, or something.

把孩子們培養成為創新型人才。

So these kind of words are constantly,

所以這些詞彙的出現都是有一致性的，

these juxtapositions come up everywhere,

不僅與創新政策有關，

not just with innovation policy.

這種並行簡直無處不在。

And so to think again,

所以，再回過頭來想，

there's no reason that you should believe me,

你們不需要相信我，

so just think of some of the smartest

就想想你口袋裡的一些最絕妙的

revolutionary things that you have in your pockets

創新產品吧。

and do not turn it on, but you might want to take it out, your iPhone.

不要打開開關喲。你就拿出來看看你的iPhone吧。

Ask who actually funded the really cool,

你會問到底是誰給iPhone那些非常酷的

revolutionary thinking-out-of-the-box

革新性、突破性的

things in the iPhone.

技術投資的。

What actually makes your phone

到底是什麼讓你的電話

a smartphone, basically, instead of a stupid phone?

基本上成了智慧手機， 而不僅僅是一個粗劣的手機呢？

So the Internet, which you can surf the web

通過網際網路，你可以在世界上的

anywhere you are in the world;

任何地方上網。

GPS, where you can actually know where you are

通過GPS，你可以明確地知道

anywhere in the world;

自己在世界的某個地方。

the touchscreen display, which makes it also

觸控螢幕，使手機真正變成

a really easy-to-use phone for anybody.

任何人都可以輕鬆學會使用的手機。

These are the very smart, revolutionary bits about the iPhone,

iPhone 這些非常巧妙的、革新性的部分

and they're all government-funded.

其實全部都是由政府資助的。

And the point is that the Internet

也就是，網際網路是由

was funded by DARPA, U.S. Department of Defense.

DARPA 美國國防部資助的。

GPS was funded by the military's Navstar program.

全球定位系統（GPS) 是由軍方的 Navstar專案出資的。

Even Siri was actually funded by DARPA.

甚至語音控制功能(Siri) 都實際上是由 DARPA資助的。

The touchscreen display was funded

觸屏顯示是

by two public grants by the CIA and the NSF

由兩個國家部門： 中情局（CIA) 和國家科學基金會（NSF）

to two public university researchers at the University of Delaware.

資助美公立大學特拉華大學 的兩位科研人員而開發出來的。

Now, you might be thinking, "Well, she's just said

現在，您會想，"好吧，她只不過是講了好幾遍的

the word 'defense' and 'military' an awful lot,"

'國防' 和 '軍事' 什麼的。"

but what's really interesting is that this is actually true

有趣的是，這些都是事實。

in sector after sector and department after department.

就是由國家的一個又一個的部門， 一個又一個的直屬單位來做的。

So the pharmaceutical industry, which I am personally

我個人對製藥業非常感興趣。

very interested in because I've actually had the fortune

因為我比較幸運地能夠

to study it in quite some depth,

深入地研究了這一行。

is wonderful to be asking this question

一個很有趣的問題是關於

about the revolutionary versus non-revolutionary bits,

革新型和非革新型的藥物。

because each and every medicine can actually be

因為每種藥物都實際上可以

divided up on whether it really is revolutionary or incremental.

被分為革新型或者改進型。

So the new molecular entities with priority rating

有優先等級的新分子藥物

are the revolutionary new drugs,

是革新型藥物。

whereas the slight variations of existing drugs --

而對原有藥物進行細微改進的—

Viagra, different color, different dosage --

比如威而鋼，改變藥物顏色、 改變藥物劑量 —

are the less revolutionary ones.

這就屬於非革新型藥物了。

And it turns out that a full 75 percent

結果足足 75%的

of the new molecular entities with priority rating

優先評級的新分子藥物

are actually funded in boring, Kafka-ian public sector labs.

都實際上是由，老掉牙的 Kafkian 公共部門實驗室提供資金。

This doesn't mean that Big Pharma is not spending on innovation.

這並不意味著大型製藥公司 不把錢花費在創新上。

They do. They spend on the marketing part.

他們也這樣做。 他們也往市場行銷這一部分投錢。

They spend on the D part of R&D.

他們往 R&D（研究發展） 的 D 部分（發展）投錢。

They spend an awful lot on buying back their stock,

他們花費相當多的資金來購回自己的股票，

which is quite problematic.

這是很有問題。

In fact, companies like Pfizer and Amgen recently

事實上，輝瑞和安進這樣的大公司

have spent more money in buying back their shares

最近為了抬高他們的股票價格， 花在購買他們自家股票的資金

to boost their stock price than on R&D,

遠遠超過他們花在研發上的資金。

but that's a whole different TED Talk which one day

這涉及了一個完全不同的 TED 演講主題，

I'd be fascinated to tell you about.

有一天我會很高興講給你們聽的。

Now, what's interesting in all of this

現在，在所有新研發的例子裡，最有趣的是

is the state, in all these examples,

美國這個國家，

was doing so much more than just fixing market failures.

所做的要比單純修復市場失靈多得多。

It was actually shaping and creating markets.

它實際上是在塑造和創造市場。

It was funding not only the basic research,

它不僅給基本研究投資，

which again is a typical public good,

那是典型的公共利益。

but even the applied research.

也給了應用研究投資。

It was even, God forbid, being a venture capitalist.

而且天吶，它甚至成了風險資本家。

So these SBIR and STTR programs,

這些小型企業研發資金專案（SBIR和SDTR)

which give small companies early-stage finance

給小型公司提供早期的財政支援。

have not only been extremely important

跟私人風險資本來投資比起來，

compared to private venture capital,

對於小企業這是非常非常重要的。

but also have become increasingly important.

而且變得越來越重要。

Why? Because, as many of us know,

為什麼呢？因為，我們很多人都知道，

V.C. is actually quite short-term.

私人風險投資（V.C.) 實際上是相當短期的行為。

They want their returns in three to five years.

他們想在三至五年內得到回報。

Innovation takes a much longer time than that,

可是創新需要比那更長的時間，

15 to 20 years.

15 到 20 年。

And so this whole notion -- I mean, this is the point, right?

這就是整個的概念 — 這是重點，對吧？

Who's actually funding the hard stuff?

誰實際上在給研發難題提供資金？

Of course, it's not just the state.

當然，不僅僅是政府。

The private sector does a lot.

私人部門也做了很多。

But the narrative that we've always been told

但是事實總是告訴我們

is the state is important for the basics,

政府對於奠定研發的基礎非常重要。

but not really providing that sort of high-risk,

但是它並不是那種高風險的

revolutionary thinking out of the box.

革新性創意本身。

In all these sectors, from funding the Internet

所有這些公共部門，他們從資助網際網路

to doing the spending, but also the envisioning,

到負擔期間的花費。他們甚至提供預想階段和

the strategic vision, for these investments,

戰略設想階段的資金支援。

it was actually coming within the state.

這些資金實際上都是來自於政府。

The nanotechnology sector is actually fascinating

奈米技術部門很醉心於

to study this, because the word itself, nanotechnology,

這項研究，因為奈米技術這個詞彙本身

came from within government.

就是政府部門取的。

And so there's huge implications of this.

當然它會帶來巨大的影響。

First of all, of course I'm not someone,

首先，當然我不是那些

this old-fashioned person, market versus state.

守舊的認為「市場和政府相對抗」的人。

What we all know in dynamic capitalism

我們對動態資本主義的理解就是

is that what we actually need are public-private partnerships.

我們確實需要「公共與私人」這樣的夥伴關係。

But the point is, by constantly depicting

但問題是，政府部門通常被描述成

the state part as necessary

一個必要的存在，

but actually -- pffff -- a bit boring

但實際上 （噗） 這有點呆板

and often a bit dangerous kind of Leviathan,

而且是一個會帶來危險的利維坦。

I think we've actually really stunted the possibility

我想我們真的被阻擾

to build these public-private partnerships

以一種真正動態的方式

in a really dynamic way.

去建立「公共-私人」夥伴關係的可能性。

Even the words that we often use to justify the "P" part,

我們經常為 "P" 的部分辯解，公共（public）

the public part -- well, they're both P's --

其實，如果說到去風險化，

with public-private partnerships

這可是兩個 P

is in terms of de-risking.

公共（public）私人（private）夥伴關係。

What the public sector did in all these examples

在我給大家的講的這些例子裡，以及其他更多的領域裡

I just gave you, and there's many more,

公共部門的作用

which myself and other colleagues have been looking at,

是我和其他的同事都很關心的。

is doing much more than de-risking.

公共部門的作用不僅僅是去風險化這一點作用。

It's kind of been taking on that risk. Bring it on.

公共部門也在承擔風險，勇往直前。

It's actually been the one thinking out of the box.

它實際上也成了創新科技的一部分。

But also, I'm sure you all have had experience

但同時，我確定你們都和

with local, regional, national governments,

地方級、 區域級以及國家級的政府打過交道。

and you're kind of like, "You know what, that Kafka-ian bureaucrat, I've met him."

你會說，"你知道吧，我見過那個Kafkian的官僚。“

That whole juxtaposition thing, it's kind of there.

整個並行的關係其實一直都有的。

Well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

那麼，有個自我實現的預言

By talking about the state as kind of irrelevant,

是在講國家是不相干的，

boring, it's sometimes

有時是無趣的

that we actually create those organizations in that way.

是我們自己把這些組織機構搞成這個樣子的。

So what we have to actually do is build

所以我們現在要做的就是

these entrepreneurial state organizations.

把這些國家政府機構建成創業型機構。

DARPA, that funded the Internet and Siri,

資助網際網路和語音控制系統 Siri 的 DARPA

actually thought really hard about this,

實際上對風險投資深思熟慮過，

how to welcome failure, because you will fail.

如何迎接失敗呢，因為你總會有失敗的。

You will fail when you innovative.

你如果勇於創新，肯定有失敗的時候。

One out of 10 experiments has any success.

10次實驗中的一次也許會有成功。

And the V.C. guys know this,

搞風險投資的人當然知道這些。

and they're able to actually fund the other losses

他們其實願意為那些有過一次成功的

from that one success.

失敗者提供資金。

And this brings me, actually, probably,

而這實際上讓我覺得

to the biggest implication,

有非常大的意義。

and this has huge implications beyond innovation.