Canada’s Entrepreneurship Dilemma: Decades Of Anemic Research Investment

This issue has driven me absolutely nuts since I first arrived in Canada from Silicon Valley. It did not take me long to figure out that things did not work they way they did in California, and that there wasn’t much of a true entrepreneurial economy here. Since then, I have also been appointed to the Canada Foundation for Innovation grant process, providing me with insight into how R&D funding works in Canada. I have seen many issues in Canada that have impaired the nation’s ability to develop an entrepreneurial culture, among them is the inherent Canadian conservatism and short term horizon of investors unfamiliar with technology venture investment. But none has been worse than Canada’s decades-long neglect of adequate funding for research and development nationwide.


UPDATE: May 21, 2015.  As if to drive home the Canadian economic crisis, Goldman Sachs has just released an oil price forecast suggesting that North Sea Brent crude will still be $55 in 2020, five years from now.  As Alberta Western Canadian Select (WCS) bitumen is valued lower on commodity markets this is extremely bad news for Canada. Further, the well-known Canadian economic forecasting firm, Enform is predicting that job losses across all of western Canada, not only Alberta, could reach 180,000. 

This issue has driven me absolutely nuts since I first arrived in Canada from Silicon Valley.  It did not take me long to figure out that things did not work they way they did in California, and that there wasn’t much of a true entrepreneurial economy here.  Since then, I have also been appointed to the Canada Foundation for Innovation grant process, providing me with insight into how R&D funding works in Canada. I have seen many issues in Canada that have impaired the nation’s ability to develop an entrepreneurial culture,  among them is the inherent Canadian conservatism and short term horizon of investors unfamiliar with technology venture investment.  But none has been worse than Canada’s decades-long neglect of adequate funding for research and development nationwide.  A review of the OECD data on Canada’s investment in R&D compared to other industrialized nations paints a sorry picture.  This has led directly to a poor showing in industrial innovation and productivity. This is further compounded by the current government’s myopic focus on natural resource extraction, Canada’s so-called “natural resource curse.” The result now is an economic train wreck for Canada.  The fossil fuel based economy has collapsed and is not forecast to recover anytime in the near future.  During the boom time for fossil fuel extraction, there has been essentially no rational strategy to increase spending on R&D and innovation, and hence no increase in economic diversification.  Now the problem is nearly intractable, and may take decades to reverse.
asleep at the switch
 ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL, by Bruce Smardon, McGill-Queens University Press
ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL explains that since 1960, Canadian industry has lagged behind other advanced capitalist economies in its level of commitment to research and development. Asleep at the Switch explains the reasons for this underperformance, despite a series of federal measures to spur technological innovation in Canada. It is worth noting that Arvind Gupta, President of The University of British Columbia, and former head of MITACS, the organization at UBC tasked to promote R&D, has also been an outspoken proponent for increased R&D, at one point editorializing in the Vancouver Sun, that Canada needed an innovation czar, to promote innovation in the same manner as the 2010 Seize the Podium program to enhance gold medal performance for Canada.
Also, as a member of the 2012 Canada Foundation for Innovation Multidisciplinary Assessment process, and the University of British Columbia 2015 CFI grant preparation process, I can say without reservation that the Canada suffers from inadequate R&D funding and its consequences.

ANALYSIS From CBC News

Canada’s research dilemma is that companies don’t do it here

Ten-year study says repairs needed for rebound will be costly and difficult

REBLOGGED: By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: May 15, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 15, 2015 6:31 AM ET

 Northern Electric was a domestic Canadian technology success story that became the telecom equipment giant Nortel Networks. But when Nortel failed, the lack of an R&D hub meant there were no startups to replace it.

Northern Electric was a domestic Canadian technology success story that became the telecom equipment giant Nortel Networks. But when Nortel failed, the lack of an R&D hub meant there were no startups to replace it. (The Canadian Press)

As Stephen Harper handed out more tax breaks for Canadian manufacturers in Windsor, Ont., yesterday, you might ask, “With that kind of support, why is Canada’s industrial economy in such bad shape?” Political economist Bruce Smardon thinks he has the answer.

Smardon says companies operating in Canada just aren’t spending enough on domestic research and development, and the Harper government is only the latest in a long line of governments, stretching back to that of John A. Macdonald, that have contributed to the problem.

As China’s resource-hungry economy goes off the boil, taking Canada’s resource producers with it, everyone including Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, has been waiting for a rebound in Canada’s industrial economy.

But there are growing fears such a Canadian rebound is not on the cards. As the Globe and Mail’s Scott Barlow reported last week (paywall), despite having the top university for generating new tech startups, Canada has repeatedly failed to become a hub for industrial innovation.

Best in North America

Interviewed by the New York Times, the president of the startup generator Y Combinator, Sam Altman, called the University of Waterloo the school that stood out in North America for creating new ideas that turned into companies.

But as Barlow reported, there is statistical evidence that Waterloo’s success has not translated into R&D success, as Canadian industrial innovation continues to decline.

After 10 years of research, Smardon thinks his recent book, Asleep at the Switch — short-listed this year for one of Canada’s most prestigious academic book awards — provides the answer.

Political science professor Bruce Smardon’s book, Asleep at the Switch, examining Canada’s R&D failure, has been short-listed for one of Canada’s most prestigious academic prizes. (McGill-Queen’s University Press)

And, believe it or not, Smardon traces the chain of events back to Canada’s first prime minister and his tariff policy of 1879. Paradoxically, those rules were put in place to protect Canadian manufacturers from cheap U.S. goods, that were in turn protected by U.S. tariff walls.

Central Canadian boom

For the industries of central Canada, the tariff barriers worked. In the years before the First World War, says Smardon, Canada was second only to the United States in creating an economy of mass production and mass consumption, where workers could afford to buy the products they produced.

However, prevented by tariffs from exporting U.S. goods to Canada, American companies did the next best thing. They started, or bought, branch plants north of the border, wholly- or partly-owned subsidiaries that used U.S. technology in Canadian factories.

Smardon says that started a trend that continues today. The majority of R&D was being done in the home country of the industrial parent, not in the Canadian subsidiaries. And in the Mulroney and Chrétien era of free trade, he says, relatively high-tech branch plants, such as Inglis and Westinghouse, started to close as products were supplied more efficiently by the U.S. parent factories.

There were Canadian R&D stars such as Nortel and Blackberry, says Smardon. But they were exceptions. And when those stars began to set, the lack of a traditional R&D hub in Canada meant there were few young research-based companies ready to come up and replace them.

Tax credit paradox

The paradox, he says, is that Canadian taxpayers have spent a fortune on R&D tax credits. The 2011 Jenkins report showed that as a percentage of GDP, Canadian R&D tax incentives were higher than anyplace else. But as Barlow showed, Canadian R&D still lags behind.

The reason, Smardon concludes, is that while taxpayers fork out for R&D, industrial R&D doesn’t happen here but in traditional R&D hubs abroad. He says that free trade agreements and a longstanding view by Canadian governments that business knows best mean it’s very difficult to put conditions on how that money is spent.

“If we are concerned with developing a manufacturing base in the more advanced research intensive sectors, we’re going to have to have incentive programs at the very minimum, that are clear in insuring that any incentives are used to develop products and processes in Canada,” says Smardon. “They’ve got to think through how that can be done.”

But Smardon is not optimistic. He says that free trade and the free market philosophy has become so entrenched in Canadian thinking that it’s impossible to change.

Market rules

He says that is why the Harper government became so enamoured with the business of pumping and exporting unprocessed oil and gas while the Canadian industrial economy crumbled. It was exactly what the global free market wanted.

It may indeed be that global market forces decide Canada is an icy wasteland that is best at producing raw materials. It may decide that the best way to use our brilliant young people is to send them to California to develop their business ideas there.

But if we want more than that, perhaps handing out ineffective tax incentives is not going to be enough.

Can Big Data Raise Graduation Rates?


Can big data raise graduation rates?

Richard NievaBY 
ON APRIL 9, 2013

graduation_rate

Collecting data and statistics is nothing new in education. Educators have been using Blackboard’s analytics software for years. But what is new is the sheer amount of predictive analytics that is available. President Obama recently announced that he wants America’s college graduate ranking to go from 12th place in the world last year to first by 2020. To accomplish this, our nation’s schools and educators will need to harness the power of big data – at least that’s what Toronto-based education startup Desire2Learn says.

The company, founded by CEO John Baker while attending the University of Waterloo, in Waterloo, Canada, in 1999, trades in educational predictive analytics. Desire2Learn, which has raised $80 million in funding from New Enterprise Associates and OMERS Ventures,  does things like help a student pick classe in which he’ll get the best grades or keep an eye on his progress. Clients include the New York City public school system as well as universities like the University of Arizona, the University of Memphis, and the Harvard School of Business. The company’s class selection software seems compelling, but for all the hoopla surrounding big data, the company will need to nail the predictive element to be really valuable.

Desire2 Learn peddles two products. The first helps students effectively pick courses toward their degrees based on how well they will likely do in them. Baker describes it as a recommendation tool a la Netflix or Amazon. It will, for instance, tell a liberal arts type how he will likely fare in an engineering class by scouring his past classwork (or high school transcripts if he’s a freshman) and compare his academic record to other students who have taken that class. Baker claims it can predict if a student will pass or not with 90 percent accuracy and even settle on his letter grade with 92 percent accuracy.

The second gathers data on how a student is actually doing in a class and spots red flags like a bad grade on a quiz, or, more subtly, rushing through an online assignment. Then a teacher can intervene, and the program can do things like suggest additional reading. For a teacher, the software can also suggest what lessons will better resonate with a student. For example, if a student does

better on a quiz after watching a certain type of video, the software can recommend a similar one.

Of course, this data-centric approach to education isn’t without pitfalls. It can serve to funnel students into the easiest courses and discourage them from challenging themselves.  Why shouldn’t a student take an engineering course even if the almighty algorithm informs him he isn’t likely to ace it? What happened to education for education’s sake?

Nevertheless, it does help in one regard.The Tennessee Board of Regents, which includes six universities including the University of Memphis and Tennessee State University, said it saw a 24 percent decrease in dropouts in one year after using Desire2Learn software. At California State University, Long Beach, the graduation rate rose 3.3 percent since deploying the software. It was the largest one-year jump for a four-year period.

In the info graphic that the company supplied below, it shows t

hat every year students graduate with about 12 credits that don’t count toward their degrees, causing them to spend more time in college, which reportedly costs taxpayers about $6 billion in the form of things like grant money and tuition subsidies, according to Complete College America.

Baker says that for a struggling student — either academically or financially — those extra units can help lead to the decision to drop out. And a high dropout rate is a data point that’s of use to no one.

Desire2Learn INFO V1