Podcasts about Aghion

Muitos termos nos vêm à cabeça quando falamos de inovação: «startups», unicórnios, «venture capital», «business angels», entre outros. Mas antes de explorarmos o que significam, importa compreender o que é realmente inovar. Quem inova? Pessoas ou empresas? O setor público ou o setor privado? Quem financia a inovação? Será Portugal um país que acolhe boas ideias? A radialista Mariana Alvim estreia-se com este tema na dupla da Economia, com a curiosidade de quem quer traduzir o significado de todos aqueles termos em ‘economês' para português.  Com a ajuda do economista José Alberto Ferreira, vamos ficar a conhecer a diferença entre inovações incrementais e radicais, qual o papel do Estado no incentivo às (boas) ideias, e que o falhanço – de que gostamos tão pouco em Portugal – é quase parte do verbo inovar. Talvez isso explique porque inovamos tão pouco no nosso país. REFERÊNCIAS E LINKS ÚTEISLivros:Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). «Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity». John Murray Press. Mazzucato, M. (2018). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (2nd ed.). Penguin Books. Artigos científicos:Bloom, Nicholas, John Van Reenen, and Heidi Williams. 2019. «A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation», Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (3): 163-84. Bruland, K., & Mowery, D. C. (2006). «Innovation through time». In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (online edn, 2009). Oxford University Press. Aghion, Philippe, Ufuk Akcigit, and Peter Howitt. 2015. «Lessons from Schumpeterian Growth Theory», American Economic Review, 105 (5): 94-99. Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. 2013. «The Case against Patents.», Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27 (1): 3-22. Acemoglu, Daron, Ufuk Akcigit, and Murat Alp Celik. 2022. «Radical and Incremental Innovation: The Roles of Firms, Managers, and Innovators.», American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 14 (3): 199-249. Links úteis:Estudo da FFMS sobre o financiamento do empreendedorismo em Portugal e o papel do programa «Montante Único».A Inteligência Artificial: substituto ou complemento dos trabalhadores?Inovação e impostos (artigo de opinião, de Ricardo Reis). Project Syndicate: o papel dos governos da direção da inovação em IA. A inovação e o desaparecimento da NOKIA.BIOSMARIANA ALVIM É locutora da rádio RFM há 15 anos. Depois de quase 10 a fazer o «Café da Manhã», agora leva os ouvintes a casa, com Pedro Fernandes, no «6PM». É autora de livros para adolescentes e criou o podcast «Vale a Pena», no qual entrevista artistas enquanto leitores.JOSÉ ALBERTO FERREIRADoutorando em Economia no Instituto Universitário Europeu, em Florença. Trabalhou no Banco Central Europeu, com foco na investigação em modelos de política monetária e macroprudencial.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Summary: Against the singularity hypothesis, published by Global Priorities Institute on May 22, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a summary of the GPI Working Paper "Against the singularity hypothesis" by David Thorstad (published in Philosophical Studies). The summary was written by Riley Harris. The singularity is a hypothetical future event in which machines rapidly become significantly smarter than humans. The idea is that we might invent an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can improve itself. After a single round of self-improvement, that system would be better equipped to improve itself than before. This process might repeat many times, and each time the AI system would become more capable and better equipped to improve itself even further. At the end of this (perhaps very rapid) process, the AI system could be much smarter than the average human. Philosophers and computer scientists have thought we should take the possibility of a singularity seriously (Solomonoff 1985, Good 1996, Chalmers 2010, Bostrom 2014, Russell 2019). It is characteristic of the singularity hypothesis that AI will take years or months at the most to become many times more intelligent than even the most intelligent human.[1] Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the paper "Against the singularity hypothesis", David Thorstad claims that we do not have enough evidence to justify the belief in the singularity hypothesis, and we should consider it unlikely unless stronger evidence emerges. Reasons to think the singularity is unlikely Thorstad is sceptical that machine intelligence can grow quickly enough to justify the singularity hypothesis. He gives several reasons for this. Low-hanging fruit. Innovative ideas and technological improvements tend to become more difficult over time. For example, consider "Moore's law", which is (roughly) the observation that hardware capacities double every two years. Between 1971 and 2014 Moore's law was maintained only with an astronomical increase in the amount of capital and labour invested into semiconductor research (Bloom et al. 2020). In fact, according to one leading estimate, there was an eighteen-fold drop in productivity over this period. While some features of future AI systems will allow them to increase the rate of progress compared to human scientists and engineers, they are still likely to experience diminishing returns as the easiest discoveries have already been made and only more difficult ideas are left. Bottlenecks. AI progress relies on improvements in search, computation, storage and so on (each of these areas breaks down into many subcomponents). Progress could be slowed down by any of these subcomponents: if any of these are difficult to speed up, then AI progress will be much slower than we would naively expect. The classic metaphor here concerns the speed a liquid can exit a bottle, which is rate-limited by the narrow space near the opening. AI systems may run into bottlenecks if any essential components cannot be improved quickly (see Aghion et al., 2019). Constraints. Resource and physical constraints may also limit the rate of progress. To take an analogy, Moore's law gets more difficult to maintain because it is expensive, physically difficult and energy-intensive to cram ever more transistors in the same space. Here we might expect progress to eventually slow as physical and financial constraints provide ever greater barriers to maintaining progress. Sublinear growth. How do improvements in hardware translate to intelligence growth? Thompson and colleagues (2022) find that exponential hardware improvements translate to linear gains in performance on problems such as Chess, Go, protein folding, weather prediction and the modelling of underground oil reservoirs. Over the past 50 years,...

Philippe AghionCollège de FranceÉconomie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissanceAnnée 2023-2024Colloque - Conference on the Economics of Innovation in Memory of Zvi Griliches : The Cleaning Effects of Quality-Led growthColloque en anglais organisé par Philippe Aghion, Lee Branstetter et Adam Jaffe.Intervenant(s)Fabrizio Zilibotti, "The Cleaning Effects of Quality-Led growth"(Co-authors: P. Aghion, T. Boppart, M. Peters, M. Schwartzman)Discussant: Maarten de Ridder

Philippe AghionCollège de FranceÉconomie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissanceAnnée 2023-2024Colloque - Conference on the Economics of Innovation in Memory of Zvi Griliches : Transition to Green Technology along the Supply ChainColloque en anglais organisé par Philippe Aghion, Lee Branstetter et Adam Jaffe.Intervenant(s)Ernest Liu, "Transition to Green Technology along the Supply Chain"(Co-authors: P. Aghion, L. Barrage, D. Hémous, E. Liu)Discussant: Fabrizio Zilibotti

Philippe AghionCollège de FranceÉconomie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissanceAnnée 2023-2024Colloque - Conference on the Economics of Innovation in Memory of Zvi Griliches : Lost in Transition: Financial Barriers to Green GrowthColloque en anglais organisé par Philippe Aghion, Lee Branstetter et Adam Jaffe.Intervenant(s)Maarten De Ridder, "Lost in Transition: Financial Barriers to Green Growth"(Co-authors: P. Aghion, A. Bergeaud, M. De Ridder, J. Van Reenen)Discussant: Ufuk Akcigit

durée : 00:20:53 - L'invité de 8h20 - Aujourd'hui dans le grand entretien du 6-9, nous recevons les présidents de la Commission de l'intelligence artificielle, qui a remis son rapport au président de la République le 13 mars 2024, l'économiste Philippe Aghion et la présidente du conseil d'administration de l'ENS, Anne Bouverot.

durée : 03:00:55 - Le 6/9 - par : Mathilde Khlat, Benjamin Dussy, Elodie Royer, Marion L'hour, Ali Baddou - Aujourd'hui dans le 6-9, des invité(e)s exceptionnel(le)s avec, à 6h20, la célèbre chanteuse Norah Jones. A 7h50, interview exclusive avec la réalisatrice multi-récompensée Justine Triet, et à 8h20, un plateau autour de l'IA avec l'économiste Philippe Aghion et la femme d'affaire Anne Bouverot. - invités : Norah JONES, Justine Triet, Philippe AGHION - Norah Jones : Chanteuse, Justine Triet : Réalisatrice, scénariste, Philippe Aghion : Economiste, Professeur au Collège de France. - réalisé par : Marie MéRIER

Vanha raha puolustaa, uusi hyökkää. Ovatko radikaalit innovaattorit vanhan pääoman suurin kauhu? Onko suvussa kulkeva omaisuus tuomittu vajoamaan tehottomuuteen - ja onko perintövero tästä huolimatta huono idea? M&A-podcastin vieraana on elinkeinoelämän Gandalf, talousvaikuttaja Björn Wahlroos. Hän ripittää sukuyritykset ja ennustaa EU:n hajoavan 30 vuodessa. Wahlroos sanoo, että Suomi on nyt pahemmassa kriisissä kuin 1990-luvulla, mutta että Suomen talouden nousukauteen on silti olemassa valmis, valaistu polku. Kirjallisuutta: Akcigit, U. & Van Reenen, J. (toim.), alkusanat Emmanuel Macron. The Economics of Creative Destruction: New Research on Themes from Aghion and Howitt. Harvard University Press, 2023, 784 sivua. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R., & Hémous, D. (2019). Innovation and top income inequality. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 1-45. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., & Howitt, P. (2014). What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory?. In Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 2, pp. 515-563). Elsevier. Deming, D. J. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4), 1593-1640. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/132/4/1593/3861633 Labatut, Benjamin: Maailman kauhea vihreys. Tammi, 2023. Maliranta, M. (2021). ”Luova tuho” talouskasvussa sekä talouskasvun tutkimuksessa ja opetuksessa. Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 117(3), 472-476. https://www.taloustieteellinenyhdistys.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/KAK_3_2021_WEB-142-146.pdf Maliranta, M. (2023). Luovan tuhon taloustiede – kultakaivos osaavalle talouskasvun lähteiden louhijalle. Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 119(4), 382-385. Wahlroos, Björn (2023). Sateentekijät. Eräänlaiset päiväkirjat 1992−2001. Otava.

Learn more at TheCityLife.org --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/citylifeorg/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/citylifeorg/support

Is innovation our best hope for dealing with climate change and, if so, how can we stimulate the sort of innovation that we need to make the green energy transition? Philippe Aghion tells Tim Phillips that we need both carbon tax and industrial policy and, like a visit to the dentist, the pain gets worse the longer we wait.

Today, the mitigation of climate change is one of the most important issues worldwide. However, governments also need to prioritise geopolitical resilience and economic growth when designing their industrial policies.  In this episode of the Sound of Economics, Giuseppe Porcaro is joined by Philippe Aghion, Simone Tagliapietra and Reinhilde Veugelers to discuss what an innovative, European-level industrial policy would look like and how it could address all those competing objectives.  They propose that the EU should engage in ‘co-opetition' with the United States and China, which includes co-operation and maintaining economic ties to facilitate global decarbonisation most efficiently. At the same time, they argue that investing in new technologies in the EU is key to ensure its competitiveness and economic stability.   Relevant publication: Aghion, P., K. Ahuja, C. P. Bown, U. Cantner, C. Criscuolo, A. Dechezleprêtre, M. Dewatripont, R. Hausmann, G. Lalanne, B. McWilliams, D. Rodrik, S. Tagliapietra, A. Terzi, C. Trasi, L. Tyson, R. Veugelers, G. Zachmann and J. Zysman (2023) Sparking Europe's new industrial revolution: a policy for net zero, growth and resilience.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing the Future Fund's AI Worldview Prize, published by Nick Beckstead on September 23, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Today we are announcing a competition with prizes ranging from $15k to $1.5M for work that informs the Future Fund's fundamental assumptions about the future of AI, or is informative to a panel of superforecaster judges. These prizes will be open for three months—until Dec 23—after which we may change or discontinue them at our discretion. We have two reasons for launching these prizes. First, we hope to expose our assumptions about the future of AI to intense external scrutiny and improve them. We think artificial intelligence (AI) is the development most likely to dramatically alter the trajectory of humanity this century, and it is consequently one of our top funding priorities. Yet our philanthropic interest in AI is fundamentally dependent on a number of very difficult judgment calls, which we think have been inadequately scrutinized by others. As a result, we think it's really possible that: all of this AI stuff is a misguided sideshow, we should be even more focused on AI, or a bunch of this AI stuff is basically right, but we should be focusing on entirely different aspects of the problem. If any of those three options is right—and we strongly suspect at least one of them is—we want to learn about it as quickly as possible because it would change how we allocate hundreds of millions of dollars (or more) and help us better serve our mission of improving humanity's longterm prospects. Second, we are aiming to do bold and decisive tests of prize-based philanthropy, as part of our more general aim of testing highly scalable approaches to funding. We think these prizes contribute to that work. If these prizes work, it will be a large update in favor of this approach being capable of surfacing valuable knowledge that could affect our prioritization. If they don't work, that could be an update against this approach surfacing such knowledge (depending how it plays out). The rest of this post will: Explain the beliefs that, if altered, would dramatically affect our approach to grantmaking Describe the conditions under which our prizes will pay out Describe in basic terms how we arrived at our beliefs and cover other clarifications Prize conditions On our areas of interest page, we introduce our core concerns about AI as follows: We think artificial intelligence (AI) is the development most likely to dramatically alter the trajectory of humanity this century. AI is already posing serious challenges: transparency, interpretability, algorithmic bias, and robustness, to name just a few. Before too long, advanced AI could automate the process of scientific and technological discovery, leading to economic growth rates well over 10% per year (see Aghion et al 2017, this post, and Davidson 2021). As a result, our world could soon look radically different. With the help of advanced AI, we could make enormous progress toward ending global poverty, animal suffering, early death and debilitating disease. But two formidable new problems for humanity could also arise: Loss of control to AI systemsAdvanced AI systems might acquire undesirable objectives and pursue power in unintended ways, causing humans to lose all or most of their influence over the future. Concentration of powerActors with an edge in advanced AI technology could acquire massive power and influence; if they misuse this technology, they could inflict lasting damage on humanity's long-term future. For more on these problems, we recommend Holden Karnofsky's “Most Important Century,” Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, and Joseph Carlsmith's “Is power-seeking AI an existential risk?”. Here is a table identifying various questions about these scenarios that we believe are central, our curren...

These are weird times. On the one hand, scientific and technological progress seem to be getting harder. Add to that slowing population growth, and it's possible economic growth over the next century or two might slow to a halt. On the other hand, one area where we seem to be observing rapid technological progress is in artificial intelligence. If that goes far enough, it's easy to imagine machines being able to do all the things human inventors and scientists do, possibly better than us. That would seem to pull in the opposite direction, leading to accelerating and possibly unbounded growth; a singularity.Are those the only options? Is there a middle way? Under what conditions? This is an area where some economic theory can be illuminating. This article is bit unusual for New Things Under the Sun in that I am going to focus on a small but I think important part of a single 2019 article: “Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth” by Aghion, Jones, and Jones. There are other papers on what happens to growth if we can automate parts of economic activity,undefined but Aghion, Jones, and Jones (2019) is useful because (among other things) it focuses on what happens in economic growth models if we automate the process of invention itself.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial draft of the) post What if we could automate invention?, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles MentionedAghion, Philippe, Benjamin F. Jones, and Charles I. Jones. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth. In The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, ed. Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb. National Bureau of Economic Research. ISBN 978-0-226-61333-8

Philippe Aghion est l'un des rares économistes français que le monde nous envie. Auteur en 2020, avec Céline Antonin et Simon Bunel du Pouvoir de la destruction créatrice (Odile Jacob), synthèse de plus de trente ans de recherches, on ne pouvait pas rêver meilleur invité pour relancer les Contrariantes, le podcast des idées élevées en liberté, dans une formule pas tout à fait pareille ni tout à fait une autre. Suivant le glorieux précepte du changement dans la continuité, votre émission bimensuelle préférée consistera désormais en un grand entretien animé, depuis les studios du Point, par Peggy Sastre et Ferghane Azihari, complété d'une chronique intitulée « Les Contrariétés de Mathilde », réalisée par Mathilde Berger-Perrin.Et pour initier cette nouvelle saison, Philippe Aghion est un invité de marque. Professeur au Collège de France depuis 2015, à l'Institut européen d'administration des affaires (Insead) et à la London School of Economics, après avoir, entre autres, enseigné à Harvard et été, là encore entre autres, membre du Cercle des économistes, son œuvre se focalise sur la croissance et l'innovation. Et le paradigme Aghion, à l'oeuvre au Conseil d'analyse économique, à la Commission pour la libération de la croissance française – la fameuse Commission Attali – ou encore auprès de François Hollande, Alain Juppé, Emmanuel Macron et dans les programmes les plus récents de sciences économiques et sociales au lycée, vise à développer un capitalisme vertueux, à la fois favorable à l'innovation et protecteur pour les citoyens, grâce à un dialogue intelligent entre l'Etat, les entreprises et la société civile. Une apparente gageure qui se dissipe dès qu'on prête l'oreille à son argumentation lumineuse, assistée d'un sens de la pédagogie hors du commun. Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

durée : 02:00:34 - Le 7/9 - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - Manuel Bompard, directeur de campagne des législatives pour LFI, député européen , et Philippe Aghion, économiste, professeur au Collège de France, co-auteur de «Le pouvoir de la destruction créatrice » (Odile Jacob), sont les invités du 7/9 de France Inter.

If you want to shape the direction of technology, you can try to pull the kinds of technology you want into existence by shaping how markets will receive different kinds of technology.One specific context where we have some really nice evidence about the efficacy of pull policies is the automobile market. Making fuel more expensive or just flat out mandating carmakers meet certain emissions standards seems to pretty reliably nudge automakers into developing cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles. We've got two complementary lines of evidence here: patents and measures of progress in fuel economy. This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article "Pulling more fuel efficient cars into existence," published on New Things Under the Sun. Articles mentioned:Aghion, Philippe, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, David Hémous, Ralf Martin, and John Van Reenen. 2016. Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry. Journal of Political Economy 124(1): 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1086/684581Rozendaal, Rik, and Herman R.J. Vollebergh. 2021. Policy-Induced Innovation in Clean Technologies: Evidence from the Car Market. CESifo working paper no. 9422. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3969578Knittel, Christopher R. 2012. Automobiles on Steroids: Product Attribute Trade-Offs and Technological Progress in the Automobile Sector. American Economic Review 101: 3368-3399. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.7.3368Klier, Thomas, and Joshua Linn. 2016. The effect of vehicle economy standards on technology adoption. Journal of Public Economics 133: 41-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.11.002Kiso, Takahiko. 2019. Environmental Policy and Induced Technological Change: Evidence from Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations. Environmental and Resource Economics 74: 785-810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00347-6Reynaert, Mathias. 2021. Abatement Strategies and the Cost of Environmental Regulations: Emission Standards on the European Car Market. The Review of Economic Studies 88(1): 454-488. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa058Ahmadpoor, Mohammad, and Benjamin F. Jones. 2017. The Dual Frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science 357(6351): 583-587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9527Roach, Michael, and Wesley M. Cohen. 2013. Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research. Management Science 59(2): 504-525. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1644

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2021-2022 Repenser le capitalisme

Capitalism is in crisis. Inequality is rising and climate change means we need to make drastic changes to the way we do business. The COVID-19 pandemic, too, has exposed numerous flaws in our current systems.   But is capitalism dead, or can we re-imagine it in a way that will keep society prosperous, promote social justice and re-green our planet?  As calls for radical change grow, French economist Philippe Aghion believes that we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. He argues it's possible to create a better capitalism by harnessing the power of creative destruction – the process by which new innovations continually emerge and render existing technologies obsolete.  Listen to Philippe Aghion in conversation with UNSW economist Richard Holden as they discuss how the transformation of capitalism can achieve a more sustainable and inclusive prosperity, and how this might impact on politics and democracy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Originally recorded on Friday, September 17, 2021 for the CID Speaker Series, featuring ​Philippe Aghion, Professor at the College de France, at INSEAD, and at the London School of Economics. Aghion continued the conversation with our CID Student Ambassador Ana Alvarez after an appearance at the virtual CID Speaker Series event where they shared insights from his research and book, The Power of Creative Destruction. Creative destruction is the process whereby new innovations displace old technologies. This talk will use the lens of creative destruction and of the so-called Schumpeterian growth paradigm to: (i) address some main enigma in the history of economic growth; (ii) question common wisdoms on growth policy design; (iii) rethink the future of capitalism, and how to direct the power of creative destruction to achieve sustained, greener, and more inclusive prosperity. Philippe Aghion is a Professor at the College de France, at INSEAD, and at the London School of Economics, and a fellow of the Econometric Society and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. His research focuses on the economics of growth. With Peter Howitt, he pioneered the so-called Schumpeterian Growth paradigm which was subsequently used to analyze the design of growth policies and the role of the state in the growth process. Much of this work is summarized in their joint book Endogenous Growth Theory (MIT Press, 1998) and The Economics of Growth (MIT Press, 2009), in his book with Rachel Griffith on Competition and Growth (MIT Press, 2006), and in his survey “What Do We Learn from Schumpeterian Growth Theory” (joint with U. Akcigit and P. Howitt.) In 2001, Philippe Aghion received the Yrjo Jahnsson Award of the best European economist under age 45, in 2009 he received the John Von Neumann Award, and in March 2020 he shared the BBVA “Frontier of Knowledge Award” with Peter Howitt for “developing an economic growth theory based on the innovation that emerges from the process of creative destruction.”

Philippe Aghion is professor of economics at the London School of Economics and Collège de France and INSEAD, and formerly of Harvard University. He joins BCG Global Chief Economist Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak in conversation to discuss his new book The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations, a broad take on the different variants of capitalism and their shortcomings. Among other things, the conversation zooms in on the trade-off between innovation/growth and social protection and what could be done to balance these more effectively. Prof. Aghion makes the case that capitalism can both be innovative and inclusive if the right policies are pursued. *** About the BCG Henderson Institute The BCG Henderson Institute is the Boston Consulting Group's think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, economics, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration, sign up to receive BHI INSIGHTS, our monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Gab Aghion is Director at and leader of BRM, a boutique property advisory firm in Melbourne that finds, creates and delivers workspaces that support and nurture their clients' people. Gab joins Darren Krakowiak on this episode of CRE Success: The Podcast for a wide-ranging interview to share his perspectives on entrepreneurship, leadership and client relationships.  To learn more about Gab, visit his LinkedIn profile. To get more ways to find new clients in your market, grab your free copy of The A to Z of CRE  Prospecting: https://www.cresuccess.co/abc To find out when we go live with the Seven Keys to Success in commercial real estate, or find out more about our global community, go to https://www.cresuccess.co/membership CRE Success: The Podcast is online at cresuccess.co/podcast To share this episode or your thoughts on it, tag us on social media: @cresuccess or use our hashtag: #cresuccess Voiceover: Tracey Szymanski Podcast music sourced from audioblocks.com

The world’s biggest businesses are massive, spanning countries and continents. Now they're getting even larger, and that may not be a good thing. In the past few decades alone, the largest 50 firms have tripled their profit. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Google together make more money in a week than McDonald's makes in an entire year. On this week’s podcast, host Stephanie Flanders talks with Bloomberg’s Chief Economist Tom Orlik about what the rise of these mega-companies could mean for the global economy.  London School of Economics Professor Philippe Aghion joins Flanders to explain why the rise of big tech, once great for innovation and growth, is no longer. Aghion also discusses his plan for getting the very best out of capitalists. And French economy reporter William Horobin explains why the campaign to extract tax from the tech giants just got a lot more interesting.

durée : 00:24:18 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - Philippe Aghion, économiste, professeur au Collège de France, est l'invité du Grand entretien de France Inter.

durée : 01:59:57 - Le 7/9 - Thomas Chatterton Williams, écrivain et essayiste, auteur de Autoportrait en noir et blanc, désapprendre l'idée de race (Grasset), et Philippe Aghion, économiste, professeur au Collège de France, sont les invités du 7/9 de France Inter.

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations

Philippe Aghion Collège de France Économie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance Année 2020-2021 Destruction créatrice et richesse des nations