Podcast appearances and mentions of Benjamin F Jones

Prior to the 2000s, many European countries practiced something called “the professor's privilege” wherein university professors retained patent rights to inventions they made while employed at the university. This was a “privilege” because the norm is for patent ownership to be assigned to the organization that employs an inventor; professors were an exception to this norm. American universities, in contrast, had long followed a different approach, where patent rights were typically assigned to the university, who managed commercialization efforts. Professors then split the proceeds of commercializing their inventions with the university.There had long been a sense that commercialization of university research worked better in America, and in the 2000s a number of European countries reformed their laws to move them closer in spirit to the American system. Professors lost their privilege and universities got more into the commercialization game. If the goal of this reform was to encourage more professors to invent things that could be commercialized, several papers indicate this policy was a mistake.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article Incentives to Invent at Universities, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentionedHvide, Hans K., and Benjamin F. Jones. 2018. University innovation and the professor's privilege. American Economic Review, 108 (7): 1860–98. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160284Ejermo, Olof, and Hannes Toivanen. 2018. University invention and the abolishment of the professor's privilege in Finland. Research Policy 47 (4): 814-825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.001.Czarnitzki, Dirk, Thorsten Doherr, Katrin Hussinger, Paula Schliessler, and Andrew A Toole. 2017. Individual versus institutional ownership of university-discovered inventions. USPTO Economic Working Paper No. 2017-07. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2995672Valentin, F., and R.L. Jensen. 2007. Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. J Technol Transfer 32: 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9015-xOuellette, Lisa Larrimore, and Andrew Tutt. 2020. How do patent incentives affect university researchers? International Review of Law and Economics 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2019.105883.

Doomsday scenarios are the currency of the day when it comes to artificial intelligence's impact on the jobs market.  But technologists aren't always that great at economic forecasting. To help us sort through the hype, we're joined this episode by Mike Burt, Vice-President at the Conference Board of Canada and Benjamin F. Jones, Professor of Strategy at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Illinois. Mike and Ben share their assessments of how artificial intelligence is impacting jobs—drawing a key distinction between whole jobs and the various tasks that make up a job.  You'll hear why the promise of this new technology represents a sea change in the way that economists have thought about the risks from job automation.  You'll hear what fears they think are real and whether they are optimistic that new technologies will help to address persistent challenges like Canada's underperforming innovation sector or broader economic inequality.About our guests:Michael Burt is a Vice President at The Conference Board of Canada and leads our Education & Skills and Economic Forecasting knowledge areas. He is also the executive lead for the work CBoC does with the Future Skills Centre. In his role, Michael oversees the convening and research activities of these different areas. Michael has more than 20 years of experience conducting and leading research activities.An economist by training, Professor Benjamin F. Jones studies the sources of economic growth in advanced economies, with an emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurship, and scientific progress.  He also studies global economic development, including the roles of education, climate, and national leadership in explaining the wealth and poverty of nations.  His research has appeared in journals such as Science, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the American Economic Review, and has been profiled in media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and The New Yorker.A former Rhodes Scholar, Professor Jones has served as the senior economist for macroeconomics for the White House Council of Economic Advisers and in the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  Professor Jones is a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he co-directs the Innovation Policy Working Group, a senior fellow of the Institute for Progress, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Additional information:www.conferenceboard.ca 

The premise of this podcast is that immigrants are job makers. But does this bear out in the data? Prof. Benjamin F. Jones, former economic advisor in the U.S. Treasury and the White House and now Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at the Kellog School of Management at Northwestern University, shows that not only do […]

The premise of this podcast is that immigrants are job makers. But does this bear out in the data? Prof. Benjamin F. Jones, former economic advisor in the U.S. Treasury and the White House and now Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at the Kellog School of Management at Northwestern University, shows that not only do the data show that immigrants are far more likely to start a business in... Source

The premise of this podcast is that immigrants are job makers. But does this bear out in the data? Prof. Benjamin F. Jones, former economic advisor in the U.S. Treasury and the White House and now Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at the Kellog School of Management at Northwestern University, shows that not only do the data show that immigrants are far more likely to start a business in the U.S., they are also innovating at a higher rate that benefits the nation.

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: Unjournal: Evaluations of "Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth", and new hosting space, published by david reinstein on March 17, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. New set of evaluations The Unjournal evaluations of Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth, by prominent economists Philippe Aghion, Benjamin F. Jones, Charles I. Jones – are up. You can read these on our new PubPub community space , along with my discussion of the process and the insights and the 'evaluation metrics', and the authors' response. Thanks to the authors for their participation (reward early-adopters who stick their necks out!), and thanks to Philip Trammel and Seth Benzell for detailed and insightful evaluation.I discussed some of the reasons we 'took on' this paper in an earlier post. The discussion of AI's impact on the economy, what it might look like (in magnitude and in its composition), how to measure and model it, and what conditions lead to "growth explosions", seem especially relevant to recent events and discussion. "Self-correcting" science? I'm particularly happy about one outcome here. If you were a graduate student reading the paper, or were a professional delving into the economics literature, and had seen the last step of the equations pasted below (from the originally published paper/chapter), what would you think? The final step in fact contains an error; the claimed implication does not follow. From my discussion: ... we rarely see referees and colleagues actually reading and checking the math and proofs in their peers' papers. Here Phil Trammel did so and spotted an error in a proof of one of the central results of the paper (the ‘singularity' in Example 3). ... The authors have acknowledged this error ... confirmed the revised proof, and link a marked up version on their page. This is ‘self-correcting research', and it's great! Even though the same result was preserved, I believe this provides a valuable service. Readers of the paper who saw the incorrect proof (particularly students) might be deeply confused. They might think ‘Can I trust this papers' other statements?' ‘Am I deeply misunderstanding something here? Am I not suited for this work?' Personally, this happened to me a lot in graduate school; at least some of the time it may have been because of errors and typos in the paper. I suspect many math-driven paper also contain flaws which are never spotted, and these sometimes may affect the substantive results (unlike in the present case). By the way, the marked up 'corrected' paper is here, and the corrected proof is here. (Caveat: Philip and the authors have agreed on the revised corrected proof, it might benefit from an independent verification.) New (additional) platform: PubPub We are trying out the PubPub platform. We are still maintaining our Sciety page, and we aim to import the content from one to the other, for greater visibility. Some immediate benefits of PubPub... It lets us assign 'digital object identifiers' (DOIs) for each evaluation, response, and summary. It puts these and the works referenced into the 'CrossRef' database. Jointly, this should (hopefully) enable indexing in Google Scholar and other academic search engines, And 'bibliometrics' (citation counts etc.0 It seems to enable evaluations of work hosted anywhere that has a DOI (published, preprints, etc.) It's versatile and full-featured, enabling input from and output from a range of formats, as well as community input and discussion It's funded by a non-profit and seems fairly mission-aligned More coming soon, updates The Unjournal has several more impactful papers evaluated and being evaluated, which we hope to post soon. For a sense of what's coming, see our 'Direct Evaluation track' focusing on NBER working papers. Some other updates: We are pursuing collaborations wit...

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: Growth Theory Reading List, published by LuisMota on October 12, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The reading list below is based on a reading list originally used for an internal GPI reading group in spring 2021, organized by Phil Trammell and Leopold Aschenbrenner, and on the ETGP 2022 syllabus, also organized by Phil. I also added a few resources I deemed relevant on some of the topics below, but the credit for almost all of these resources goes to Phil and Leopold. My suggested usage for this reading list is in conjunction with, and as a complement to, the slides for the first week of ETGP 2022 (available here), as the course was specifically designed to teach economic theory in a global prioritization context. As such, the structure of the reading list matches that of the course. Disclaimer: The views presented in the readings suggested below do not necessarily represent views held by the reading group organizers, me, GPI, or any other GPI staff member. Motivation There are two main reasons why growth theory is particularly relevant for EAs. First, growth models allow for a lot of flexibility regarding which factors are included in the model, and which timescale one uses to evaluate the effects of changes in these factors. These characteristics make growth models useful even if one is ultimately only interested in factors other than economic growth, like AI or climate change. Second, economic growth plays a central role in the contemporary world, in a way that understanding its dynamics is likely key for global prioritization. 1. Introduction and basic models Jones, Charles I., and Dietrich Vollrath. 2013. Introduction to Economic Growth. Chapter 2, up to section 2.1.4 Trammell, Philip. 2020. “Economic Growth under Transformative AI.” Section 2 2. Accumulation-based models and growth versus level effects Jones, Charles I., and Dietrich Vollrath. 2013. Introduction to Economic Growth. Chapter 9 Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Section “Too Much Capital Kills the Return on Capital” up to and including “Capital-Labor Substitution in the Twenty-First Century: An Elasticity Greater Than One” Jones, Charles I. 2003. “Growth, Capital Shares, and a New Perspective on Production Functions.” 3. Scale effects in researcher-based models Jones, Charles I. 2005. “Growth and Ideas.” Section 1 Section 3 Section 5 (skip 5.4) Sections 6.1 and 6.2 Bloom, Nicholas, Charles I. Jones, John Van Reenen, and Michael Webb. 2020. “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?” Introduction See figures in the slides Bond-Smith, Steven. 2019. “The Decades-Long Dispute Over Scale Effects in the Theory of Economic Growth.” 4. Existential risk and growth Aschenbrenner, Leopold. 2020. “Existential Risk and Growth.” Trammell, Philip. 2021. “Existential Risk and Exogenous Growth.” Hilton, Benjamin. 2021. “Existential Risk Mitigation as a Public Good.” Hilary Greaves's lecture on longtermism and economic growth 5. Long-run historical growth Kremer, Michael. 1993. “Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990.” Jones, Charles I. “Economic Growth over the Very Long Run.” Roodman, David. 2021. “On the Probability Distribution of Long-Term Changes in the Growth Rate of the Global Economy: An Outside View.” 6. The mechanics of the industrial revolution “phase change” Galor, Oded, and David N. Weil. 2000. “Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and Beyond.” Crafts, Nicholas. 2011. “Explaining the First Industrial Revolution: Two Views.” 7. AI and growth Trammell, Philip. 2020. “Economic Growth under Transformative AI.” Section 1 Sections 3.1-3.3 Section 4.1-4.2 Section 5.2 Section 6 Section 7 Aghion, Philippe, Benjamin F Jones, and Charles I Jones. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth.” GovAI P...

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

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

Suppose we think there should be more research on some topic: asteroid deflection, the efficacy of social distancing, building safe artificial intelligence, etc. How do we get scientists to work more on the topic? This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article , published on New Things Under the Sun. Articles mentioned:Myers, Kyle. 2020. The Elasticity of Science. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12(4): 103-34. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180518Hill, Ryan, Yian Yin, Carolyn Stein, Dashun Wang, and Benjamin F. Jones. 2021. Adaptability and the Pivot Penalty in Science. SSRN Working Paper. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886142Bhattacharya, Jay, and Mikko Packalen. 2011. Opportunities and benefits as determinants of the direction of scientific research. Journal of Health Economics 30(4): 603-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.05.007Akerlof, George A., and Pascal Michaillat. 2018. Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences. PNAS 115(52): 13228-13233. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816454115Arts, Sam, and Lee Fleming. 2018. Paradise of Novelty - or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output. Organization Science 29(6): 1074-1092. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1216Azoulay, Pierre, Joshua S. Graff Zivin, and Gustavo Manso. 2011. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527-554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.xBrogaard, Jonathan, Joseph Engelberg, and Edward Van Wesep. 2018. Do Economists Swing for the Fences after Tenure? Journal of Economic Perspectives 32(1): 179-94. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.1.179

 It's long been assumed that the best sorts of innovation happen when smart people work in an environment where spontaneous face-to-face interaction is the norm. Importantly, if that's true, it implies the widespread transition to more remote work - where spontaneous face-to-face interaction is not possible - poses a threat to innovation. In this podcast, I want to look at a case study for a sector that:engages in frontier knowledge workhas strong incentives to adopt practices that produce better outcomeshas been well studiedhas increasingly moved to a model of remote collaborationI am talking, of course, about academia. This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article An example of successful innovation by distributed teams: academia, published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles Mentioned:Agrawal, Ajay, John McHale, and Alexander Oettl. 2015. Collaboration, Stars, and the Changing Organization of Science: Evidence from Evolutionary Biology. In The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, eds. Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones, pgs. 75-102. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13038Freeman, Richard B., Ina Ganguli, Raviv Murciano-Goroff. 2015. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration. In The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, eds. Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones, pgs. 17-48. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13040Clancy, Matthew. 2020. The Case for Remote Work. The Entrepreneurs Network Briefing Paper. Agrawal, Ajay, John McHale, and Alexander Oettl. 2017. How stars matter: Recruiting and peer effects in evolutionary biology. Research Policy 46(4): 853-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.007Dubois, Pierre, Jean-Charles Rochet, and Jean-Marc Schlenker. 2014. Productivity and mobility in academic research: evidence from mathematicians. Scientometrics 98: 1669-1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1112-7Waldinger, Fabian. 2012. Peer Effects in Science: Evidence from the Dismissal of Scientists in Nazi Germany. The Review of Economic Studies 79(2): 838-861. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr029Waldinger, Fabian. 2016. Bombs, Brains, and Science: The Role of Human and Physical Capital for the Creation of Scientific Knowledge. The Review of Economics and Statistics 98(5): 811-831. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00565Azoulay, Pierre, Joshua S. Graff Zivin, and Jialan Wang. 2010. Superstar Extinction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(2): 549-589. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.549Kim, E. Han, Adair Morse, and Luigi Zingales. 2009. Are elite universities losing their competitive edge? Journal of Financial Economics 93(3): 353-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.09.007Head, Keith, Yao Amber Li, and Asier Minondo. 2019. Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics. The Review of Economics and Statistics 101(4): 713-727. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00771Hellmanzik, Christiane, and Lukas Kuld. 2021. No place like ho

Maybe one of the most important functions of cities is to introduce us to new people. Being close seems to be very important for initiating and consolidating new relationships, but once those relationships are formed it's no longer so important that you stay physically close - at least from the perspective of facilitating innovation.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article Why Proximity Matters: Who You Know, published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentioned:Catalini, Christian. 2018. Microgeography and the Direction of Inventive Activity. Management Science 64(9): 4348-4364. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2798Agrawal, Ajay, Iain Cockburn and John McHale. 2006. Gone but not forgotten: knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography 6: 571-591. https://doi:10.1093/jeg/1b1016Miguelez, Ernest, and Claudia Noumedem Temgoua. 2020. Inventor migration and knowledge flows: A two-way communication channel? Research Policy 49(9): 103914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103914Head, Keith, Yao Amber Li, Asier Minondo. 2019. Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics. Review of Economic Studies 104(4): 713-727. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00771Freeman, Richard B., Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff. 2015. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration. Chapter in The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, eds. Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones: 17-48. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226286860.003.0002

Two different lines of evidence suggest 20 years is a good rule of thumb for how long it takes to go from science to technology: statistical correlations between R&D and productivity, and citations between patents and scientific articles.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article How long does it take to go from science to technology?, published in New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentioned:Adams, James D. 1990. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy 98(4): 673-702. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937764Baldos, Uris Lantz, Frederi G. Viens, Thomas W. Hertel, and Keith O. Fuglie. 2018. R&D spending, knowledge capital, and agricultural productivity growth: a Bayesian approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(1): 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay039Marx, Matt, and Aaron Fuegi. 2020. Reliance on science: Worldwide front-page patent citations to scientific articles. Strategic Management Journal 41(9): 1572-1594. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3145Marx, Matt, and Aaron Fuegi. 2020. Reliance on science by inventors: hybrid extraction of in-text patent-to-article citations. NBER Working Paper 27987. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3718899Arora, Ashish, Sharon Belenzon, and Lia Sheer. 2017. Back to basics: why do firms invest in research? NBER Working Paper 23187. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2920404Watzinger, Martin, and Monika Schnitzer. 2019. Standing on the Shoulders of Science. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP13766. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3401853Ahmadpoor, Mohammad, and Benjamin F. Jones. 2017. The Dual Frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science357(6351): 583-587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9527

We tend to think science often leads to new technologies; but actually most patents don't cite any scientific articles at all and surveys also tell us a lot of invention doesn't owe anything directly to science. But what about indirectly?This podcast is an read through of the (initial version of the) article Ripples in the River of Knowledge, published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentioned:Marx, Matt, and Aaron Fuegi. 2020. Reliance on science: Worldwide front-page patent citations to scientific articles. Strategic Managements Journal 41(9): 1572-1594. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3145Harhoff, Dietmar and Mariani, Myriam and Giuri, Paola and Brusoni, Stefano and Crespi, Gustavo and Francoz, Dominique and Gambardella, Alfonso and Garcia-Fontes, Walter and Geuna, Aldo and Gonzales, Raul and Hoisl, Karin and Le Bas, Christian and Luzzi, Alessandra and Magazzini, Laura and Nesta, Lionel and Nomaler, Önder and Palomeras, Neus and Patel, Parimal and Romanelli, Marzia and Verspagen, Bart. 2006. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Inventors (But Never Asked): Evidence from the Patval-Eu Survey. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5752: https://ssrn.com/abstract=924898Roach, 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.1120.1644Ahmadpoor, Mohammad, and Benjamin F. Jones. 2017. The Dual Frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science357(6351): 583-587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9527Ashish, Arora, Sharon Belenzon, and Jungkyu Suh. 2021. Science and the Market for Technology. NBER Working Paper 28534. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28534

When it comes to federal investment in research and development, failures like Solyndra are held up as evidence of wasteful government spending while success stories go largely unnoticed. But what kind of returns do we see on investments in scientific research by government? And should government funding emphasize basic or more practical, applied research? To answer those questions and more, I'm joined today by Benjamin F. Jones. Ben is a professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Northwestern University as well as the faculty director of the Kellogg Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. This summer he authored "https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones-ben/htm/Science%20and%20Innovation%20_%20Underfueled%20Engine%20of%20Prosperity.pdf (Science and Innovation: The Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity)."

When it comes to federal investment in research and development, failures like Solyndra are held up as evidence of wasteful government spending while success stories go largely unnoticed. But what kind of returns do we see on investments in scientific research by government? And should government funding emphasize basic or more practical, applied research? To answer those questions and more, I’m joined today by Benjamin F. Jones. Ben is a professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Northwestern University as well as the faculty director of the Kellogg Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. This summer he authored “Science and Innovation: The Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity.”

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger? Dan and Akin go back and forth over a research paper that proves the old adage correct. It is possible, probable even, that by persevering through failure, you come out the other side harder, better, faster, stronger.  - Research Paper: 'Early-career setback and future career impact' by Yang Wang, Benjamin F. Jones & Dashun Wang

Benjamin F. Jones, Faculty Director at Kellogg Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative (KIEI), speaks with host Loren Steffy about his new study on the relationship between immigration and the job market.

Benjamin F. Jones is the Gordon and Llura Gund Family Professor of Entrepreneurship, a Professor of Strategy, and the faculty director of the Kellogg Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. An economist by training, Professor Jones studies the sources of economic growth in advanced economies, with an emphasis innovation, entrepreneurship, and scientific progress. He also studies global economic development, including the roles of education, climate, and national leadership in explaining the wealth and poverty of nations. His research has appeared in journals such as Science, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the American Economic Review, and has been profiled in media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and The New Yorker.A former Rhodes Scholar, Professor Jones served in 2010-2011 as the senior economist for macroeconomics for the White House Council of Economic Advisers and earlier served in the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Professor Jones is a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger? Dan and Akin go back and forth over a research paper that proves the old adage correct. It is possible, probable even, that by persevering through failure, you come out the other side harder, better, faster, stronger. - Research Paper: 'Early-career setback and future career impact' by Yang Wang, Benjamin F. Jones & Dashun Wang