One problem with averaging all R&D in the world is that some of it might be much more effective at improving economic growth than other research. I don’t know where you get the $2 trillion global annual research spend value but I wonder how much of this is things like:
focus group research on whether people prefer breakfast cereal A to B
market research on which social media algorithm is best for marketing product X
research on producing better tank armour, then research on how to produce missiles to pierce that armour and make it redundant and so on.
It seems like a more targeted approach to R&D specifically aiming at improving economic growth could be magnitudes more effective than “average” R&D
A second caveat is that we’ve estimated the average impact of marginal R&D funding. Of course, the actual impact of any particular grant could be much larger or much smaller than this, depending on the project being funded. If a funder can consistently identify particularly promising projects, their impact could be larger than my estimate. One way to do this might be to focus on R&D projects that are specifically designed to help the global poor. Just as $1 goes further when transferred to the global poor, so too R&D might be more effective when targeted in this way.
Some of those involved with Progress Studies think accelerating innovation should be the world’s top priority. I discuss ways in which my outlook differs from theirs in this appendix.
And in the appendix:
I expect, partly based on unpublished work by Open Philanthropy, that some such opportunities do meet the GHW bar. In other words, I think that some interventions to boost innovation are among the best in the world for improving wellbeing.
I agree you can probably beat this average by aiming specifically at R&D for boosting economic growth.
I’d be surprised if you could spend $100s millions per year and consistently beat the average by a large amount (>5X) though:
The $2 trillion number also excludes plenty of TFP-increasing research work done by firms that don’t report R&D like Walmart and many services firms.
The broad areas where this feels most plausible to me (R&D in computing or fundamental bio-tech) are also the areas that have the biggest potential downsides risks.
To have impact you need to fund projects that wouldn’t otherwise receive funding
Governments and other funders want to fund things that increase growth. I’m sceptical you can be (e.g.) 10X as good as these funders at identifying bets ex ante.
Another relevant point is that some interventions increase R&D inputs in a non-targeted, or weakly targeted, way. E.g. high-skill immigration to the US or increasing government funding for broad R&D pots. The ‘average R&D’ number seems particularly useful for these interventions.
One problem with averaging all R&D in the world is that some of it might be much more effective at improving economic growth than other research. I don’t know where you get the $2 trillion global annual research spend value but I wonder how much of this is things like:
focus group research on whether people prefer breakfast cereal A to B
market research on which social media algorithm is best for marketing product X
research on producing better tank armour, then research on how to produce missiles to pierce that armour and make it redundant and so on.
It seems like a more targeted approach to R&D specifically aiming at improving economic growth could be magnitudes more effective than “average” R&D
This is actually mentioned in the report: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/social-returns-to-productivity-growth/#the_best_pro_growth
And in the appendix:
Sorry for the slow reply!
I agree you can probably beat this average by aiming specifically at R&D for boosting economic growth.
I’d be surprised if you could spend $100s millions per year and consistently beat the average by a large amount (>5X) though:
The $2 trillion number also excludes plenty of TFP-increasing research work done by firms that don’t report R&D like Walmart and many services firms.
The broad areas where this feels most plausible to me (R&D in computing or fundamental bio-tech) are also the areas that have the biggest potential downsides risks.
To have impact you need to fund projects that wouldn’t otherwise receive funding
Governments and other funders want to fund things that increase growth. I’m sceptical you can be (e.g.) 10X as good as these funders at identifying bets ex ante.
Another relevant point is that some interventions increase R&D inputs in a non-targeted, or weakly targeted, way. E.g. high-skill immigration to the US or increasing government funding for broad R&D pots. The ‘average R&D’ number seems particularly useful for these interventions.