w*********g
发帖数: 30882 | 1 明天，美国还能创新吗？
法里德·扎卡里亚
法里德·扎卡里亚
《华盛顿邮报》专栏作家，《后美国世界》
发表时间：2015-01-18 09:15:05
字号：A-AA+
关键字: 美国美国复兴创新科技创新硅谷信息技术信息革命政府支持
（编者按：近年来中国科技创新呈井喷式发展，观察者网最近刊发了孙涤教授关于创新
的系列文章，相形之下，美国企业的技术创新则困难多多。这种困难不仅来自于技术和
工业生产能力的衰减，更有意识形态方面的困扰。如政府对企业创新到底应否提供支持
，在当前的语境下似乎成了一个特别需要讨论的问题，而这在上一次美国技术创新井喷
期本来是一个不需要讨论的问题。他山之石，可以攻玉。美国的情况也许值得中国参考
。）
今天，美国的种种创新给全世界留下了印象深刻。在欧洲和亚洲，我不断听到当地人赞
扬美国的创新和创业精神。但是，新的研究表明，在Facebook、Snapchat和Uber等一串
串耀眼夺目的案例背后，美国的创新实际上处于困境。
罗伯特·利坦在最近一期《外交事务》杂志上写道：“在过去30年里，美国初创公司的
形成速度已经显著放缓，而技术产业的龙头企业大多都是老牌企业。” 1978年，新成
立不到一年的初创公司占全美国公司总数的近15％；但到了2011年，这一比例已下滑至
8％。利坦指出：“如今，企业破产率超过企业新生率，这是三十年来头一次。”
NASA为许多科技创新公司的崛起提供了重要支持。
美国公司变老了。利坦注意到，“成熟公司，也就是成立16年以上的公司，在全美公司
总量中的占比从1992年的23%上升到2011年的34%。”从历史上看，这个趋势将造成问题
，因为老牌公司比年轻公司更注重规避风险，更僵化，也更局限于微创新。
利坦提出了一系列不带党派偏私的解决方案，可谓不无道理：通过移民，吸引更多兼具
技术实力与风险偏好的人才——他们是创业创新的生力军。此外，还需定期评议监管制
度，减少不利于普通人创业的规章制度，降低互联网融资的门槛。建立和维护覆盖全社
会的医疗保健网络，为跳出舒适地带的离职创业者们扫除后顾之忧。
创业精神并不是创新的全部，技术也是创新的重要组成部分。尽管美国的创新被吹得天
花乱坠，仍有不少人认为，美国人并非生活在一个创新的时代。亿万富豪皮特·泰尔的
风投公司创始人基金（Founders Fund）对推特的评价一语中的：“我们想要能飞的汽
车，但我们只得到了140个字符。”
大量证据显示，信息技术彻底地改变了我们的世界，并将继续改造医疗和教育等行业。
但要知道，信息技术的崛起是多年投资结出的果实，如今我们急于将创新的果实连核带
种一起吃掉，没人去为下一次技术革命松土灌溉。
硅谷为什么成功？来自硅谷的人列出许多因素——诸如承受失败的能力、去层级化的制
度、竞争文化等等，但几乎没有人会提及政府的作用。然而，孵化期的硅谷是与政府支
持紧密不可分的。上世纪五六十年代，加州之所以能汇聚这么多工程师，是因为美国国
防工业巨头在当地吸引技术人才。许多点燃计算机革命火炬的传奇性初创公司——譬如
仙童半导体、因特尔等——之所以能生存下来，是因为美国军方和国家航空航天局（
NASA）都一直采购这些公司的产品，直到它们足够低价化、平民化，能够适应更广阔的
商业市场。又比如，推动当今信息革命的全球定位系统（GPS），最初是为美国军方开
发的。
有时候，人们将政府的研究投入简单地等同于拨给高校的基础科学项目补助金，但事实
上这种投入往往更加巧妙。我最喜欢的例子来自传记作家沃尔特·艾萨克森的新作《创
新者》——20世纪50年代，美国政府资助了麻省理工学院林肯实验室的重大项目。该项
目聘请了同等数量的心理学家和工程师，共同致力于寻找让“人类与计算机互动更加直
观，呈现信息界面更加友好”的方式。该项目直接诞生出今天得到广泛应用的用户友好
型电脑屏幕，以及ARPANET(美国高等研究计划署网络)——即现代互联网的前身。
联邦政府对基础研究和技术的资助不应受到任何争议，因为这算得上是人类历史上最伟
大的投资。然而，政府科研投资占GDP的百分比已经跌至四十年来的最低水平。与此同
时，其他国家已经开始在创业和研究等领域奋起直追。今天，要感受真正的创业文化，
你得去瑞典、以色列、北京和班加罗尔。中国在研发上的投入正在比肩乃至超越美国。
但美国还有希望。印度企业家阿贾伊·皮拉马尔对我说：“美国如此成功的原因之一是
这个国家不断地进行自我批评，这些批评让你永远不能自满。”当外国人赞扬美国今天
的创新时，作为美国人，我们应该确保明天还有能力创新。
（原载于《华盛顿邮报》，题为《American innovation is in trouble》观察者网杨
晗轶译）
American innovation is in trouble
By Fareed Zakaria, Thursday, January 1, 2015
The Washington Post
The world is impressed with the United States these days. On recent trips to
Europe and Asia, I kept hearing praise of the country’s innovation and
entrepreneurship. But a set of new studies suggests that the glittering
examples of Facebook, Snapchat and Uber are deceptive. American innovation
is in trouble.
“Over the past 30 years, the rate of start-up formation in the United
States has slowed markedly, and the technology industry has come to be
dominated by older companies,” writes Robert Litan in the current issue of
Foreign Affairs. In 1978, start-ups — companies less than a year old —
made up almost 15 percent of all U.S. companies. But by 2011, that figure
had slumped to 8 percent. “For the first time in three decades, business
deaths exceeded business births,” notes Litan.
U.S. companies are also getting older. Litan notes that “the proportion of
U.S. companies considered mature, meaning at least 16 years old, rose from
23 percent of all firms in 1992 to 34 percent in 2011.” The problem with
this trend is that, historically, older firms are more risk-averse, rigid
and incrementally innovative than young ones.
Litan’s solutions are sensible and bipartisan: Let in more talented
immigrants who combine technological prowess with an appetite for risk —
and who are disproportionately likely to start new firms. Regularly review
and thin out regulations that make it difficult for the average person to
start a company. Make it easier for people to raise money for their ideas
over the Internet. And maintain near-universal health care so that people
can risk leaving an established company without worrying about their family
’s health.
Innovation is partly about entrepreneurship but also about technology. And
there are some, such as billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel, who argue that
, despite the hype, we don’t actually live in innovative times. Founders
Fund, Thiel’s venture capital firm, put it pithily: “We wanted flying cars
, instead we got 140 characters,” referring to Twitter.
I think there’s strong evidence that information technology has been
utterly transforming and will continue to transform, moving into industries
such as health care and education. But my worry is that the rise of IT was
the fruit of many years of investment. We are eating seed corn but not
laying the groundwork for the next great technological revolutions.
If you ask people in Silicon Valley what makes it work, they will talk about
many things — the ability to fail, the lack of hierarchy, the culture of
competition. One thing almost no one mentions is the government. And yet,
the Valley’s origins are deeply tied to government support. The reason
there were so many engineers in California in the 1950s and 1960s was
because large defense companies had attracted them there. Most of the
legendary start-ups that fueled the computer revolution — Fairchild
Semiconductor, Intel — got off the ground largely because the military, and
later NASA, would buy their products until they became cheap and accessible
enough for the broader commercial market. GPS, the technology that now
powers the information revolution, was developed for the military.
And then there was government funding for research, which is sometimes
thought of simply as large grants to universities for basic science but
often was far more ingenious. My favorite example comes from Walter Isaacson
’s fascinating new book, “The Innovators.” In the 1950s, the U.S.
government funded a massive project at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory, employing
equal numbers of psychologists and engineers who worked together to find
ways “that humans could interact more intuitively with computers and
information could be presented with a friendlier interface.” Isaacson
traces how this project led directly to the user-friendly computer screens
of today as well as ARPANET, the precursor of the Internet.
Federal funding for basic research and technology should be utterly
uncontroversial. It has been one of the greatest investments in human
history. And yet it has fallen to its lowest level as a percentage of GDP in
four decades. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is catching up in
entrepreneurship and research. A real start-up culture is emerging in Sweden
, Israel, Beijing and Bangalore. China is on track to surpass the United
States in spending on research and development.
But there is hope. Ajay Piramal, a thoughtful Indian businessman, said to me
, “I think one of the reasons that the United States is so successful is
that it constantly criticizes itself. All that criticism makes sure that you
never get complacent.” So while foreigners praise U.S. innovation today,
Americans should set about making sure that there is innovation tomorrow as
well. | w*********g
发帖数: 30882 | 2 美国的科研投入，都被老黑老墨吃掉了。可惜由于政治正确，这些原因不能说。 |
|
