{"id":1331,"date":"2025-04-14T21:08:20","date_gmt":"2025-04-14T21:08:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.horoscope-conseil.com\/?p=1331"},"modified":"2025-04-14T21:51:00","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T21:51:00","slug":"canada-is-lagging-in-innovation-and-thats-a-problem-for-funding-the-programs-we-care-about","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.horoscope-conseil.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/14\/canada-is-lagging-in-innovation-and-thats-a-problem-for-funding-the-programs-we-care-about\/","title":{"rendered":"Canada is lagging in innovation, and that\u2019s a problem for funding the programs we care about"},"content":{"rendered":"
As Canadians prepare to vote in another federal election, the country\u2019s economy faces a sobering reality. As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development<\/a> (OECD) notes, productivity is stagnating, our innovation performance lags global peers and high-potential startups often fail to scale.<\/p>\n Despite these warning signs, innovation policy remains largely absent from political discourse. Canadians hear a great deal about how political parties are going to spend money, but little about where the money is going to come from<\/a>. <\/p>\n This is a critical oversight. Canada\u2019s enduring productivity gap is more than an economic statistic \u2014 it\u2019s why the country is struggling to sustain<\/a> the social programs, such as health care and education, that Canadians value.<\/p>\n If Canadians want to maintain their standard of living, Canada must close that gap through a more deliberate, strategic approach to innovation.<\/p>\n In today\u2019s knowledge-based economy, as business executive and innovator<\/a> Jim Balsillie observes<\/a>, power flows to countries that own digital data and their \u201cvalue-added applications\u201d (like apps or platforms) and intellectual property. <\/p>\n Countries like the United States<\/a>, China and South Korea<\/a> have embedded innovation into national strategy, investing in sectors like artificial intelligence (AI), clean technology and biotech to drive growth and resilience. Canada, by contrast, has taken a fragmented, reactive approach.<\/p>\n Canada\u2019s over-reliance on research and development (R&D) spending and patent counts has failed to translate into commercial success. According to the OECD, Canada ranks among the highest in public R&D investment but among the lowest in innovation outcomes<\/a> such as productivity growth and technology adoption.<\/p>\n Canada also often conflates research with innovation. While both are vital, innovation is about turning knowledge into use through deployment, adoption, commercialization and scaling. Much of today\u2019s transformative innovation, particularly in AI and software, depends on the transfer of tacit knowledge<\/a> (related to things like user insights, execution experience and expertise in a particular domain) not just codified knowledge (for example, patents, technical drawings and licenses).<\/p>\n Governments struggle with innovation because it defies conventional policymaking:<\/p>\n It requires failure tolerance. Innovation is iterative. But political systems fear failure.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It demands long-term vision. Results may take years, beyond typical electoral cycles.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It\u2019s technically complex. Few policymakers have deep expertise in emerging technologies or understand the research and development process.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It\u2019s often misunderstood. Funding research is not the same as building innovation capacity or developing innovation processes.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It\u2019s hard to quantify. Quantifying innovation outcomes is complex and challenging to measure, making it also difficult to measure return. <\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n As economist and innovation policy expert Mariana Mazzucato argued in The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths<\/em>, innovation success depends on bold missions, cross-sector collaboration and a willingness to learn<\/a> from failure. Canada\u2019s current model lacks these ingredients.<\/p>\n To break this cycle, Canada needs a non-partisan national innovation institution \u2014 an agency empowered to advise on strategy, evaluate outcomes and embed technical expertise into policy at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.<\/p>\n Models like DARPA<\/a> from the U.S., Vinnova<\/a> from Sweden and the Israel Innovation Authority<\/a> show how long-term, high-impact innovation can be achieved with the right institutional scaffolding and appropriate knowledge. <\/p>\nInnovation is economic strategy<\/h2>\n
Why innovation policy fails<\/h2>\n
\n
Breaking the cycle of failure<\/h2>\n