Group items tagged

... mainstream economic theory does not help addressing innovation policies suited to the knowledge economy as it assumes away the complexities of innovation processes. This dissertation deals with the above-mentioned topic from the viewpoint of the Lisbon goal of competitiveness in the knowledge economy. First, the author asks why the creative sector could play an important role in the knowledge economy, how this relates to the Lisbon Agenda, and whether the arguments available to date are sound. The relevant literature suggests mainly that the creative sector has a strong nexus with the economy nowadays, and that it has entered the post-Fordist cycle, i.e. human creativity, knowledge and innovation are at the basis of its competitiveness. [....] In future, the creative sector is expected to further grow in European countries, and this is related to the opportunities offered by the conjunction of the so-named "big three" - digitization, convergence and globalization. Public institutions' adaptation and response to the "big three" to foster creative firms' adaptation would unleash high growth for the creative sector. In addition, its growth could feed the ICT sector who calls for cultural content, inter alia. This may favour the ICT sector uptake, which is the key sector in the Lisbon Strategy. The author finds the main concern is about the precision of current statistics. Indeed, the present census for the creative sector only allows for indicative figures. Thus, further and sounder evidence is required. Even so, it can be concluded that the creative sector can play an important role within the knowledge-economy in Europe but this is much about prospects and it depends on the adaptation to the "big three" as fostered by the state itself. The corresponding role of the state in formulating policies to boost the creative sector is explored by analyzing a case study, i.e. the Creative Economy Programme in the UK. This has developed a whole approach

daviding says: I've only read the abstract, but my guess is that "creative sector" would somehow link to Richard Florida's "creative class". There's an interesting pointer to the "Lisbon strategy", with which I'm not familiar, and the "big three" of digitalization, convergence and globalization (of whom I'm not sure named as "the big three"

daviding says: This is the first version of a quantitative study that could become an annual study. Note the 25 metrics in nine categories over three sets of main indicators (foundations, flows of resources, impacts).

... today we're publishing as The 2009 Shift Index, a new set of economic indicators built for the digital world. Because it focuses on longer-term, "secular" changes to the business environment, the Shift Index is designed as a complement to the overwhelmingly short-term, cyclical measures that comprise most of today's economic indices. The full report and findings are available here. And a summary version of the framework, index, and findings is now out in the July/August Harvard Business Review. In the months and years to come, this inaugural index, which focuses exclusively on the U.S. economy, will be regularly updated to track changes over time and expand the ability to compare performance trends across industries, countries, and firms. The Shift Index tracks 25 metrics in nine categories across three sets of main indicators: Foundations, which set the stage for major change; Flows of resources, such as knowledge, which allow businesses to enhance productivity; and Impacts, which help gauge progress at an economy-wide level. Together these indicators represent phases of transformation in the Big Shift taking place in the global business environment. What do the findings show? The 2009 Shift Index reveals a disquieting performance paradox in the US corporate sector. On the one hand, labor productivity has nearly doubled since 1965. During those same years, however, US companies' Return on Assets (ROA) progressively dropped 75 percent from their 1965 level.

daviding says: This is an interesting example of decomplexification (in the vocabulary of Tim Allen). Instead of integrating health services into a centralized facilities (i.e. complexifying), having doctors distributed nearer to the homes of patients can reduce costs. The difference between the era of Marcus Welby MD and today is that the Internet enables easy electronic sharing of patient records ... if the physicians and patients are willing to allow that free flow of information.

The primary-care doctor is gaining new respect in Washington. Battles may be breaking out left and right over the various health-care bills emerging from Congress, but reformers on both sides agree that general practitioners should be given a central role in uniting the fragmented U.S. medical system. This vision has a name: the "patient-centered medical home." The "home" is the office of a primary-care doctor where patients would go for most of their medical needs. The general practitioner would oversee everything from flu shots to chronic disease management to weight loss, and coordinate care with nurses, pharmacists, and specialists. A 2004 study estimated that if every patient had such a home, the resulting efficiencies might reduce U.S. health-care costs by 5.6%, a savings of $67 billion a year. [...] advocates say the new concept is designed to help patients, not insurers. It's more like doctoring 1950s-style, when a Marcus Welby figure handled all the family's medical needs. This time it's juiced up with digital technology. It also represents a politically painless way to streamline a disorganized and wasteful system that chews up a crippling 18% of the U.S. gross domestic product. That burden is felt particularly by private industry, which covers 60% of the nation's insured. Since most businesses try to ferret out waste and disorganization in their own operations, the medical home is a concept they can embrace in good conscience. One of the biggest advocates is IBM (IBM), which shelled out $1.3 billion last year on health benefits for its U.S. employees and retirees, equal to one month of the company's net income. Dr. Paul H. Grundy, 57, who holds the unusual title of director of health-care transformation for IBM, is a medical-home evangelist who led the company to start the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative, a coalition of some 500 large employers, insurers, consumer groups, and doctors. Part of his goal, he says, is to show that "emp