Search the archive.

For the United States and its allies, NFU has several military and political benefits. First, it would enhance crisis stability. A credible NFU policy would help decrease an opponent's trepidations about a U.S. first strike, thereby reducing the possibility that nuclear weapons are used accidentally, inadvertently, or deliberately in a severe crisis.

Second, NFU would give the United States a consistent and inherently credible nuclear policy. Although some states might question U.S. political resolve to use nuclear weapons first, adversaries cannot dismiss the possibility of a nuclear response after U.S. interests have been attacked with nuclear weapons. The threat to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack is highly credible, and it is a threat that U.S. political leaders should want to execute if deterrence fails.

Strategic retirements have become the norm since the 1960s. The last time a justice retired when a vacancy would likely result in the appointment of a justice with an opposing ideology was more than 30 years ago, when Justice Thurgood Marshall stepped down due to declining health. President George H. W. Bush appointed Justice Clarence Thomas to replace him.

A Dysfunctional Confirmation Process

For all these reasons, there are growing calls for reform. Proposals range from creating an ethics code to expanding the Court to stripping its jurisdiction. One of the most popular options would also be among the most transformative: establishing 18-year terms and regularized appointments for justices. Under this system, justices would sit in staggered terms of active service on the Court, such that a new vacancy would open every two years. Each president would have two, and only two, appointments during a four-year term.

This paper explains how such a reform would work, why it would bolster the Court’s legitimacy, and how to transition from the current system. It also discusses how the core elements of this reform could be adopted by statute, consistent with the Constitution, by establishing the role of “senior justice.” Among other things, senior justices would hear cases by designation on the lower courts, step in to hear cases on the Supreme Court in the event of a recusal or unexpected vacancy, and assist with the management and administration of the federal courts. This framework is similar to the existing system of senior judges that has been in place for more than a century and has applied to the justices since 1937. However, rather than leave the timing of senior status up to the justices’ discretion, under this reform Congress would create a schedule by which justices assume senior status automatically after 18 years of active service on the Court.

Instead of focusing on highly innovative, high-paying industries that create a lot of jobs, most incentives, Bartik finds, are poorly targeted; there is little rhyme or reason to which firms or which industries get them. As he points out, incentives do not vary in light of the industry characteristics that would predict greater local benefits—obvious ones, like how much R&D they do, how many people they employ, or the wages they pay. So, for example, a 10 percent increase in an industry’s wages predicts just a 3 percent increase in incentives. Incentives track more with a state’s gross taxes than with unemployment rate or wage levels.

Moreover, states shell out too much money up front. They front-load incentives, instead of watching how businesses that are getting the incentives perform over time. Companies are able to take the incentives and can be slow to deliver on jobs or follow-on investments, or in some cases just pull up shop all together. Other states continue to shell out incentives, even after companies fail to meet their own projections for job creation or investment.

¶ • The credit has no proven results. Economic literature suggests that tax incentives for R&D have a small and uncertain ability to increase private research spending—essentially, a dollar in R&D tax incentives amounts to a dollar in increased R&D spending. But this extra spending is not shown to significantly increase measures of innovation, and may even reduce the quality of research.¶ • “R&D” is poorly defined. Imprecise definitions of qualified research make it impossible to successfully target socially beneficial R&D. Moreover, the definition of qualified research used for the tax credit is different from the definition used in other sections of the tax code, which increases administrative and compliance costs.¶ • The credit drives additional costs. Because the credit cannot be precisely defined, businesses are incentivized to spend large amounts of time and money lobbying Congress and tax regulators to ensure the credit is renewed and tailored to suit their specific interests. Significant resources are also wasted as parties attempt to interpret, litigate, and follow the law. These rent-seeking costs decrease the predicted positive effects of the credit and diminish any resulting economic growth.¶ • Temporary tax policy creates uncertainty. Since 1981, when the R&D credit was first voted into law, it has expired and been extended 16 times—on average, every two years. Uncertainty about the future of the tax credit paralyzes business investment and harms economic growth.¶ • The credit favors big business. The R&D tax credit is chiefly used by the largest corporations; the top 1 percent of US firms claim more than 82 percent of all research tax credit dollars. The smallest 95 percent of firms claim less than 5 percent of credit dollars.

In recent years, many of the world's most advanced economies have changed their approach from directly funding research and development (R&D) to relying more heavily on corporate tax breaks. But there’s a long-standing concern among economists that corporate tax incentives increase R&D spending without having much effect on innovation: companies may simply relabel existing projects to take advantage of the tax relief or only expand very low-quality R&D projects.

The influence of tax reduction on enterprise innovation has received extensive attention. Against the background of supply-side structural reform, the Chinese government has issued a series of tax and fee reduction policies to reduce enterprise tax burden, improve enterprise innovation ability, and promote enterprise transformation and upgrading to realize high-quality development. Based on the perspective of supply-side structural reform, this paper studies the effect of tax reduction on enterprise innovation activities. Through empirical analysis, the following conclusions are drawn. (1) The positive impact of tax reduction on innovation outweighs the crowding-out effect, indicating an overall stimulating effect. (2) The incentive effect of tax reduction is manifested through the mitigation of financing constraints, the specialized division effect, and the added value creation effect. However, the “financing effect” of tax cuts exhibits channel heterogeneity. Tax cuts can effectively promote corporate R&D investment and innovation output by facilitating internal financing and equity financing, while debt financing channels display a persistent soft constraint. Moreover, the establishment of the “financing effect” is path-dependent for high-tech enterprises. (3) The policy of “additional tax deduction on R&D expenses” demonstrates the most pronounced incentive effect, while the impact of the “15% preferential tax rate” is not significant. The combined implementation of these two policy types exhibits a clear incentive effect on innovation and can enhance the effectiveness of each individual policy. However, there still exists a disparity between innovation input and output, indicating a mismatch.

Research and development (R&D) is a crucial part of technological advancement. The U.S. private sector has led the way in spending on R&D in recent years, which has led to policies designed to maximize innovation. As lawmakers are pushing to change the tax code regarding R&D, it’s first essential to consider whether this policy would have its intended effect.

Innovation-related tax cuts had several impacts, according to De Simone’s findings:

Increased Asset Investment. Countries reducing tax rates for innovative activities saw 2.6% higher levels of capital expenditures, including assets such as factories and machinery, relative to similar countries offering no tax incentive. But a significant rate cut — 60% or more — was needed to show results.

Taxation is one of the most powerful tools in the policy tool kit. As the old saying goes, along with death, it is one of only two certainties in the human experience. Yet, like all such admonitions, this one is not always true. Indeed, the power to exempt an activity from taxation is almost as potent a tool as taxation itself.

U.S. lawmakers have long recognized and utilized this tool. Many policies that are implemented directly by governments in other countries are carried out through tax incentives in the United States. The federal tax code contains a large array of provisions that support particular activities, industries, professions, and other groups of taxpayers.

In recent discussions over the tax code, there have been calls to reverse the changes made to R&D deductions to encourage more investment. Research suggests this policy may be effective.

The Tax Foundation found that tax credits increased corporate spending on R&D, with spending growing over the years. A review of the investment by companies in R&D found that in 1989, each dollar from tax credits led to between 35 and 93 cents of new research spending. By 2017, this had improved with each dollar from tax credits, leading to about four dollars of investment in R&D.

Innovation serves as a fundamental catalyst for enhancing corporate value and driving overall economic growth (Solow, 1957; Wu et al. 2023). However, many companies exhibit hesitancy towards investing in innovative projects due to their prolonged gestation period and inherent risk of failure. As a result, governments employ a range of public policy incentives to encourage enterprise innovation. Diverging from direct R&D subsidies, tax cuts represent a more comprehensive policy instrument aimed at alleviating financial constraints (Bloom et al. 2002). Specifically, tax cuts primarily aim to reduce the cost of user capital for targeted companies, thereby stimulating R&D investment (Mukherjee et al. 2017; Bloom et al. 2019). In this context, we comprehensively review the current state of research on China, focusing on the following three aspects.

The first strand of literature examines the efficacy of tax cuts in stimulating innovation activities. Emerging economies, facing financial market distortions and challenges in intellectual property systems, encounter significant obstacles to effective management. Consequently, the function and effectiveness of tax cut schemes in these economies differ from those in developed nations (Al Fozaie, 2023; Ivus et al. 2021). The response of Chinese enterprises to tax cuts, as revealed in studies (Han and Kung, 2015; Chen, 2017; Zhang et al. 2018), demonstrates a notably positive attitude compared to their counterparts in other countries (Maffini et al. 2019; Ohrn, 2019; Rao, 2016; Yagan, 2015). Moreover, the government relies on tax incentives as a means to implement national directives, emphasizing technological upgrading and fostering the innovation sector (Wei et al. 2017).

All in all, roughly 13% of total productivity is said to be lost because of social media overuse (or addiction). Imagine all of the new music that could be created, businesses expanded, customer needs better met, if this percentage were lower.

This takes us to the economic idea of market failure, which is a situation in which externalities are not reflected in the equilibrium price. Smoking was the troubling market failure of the previous generation. Though the price of cigarettes was low, the social health costs were high.

More than ever, workers want to work fewer hours, saying they can be just as effective in less time – and happier, too. They may be on to something.

We’re living in an age of radical transformation in the workplace. Options like all-remote or hybrid – which were completely unthinkable for most people just two years ago – are now becoming part of work mainstream. The idea of shrinking the workweek is also gaining traction, particularly in light of recent examples of workforces who have successfully trialed a reduced-hours’ week.

Agriculture is a cornerstone of human civilization, a testament to our ability to harness nature for sustenance. Yet, this age-old industry faces many challenges that hamper productivity, impact livelihoods, and threaten global food security.

By 2050, we must produce 60 percent more food to feed a world population of 9.3 billion,  the Food and Agriculture Organization. Given the current industry challenges, doing that with a farming-as-usual approach could be tricky. Moreover, this would extend the heavy toll we already place on our natural resources.

WASHINGTON, August 23, 2023 – Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an investment of over $12.5 million as part of the USDA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. The Phase I awards will support  conducting high-quality research that addresses critical scientific challenges and opportunities in agriculture.

“The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to investing, growing and supporting small businesses through increased market opportunities that also strengthen the food system nationally and locally,” said Chief Scientist and Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young. “Science-based innovations from federally funded research, often developed through public-private partnerships, create products and services that increase productivity and enhance global competitiveness for the U.S. agriculture sector.”

Further, an increasing number of technologically advanced agriculture equipment and implements is the solution to save money and time and increase yields. And the government is keen on increasing the farm mechanization rate among farmers, boosting the demand and sales of new agricultural equipment. The mechanization of farms is deemed necessary for the US agriculture sector as it has the potential to improve food production and reduce the labor shortage.

Governments must adopt effective and sustainable farming practices to ensure food security and safety. While the level of agricultural mechanization is low, the country is implementing the concept of precision agriculture to increase productivity. Precision farming is a management concept under which crops are grown according to the specifications of the soil. The focus on agricultural mechanization in developing countries will increase the demand for agricultural equipment.

Sustained productivity growth in US agriculture is crucial to ensure competitiveness in the world market. US farm output has grown remarkably since the 1950s – by more than two-fold and this historic rise was mainly driven by productivity growth (USDA ERS, ). Efforts to develop and disseminate new technologies can be traced back to public research and development (R&D) activities conducted in universities and government institutions. To ensure long-term farm productivity growth, continued investments in public agricultural R&D are needed. The economic gains from R&D-driven productivity growth are well researched (Alston et al., ; Andersen and Song, ; Fuglie, ; Jin and Huffman, ; Plastina and Fulginiti, 2011; Wang et al., ). In a recent meta-analysis of 492 studies, Rao et al. () estimated that the median internal rate of return from agricultural R&D is around 34.0% per year for developed countries. Similarly, the meta-analysis of Alston et al. () found that past investments in international agricultural research for developing regions indicate benefit-cost ratios at around 10:1.

However, there has been a slowdown in investments in the US public agricultural R&D systems (Fuglie et al., ; Nelson and Fuglie, ). The stagnation of public funding for US agricultural scientific research is alarming when contrasted with the growth in R&D investments in middle-income countries, particularly in China which has surpassed US research spending in recent years (Clancy, Fuglie, and Heisey, ; Pardey et al., ). Less R&D spending at home and greater investments abroad could erode the competitiveness of US farm exports in the coming decades.

There has always been a broad consensus among economists that investments in research and development (R&D) fuel the engine of economic growth. This consensus is based on the findings of  on the role of R&D on productivity. This is especially true for the food and agricultural sectors—particularly for public R&D funding targeted to .

Why is public sector funding needed? Because farming is a highly competitive industry in which single-farm businesses cannot usually fund adequately, or capture the full benefits of investing in their own R&D.

Doubling government funding for agricultural research and development (R&D) would have tremendous environmental and economic benefits, according to a  in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. A substantial increase in R&D funding is needed now more than ever to manage extreme weather and new pest pressures, to help U.S. farmers better compete with producers internationally, and to reduce the food system’s large environmental footprint. 

However, increasing R&D funding would require a significant new commitment from policymakers. After reaching a peak in 2002, spending on U.S. public agricultural R&D has fallen by approximately  over the past two decades. Public agricultural R&D has historically been the backbone of American agricultural innovation, reducing food prices, enhancing food security, and enabling farmers to produce more with less land and other inputs. Every $1 invested in public agricultural R&D has historically  to consumers and the rest of society. So the decline in R&D spending represents a substantial threat to continued agricultural advancement and gains in environmental sustainability.

The majority of the foreign aid that the United States provides is funneled through nonprofit organizations, multilateral organizations, or private enterprises. Only around 22.5% of it goes to governments directly. But the contractors through which funds are channeled down to the organizations at the bottom are overwhelmingly dominated by Western ones. It is because of the onerously complicated bidding process and gigantic document requirements that small but worthy organizations cannot get away with. Such a complicated process means that smaller groups, particularly those located in the Global South, frequently miss out on grants, even when a little contribution to them could make a significant difference.

Eventually, there are scores of U.S. organizations that get a sizeable piece of the American aid industry pie. For instance, the vast majority of USAID money is going to only 75 organizations (legacy contractors mostly based in the US), and only 6 percent of grants are given to organizations based in USAID-recipient countries. This implies that thousands of innovative organizations from the Global South are not receiving funding out of the bureaucratic issue. Yet, these organizations may be more effective because they are more familiar with the local context and interact with local policy actors to ensure that successful programs continue even after USAID departs. Besides, the way USAID’s grant structures are set up now substantially lacks much incentive for contractors to produce results.