How government could support mid-sized companies

The support of mid-sized companies by German government policy is worth understanding. Canadian government gives grant money to the universities but runs into the danger of rewarding the best paper pushers, not money makers. Germany seems to have managed a balance between mid-sized companies and university research.

Germany is known for its mid- to high-technology manufacturing. While the U.S. has witnessed a decline in manufacturing output as a share of GDP, Germany's has remained steady. By specializing in medium and high technology manufacturing, Germany is able support relatively high wages. The Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany are an important reason for its continued success in manufacturing. The Institutes support manufacturing SMEs by creating partnerships between businesses and universities and encouraging industrially-relevant research in advanced technology areas. The Institutes have a budget of $2.35 billion, with $2 billion of that generated through contract research or publically financed research projects. There are eighty research centers with a total staff of 18,000 qualified scientists and engineers. The expertise and partnerships created through this initiative helped sustain high technology manufacturing in Germany and resulted in a high level of market share for SMEs, fueling broad-based export growth.

Should the government match investment funds?

Should the Canadian government encourage international VC investments into Canadian companies.
OK that is a no brainer.
Now what about encouraging international investment partnerships by matching investment amounts? That is tougher but Israel built its innovative sector with this type of LP arrangement.

Israel has one of the most active venture capital networks in the world. While the U.S. might lead the world in venture capital investments in absolute amounts, Israel has surpassed it relative to the size of its economy. The Yozma program (started in 1993) is often credited with initiating the VC industry in Israel. The Yozma program provided tax incentives for foreign VC investments, and the fund was used to match investments. This provided a mechanism of due-diligence for the investments; professional VCs had vetted the firms. Yozma was also used to invest in existing domestic VC funds to help support the new industry.

The objectives of the Yozma program were to: 1. Establish the critical mass for a competitive VC industry 2. Learn from foreign partners 3. Create a network of international contacts

Typically, investments were directed toward high-technology companies in fields in which Israel already had an advantage or competency. By 2000, the amount of VC invested in the country had soared.

How Canada Goose won the E&Y Entrepreneur of the Year Award

Keeping manufacturing in Canada is possible. Canada Goose has their factory creating the quality jackets that fill up Harry Rosen at the beginning of Fall but is it in China? No.
Canada Goose is committed to producing in Canada and were told their costs would not be possible to cover competing against Made in Japan and China products.
Dani Reiss decided he would take the challenge that his paretns set with their appreciation of quality they had known in Europe. Canadian quality would be as wonderful.
Canada Goose has worked to attract the high fashion people, but also the outdoor buffs and above all, the working guys out in the cold. Dani Reiss took a risk and then worked to get the jackets on film sets over the winter and on TV Olympics. He also took up the cause of the polar bear and other innovative projects that project the Canada Goose brand.
I see the jackets on Bay Street and they always look smart. Well done, Dani, for winning the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award. It was a long road with icy patches! You deserve it for building a genuine Canadian business. Nice guys finish first.

Why business should investigate R D tax credits

To get companies growing, research and development is required and Canada has a strong R&D credit although SREDS has a very low uptake still. Here are some other countries and their incentives from The Atlantic.

Innovation, along with entrepreneurship, involves a lengthy process of research and development, one that inevitably entails risk for firms and industries. There are three main categories of risk: regulatory, innovation and monetary. My research and others' shows that lucrative reward systems and regulatory structures directly influence the level of R&D activities. Tax credits are one way to effectively reduce the risks inherent in conducting R&D.

Some readers will be surprised to learn that France has the most generous tax incentives for R&D among the OECD countries. The government is continually expanding the scope of the tax credit, and the amount of funding available nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008. A company can receive up to 50 percent of its R&D costs the first year; 40 percent is covered the second and 30 percent in the third. There is a mechanism that allows funding to be "fast-tracked" for small- and medium-size enterprises, and in most cases, the waiting period for approval is only three months. Lastly, the tax credit is either deducted from the annual corporate tax or reimbursed after three years, providing greater flexibility. The tax subsidy rate per $1 of R&D in France averages 43 cents, while in the U.S. it is a paltry 7 cents.

Finland serves as another example of using policy solutions to transform its economy from resource-based to knowledge-based through consistently increasing gross expenditure on R&D. Simultaneously it has also pursued international scientific collaboration, university/industry partnerships, and enhanced venture capital availability. On a per capita basis, Finland now claims double the OECD average of patent output.

Why our government does need to help business

Innovation is something the government is trying to jump start. It begins at school and with the Canadian education system, although it is not too shabby, there are human capital investments that could be made. Our teachers' union is very powerful so these are probably a non-starter and since the majority of teachers are now female and so are university graduates, merit is a touchy subject.
Equity of input and outcomes is over riding merit and reward for effort.
Singapore paid attention to human capital and focused on merit. I believe their per capita GDP has now passed Canada.
Is the social cost of rewarding young people based on merit worth it?
 Here is The Atlantic:

 In 1960 Singapore had a per capita GDP of $2,300, roughly equal to Jamaica's. Singapore focused on becoming a financial services and research hub, while Jamaica concentrated on tourism. Fifty years later Singapore's per capita GDP was $43,100, while Jamaica's is slightly above $5,000.

The difference was investment in human capital. Singapore's education system is heavily subsidized by its Ministry of Education to ensure a meritocratic principle that identifies and nurtures bright young students for future leadership positions. In the '60s, Singapore attracted foreign capital by targeting labor-intensive manufacturing to create jobs. As its workforce became better educated through its investment strategies in the '70s, it began attracting higher value-added industries such as petrochemicals, electronics and data storage. Today, Singapore is a leader in a host of knowledge-based industries, including the biomedical sciences. In just the past decade, the number of scientists has leapt from 14,500 to 26,600, a gain of more than 80 percent. In the most recent Global Competitiveness Report put out by the World Economic Forum, Singapore ranked 1st in the quality of its math and science education.