Many people, especially in the USA and amongst free market thinkers, believe these two words simply do not go together. They think that the State is anything but entrepreneurial and entrepreneurs prefer small Government and no bureaucracy.
It’s not as simple as that. If you want a full and excellent debate on this subject, we suggest you simply read Marianna Mazuccato’s book called The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs private sector myths.
The word entrepreneur has been used in English since the middle of the 18th century to describe a type of businessperson. It was often used to describe a go-between which is closer to the French meaning in the first place. The idea that Governments should be full of these types of people is definitely not what is being asked for in the Entrepreneurial State!
That’s not the point. Look at Silicon Valley. The decision to have a Space Race, a key driver in the 1960s of its current success was not made by an entrepreneur! The entrepreneurs simply benefitted from a Federal and State decision to pursue a new initiative, backed by largescale state funded institutions and R&D. The founders of Hewlett Packard didn’t decide to start their company there because Governments set good tax conditions. It was triggered by a massive state sponsored mission. The State created the ambition, funding and wherewithal for entrepreneurs to flourish. The State was the initiator of Silicon Valley.
So, the question is, if we want a more entrepreneurial Scotland again how is it to be triggered? It’s clear that simply shouting from the rooftops won’t do it. “Let’s all be more innovative. Entrepreneurs are welcome here. Look at the excellent tax regime. Look at the skilled engineers and technologists. See how nice a place it is to live in”. No, it needs an actual state mission for entrepreneurs and businesses to get their teeth into.
What could that be in Scotland’s case? In the past the state-sponsored defence industry created a vibrant demand for new and innovative products. Ferranti, now Leonardo, is the best example of the results. Offshore oil is a Government owned mineral asset. The Government, on its own behalf, attracted a set of oil companies and entrepreneurial companies such as the Wood group to exploit the state asset. The Entrepreneurial State at work, big time.
These two are no longer politically attractive missions. New missions are required. Our view is that for Scotland to become an Entrepreneurial State like California, it has three big opportunities: go, big time, after the new economic region created by the Arctic melting ice; AND set up a largescale state initiated programme to plant 5 billion trees and create a high tech wood-based economy; AND create the conditions to become the greatest exporter of renewable energy in the whole of Europe.
We fear that Scotland instead is on a path of incremental improvement spread out across seven or eight sectors rather than focusing on two to three big missions as an Entrepreneurial State. Surely it could cope with all three to replace the two previous state missions of oil and defence.
The real risk is falling short by simply promising to make general business conditions incrementally better for entrepreneurs or inward investors. The SDI, Scottish Enterprise and Global Scot networking, all doing excellent work to promote a multitude of business initiatives. Good, but not dramatic enough.
This still leaves the unanswered question. What are the actual big missions for Scotland to adopt to prove it has truly become a successful Entrepreneurial State?