Editing Innovation (section)

==Measuring innovation==
Measuring innovation is inherently difficult as it implies commensurability so that comparisons can be made in quantitative terms. Innovation, however, is by definition novelty. Comparisons are thus often meaningless across products or service.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Oxford handbook of innovation|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press |author1=Fagerberg, Jan. |author2=Mowery, David C. |author3=Nelson, Richard R. |isbn=978-0-19-926455-1|location=Oxford|oclc=56655392}}</ref> Nevertheless, Edison et al.<ref name="Henry2013">{{cite journal|last1=Edison|first1=H.|last2=Ali|first2=N.B.|last3=Torkar|first3=R.|year=2013|title=Towards innovation measurement in the software industry|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256991991|journal=Journal of Systems and Software|volume=86|issue=5|pages=1390–1407|doi=10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.013|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> in their review of literature on [[innovation management]] found 232 innovation metrics. They categorized these measures along five dimensions; i.e. inputs to the innovation process, output from the innovation process, effect of the innovation output, measures to access the activities in an innovation process and availability of factors that facilitate such a process.<ref name="Henry2013" />

There are two different types of measures for innovation: the organizational level and the political level.

=== Organizational-level ===
:The measure of innovation at the organizational level relates to individuals, team-level assessments, and private companies from the smallest to the largest company. Measure of innovation for organizations can be conducted by surveys, workshops, consultants, or internal benchmarking. There is today no established general way to measure organizational innovation. Corporate measurements are generally structured around [[balanced scorecard]]s which cover several aspects of innovation such as business measures related to finances, innovation process efficiency, employees' contribution and motivation, as well benefits for customers. Measured values will vary widely between businesses, covering for example new product revenue, spending in R&D, time to market, customer and employee perception & satisfaction, number of patents, additional sales resulting from past innovations.<ref>Davila, Tony; Marc J. Epstein and Robert Shelton (2006). ''Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It''. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing</ref>

=== Political-level ===
:For the political level, measures of innovation are more focused on a country or region [[competitive advantage]] through innovation. In this context, organizational capabilities can be evaluated through various evaluation frameworks, such as those of the European Foundation for Quality Management. The [[OECD]] Oslo Manual (1992) suggests standard guidelines on measuring technological product and process innovation. Some people consider the [[Oslo Manual]] complementary to the [[Frascati Manual]] from 1963. The new Oslo Manual from 2018 takes a wider perspective to innovation, and includes marketing and organizational innovation. These standards are used for example in the European [[Community Innovation Survey]]s.<ref>OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Oslo Manual. 2nd edition, DSTI, OECD / European Commission Eurostat, Paris 31 December 1995.</ref>

Other ways of measuring innovation have traditionally been expenditure, for example, investment in R&D (Research and Development) as percentage of GNP (Gross National Product). Whether this is a good measurement of innovation has been widely discussed and the Oslo Manual has incorporated some of the critique against earlier methods of measuring. The traditional methods of measuring still inform many policy decisions. The EU [[Lisbon Strategy]] has set as a goal that their average expenditure on R&D should be 3% of GDP.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/ |title=Industrial innovation – Enterprise and Industry |publisher=European Commission |access-date=7 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110827125633/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/ |archive-date=27 August 2011}}</ref>

===Indicators===
Many scholars claim that there is a great bias towards the "science and technology mode" (S&T-mode or STI-mode), while the "learning by doing, using and interacting mode" (DUI-mode) is ignored and measurements and research about it rarely done. For example, an institution may be high tech with the latest equipment, but lacks crucial doing, using and interacting tasks important for innovation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION - European Journal of Natural History (scientific magazine)|url=https://world-science.ru/en/article/view?id=33506|access-date=2021-04-07|website=world-science.ru}}</ref>

A common industry view (unsupported by empirical evidence) is that comparative [[cost-effectiveness]] research is a form of [[price controls|price control]] which reduces returns to industry, and thus limits R&D expenditure, stifles future innovation and compromises new products access to markets.<ref>{{cite journal|pmid=19523121|pmc=2881450|year=2009|last1=Chalkidou|first1=K.|title=Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: Experience from four countries|journal=The Milbank Quarterly|volume=87|issue=2|pages=339–67|last2=Tunis|first2=S.|last3=Lopert|first3=R.|last4=Rochaix|first4=L.|last5=Sawicki|first5=P. T.|last6=Nasser|first6=M.|last7=Xerri|first7=B.|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00560.x}}</ref>
Some academics claim cost-effectiveness research is a valuable value-based measure of innovation which accords "truly significant" therapeutic advances (i.e. providing "health gain") higher prices than free market mechanisms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roughead |first1=E. |last2=Lopert |first2=R. |last3=Sansom |first3=L. |title=Prices for innovative pharmaceutical products that provide health gain: a comparison between Australia and the United States |journal=Value in Health |year=2007 |volume=10 |issue=6 |pages=514–20 |doi=10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00206.x |pmid=17970935 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Such [[value-based pricing]] has been viewed as a means of indicating to industry the type of innovation that should be rewarded from the public purse.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hughes |first=B. |title=Payers Growing Influence on R&D Decision Making |journal=Nature Reviews Drug Discovery |year=2008 |volume=7 |issue= 11|pages=876–78 |doi=10.1038/nrd2749 |pmid=18974741 |s2cid=10217053 }}</ref>

An Australian academic developed the case that national comparative [[cost-effectiveness analysis]] systems should be viewed as measuring "health innovation" as an [[evidence-based policy]] concept for valuing innovation distinct from valuing through competitive markets, a method which requires strong [[anti-trust]] laws to be effective, on the basis that both methods of assessing [[pharmaceutical innovations]] are mentioned in annex 2C.1 of the [[AUSFTA|Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Faunce |first1=T. |last2=Bai |first2=J. |last3=Nguyen |first3=D. |title=Impact of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement on Australian medicines regulation and prices |journal=[[Journal of Generic Medicines]] |year=2010 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=18–29 |doi=10.1057/jgm.2009.40 |s2cid=154433476 |url=https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/51254/9/Faunce_Journal_Evidence_JGM.pdf.jpg |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416220209/https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/51254/9/Faunce_Journal_Evidence_JGM.pdf.jpg |archive-date=2021-04-16 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Faunce TA|title=Global intellectual property protection of 'innovative' pharmaceuticals: Challenges for bioethics and health law in B Bennett and G Tomossy|website=Law.anu.edu.au|publisher=Globalization and Health Springer|year=2006|url=http://law.anu.edu.au/StaffUploads/236-Ch%20Globalisation%20and%20Health%20Fau.pdf|access-date=18 June 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110414040804/http://law.anu.edu.au/StaffUploads/236-Ch%20Globalisation%20and%20Health%20Fau.pdf|archive-date=14 April 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Faunce |first=T. A. |title=Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? |journal=Medical Journal of Australia |year=2007 |volume=187 |issue=4 |pages=240–42|pmid=17564579 |doi=10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01209.x |s2cid=578533 }}</ref>

===Indices===
Several indices attempt to measure innovation and rank entities based on these measures, such as:
* [[Bloomberg Innovation Index]]
* "Bogota Manual"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ricyt.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=149&Itemid=2 |title=Bogota Manual. Standardisation of Indicators of Technological Innovation in Latin American and Caribbean Countries |author=Hernán Jaramillo |author2=Gustavo Lugones |author3=Mónica Salazar |date=March 2001 |publisher=Iberoamerican Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT) Organisation of American States (OAS) / CYTED PROGRAM COLCIENCIAS/OCYT |page=87 |language=en}}</ref> similar to the Oslo Manual, is focused on Latin America and the Caribbean countries.{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}
* "Creative Class" developed by [[Richard Florida]]{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}
* [[EIU Innovation Ranking]]<ref>{{Cite news|title=Social Innovation Index 2016|url=https://eiuperspectives.economist.com/technology-innovation/old-problems-new-solutions-measuring-capacity-social-innovation-across-world-0|access-date=2021-04-07|newspaper=Economist Impact &#124; Perspectives|language=en}}</ref>
* [[Global Competitiveness Report]]
* [[Global Innovation Index]] (GII), by [[INSEAD]]<ref>{{cite web|website=INSEAD|url=http://knowledge.insead.edu/entrepreneurship-innovation/global-innovation-index-2930|title=The INSEAD Global Innovation Index (GII)|date=28 October 2013}}</ref>
* [[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation|Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Index]]
* Innovation 360 – From the World Bank. Aggregates innovation indicators (and more) from a number of different public sources
* Innovation Capacity Index (ICI) published by a large number of international professors working in a collaborative fashion. The top scorers of ICI 2009–2010 were: 1. Sweden 82.2; 2. Finland 77.8; and 3. United States 77.5<ref>{{cite web|website=Innovation Capacity Index|title=Home page|url=http://www.innovationfordevelopmentreport.org/ici.html}}</ref>
* Innovation Index, developed by the [[Indiana Business Research Center]], to measure innovation capacity at the county or regional level in the United States<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/data.html |title=Tools |publisher=Statsamerica.org |access-date=7 September 2011}}</ref>
* Innovation Union Scoreboard, developed by the [[European Union]]
* [[innovationsindikator]] for Germany, developed by the [[:de:Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie|Federation of German Industries]] (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) in 2005<ref>[http://www.innovationsindikator.de Innovations Indikator] retrieved 7 March 2017</ref>
* [[INSEAD]] Innovation Efficacy Index<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511446/the-innovation-efficiency-index/|work=Technology Review|title=The INSEAD Innovation Efficiency Inndex|date=February 2016}}</ref>
* [[International Innovation Index]], produced jointly by [[The Boston Consulting Group]], the [[National Association of Manufacturers]] (NAM) and its nonpartisan research affiliate The Manufacturing Institute, is a worldwide index measuring the level of innovation in a country; NAM describes it as the "largest and most comprehensive global index of its kind"{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adsule|first=Anil|year=2015|title=INNOVATION LEADING THE WAY TO REVOLUTION|url=http://msmspune.com/images_New/Research/pepars/2015/02-2015-Dr.Joe_Lopez.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801213556/http://msmspune.com/images_New/Research/pepars/2015/02-2015-Dr.Joe_Lopez.pdf |archive-date=2020-08-01 |url-status=live|journal=International Journal of Business and Administration Research Review|volume= 2, Issue.11|via=Google scholar}}</ref>
* Management Innovation Index – Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index<ref>{{Cite book|chapter=Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index|pages= 1300–1307|author=Kerle, Ralph |title=Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship |doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_35|year = 2013|isbn = 978-1-4614-3857-1}}</ref>
* NYCEDC Innovation Index, by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, tracks New York City's "transformation into a center for high-tech innovation. It measures innovation in the City's growing science and technology industries and is designed to capture the effect of innovation on the City's economy"<ref>{{cite web|website=NYCEDC.com|url=http://www.nycedc.com/economic-data/innovation-index|title=Innovation Index|access-date=26 May 2013|archive-date=2 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102103459/http://www.nycedc.com/economic-data/innovation-index|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* OECD [[Oslo Manual]] is focused on North America, Europe, and other rich economies
* State Technology and Science Index, developed by the [[Milken Institute]], is a U.S.-wide benchmark to measure the science and technology capabilities that furnish high paying jobs based around key components<ref>{{cite web|url=http://statetechandscience.org/|website=statetechandscience.org|title=Home page}}</ref>
* [[World Competitiveness Scoreboard]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.imd.org/uupload/IMD.WebSite/wcc/WCYResults/1/scoreboard_2014.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140630000343/http://www.imd.org/uupload/IMD.WebSite/wcc/WCYResults/1/scoreboard_2014.pdf |archive-date=2014-06-30 |url-status=live|website=IMD.org|year=2014 |title=The World Competitiveness Scoreboard 2014}}</ref>

===Rankings===
Common areas of focus include: [[high-tech]] companies, [[manufacturing]], [[patent]]s, [[post secondary education]], [[research and development]], and research personnel. The left ranking of the top 10 countries below is based on the 2020 [[Bloomberg Innovation Index]].<ref>{{Cite news|title=Germany Breaks Korea's Six-Year Streak as Most Innovative Nation|publisher=Bloomberg L.P.|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-18/germany-breaks-korea-s-six-year-streak-as-most-innovative-nation|access-date=17 March 2021}}</ref> However, studies may vary widely; for example the [[Global Innovation Index]] 2016 ranks [[Switzerland]] as number one wherein countries like [[South Korea]], [[Japan]], and [[China]] do not even make the top ten.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://de.statista.com/infografik/5509/die-10-innovativsten-laender-weltweit-nach-dem-global-innovation-index/|title=Infografik: Schweiz bleibt globaler Innovationsführer|website=Statista Infografiken|publisher=Statista (In German)|access-date=25 November 2016}}</ref>

{{Columns-start|width=50%}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 15%;"
|+[[Bloomberg Innovation Index]] 2021<ref name="Bloomberg 2021">{{cite news |last1=Jamrisko |first1=Michelle |last2=Lu |first2=Wei |last3=Tanzi |first3=Alexandre |title=South Korea Leads World in Innovation as U.S. Exits Top Ten |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-03/south-korea-leads-world-in-innovation-u-s-drops-out-of-top-10 |work=Bloomberg |date=3 February 2021}}</ref>
! Rank !! Country/Territory
!Index
|-
| 1 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|South Korea}}
|90.49
|-
| 2 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Singapore}}
|87.76
|-
| 3 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Switzerland}}
|87.60
|-
| 4 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Germany}}
|86.45
|-
| 5 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Sweden}}
|86.39
|-
| 6 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Denmark}}
|86.12
|-
| 7 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Israel}}
|85.50
|-
| 8 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Finland}}
|84.86
|-
| 9 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Netherlands}}
|84.29
|-
| 10 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Austria}}
|83.93
|}
{{Column}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 15%;"
|+[[Global Innovation Index]] 2020<ref>{{cite web |title=GII 2020 Report |url=https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2020-report |website=Global Innovation Index |access-date=19 October 2020 |archive-date=24 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201024211541/https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2020-report |url-status=dead }}</ref>
! Rank !! Country/Territory
!Index
|-
| 1 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Switzerland}}
|66.08
|-
| 2 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Sweden}}
|62.47
|-
| 3 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|United States of America}}
|60.56
|-
| 4 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|United Kingdom}}
|59.78
|-
| 5 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Netherlands}}
|58.76
|-
| 6 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Denmark}}
|57.53
|-
| 7 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Finland}}
|57.02
|-
| 8 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Singapore}}
|56.61
|-
| 9 || style="text-align: left" |{{flagcountry|Germany}}
|56.55
|-
| 10 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|South Korea}}
|56.11
|}
{{Column}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 15%;"
|+Innovation Indicator 2020<ref>{{cite book |title=innovations indikator 2020 |date=2020 |publisher=[[Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie]], [[Fraunhofer ISI]], [[Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung]] |url=http://www.innovationsindikator.de/fileadmin/content/2020/pdf/Innovationsindikator_2020-kompakt.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210408194638/http://www.innovationsindikator.de/fileadmin/content/2020/pdf/Innovationsindikator_2020-kompakt.pdf |archive-date=2021-04-08 |url-status=live |language=German}}</ref>
! Rank !! Country/Territory
!Index
|-
| 1 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Switzerland}}
|74
|-
| 2 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Singapore}}
|70
|-
| 3 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Belgium}}
|60
|-
| 4 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Germany}}
|54
|-
| 5 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Sweden}}
|54
|-
| 6 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Denmark}}
|52
|-
| 7 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Ireland}}
|52
|-
| 8 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|United States}}
|52
|-
| 9 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Austria}}
|50
|-
| 10 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Finland}}
|50
|}
{{Columns-end}}

=== Rate of innovation ===
In 2005 [[Jonathan Huebner]], a [[physicist]] working at the [[Pentagon Building|Pentagon]]'s [[Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake|Naval Air Warfare Center]], argued on the basis of both U.S. [[patent]]s and world technological breakthroughs, per capita, that the rate of human technological innovation peaked in 1873 and has been slowing ever since.<ref name=Huebner>{{Cite journal | last1 = Huebner | first1 = J. | title = A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation | doi = 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003 | journal = [[Technological Forecasting and Social Change]] | volume = 72 | issue = 8 | pages = 980–986 | year = 2005 | url = https://zenodo.org/record/1259385 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050707/7inventor.htm|title=Science: Wanna be an inventor? Don't bother|last=Hayden|first=Thomas|date=7 July 2005|work=U.S. News & World Report|access-date=10 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101195406/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050707/7inventor.htm|archive-date=1 November 2013}}</ref> In his article, he asked "Will the level of technology reach a maximum and then decline as in the Dark Ages?"<ref name=Huebner/> In later comments to ''[[New Scientist]]'' magazine, Huebner clarified that while he believed that we will reach a rate of innovation in 2024 equivalent to that of the [[Dark Ages (historiography)|Dark Ages]], he was not predicting the reoccurrence of the Dark Ages themselves.<ref>{{cite news|last=Adler|first=Robert|title=Entering a dark age of innovation|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7616-entering-a-dark-age-of-innovation.html|access-date=30 May 2013|newspaper=New Scientist|date=2 July 2005}}</ref>

John Smart criticized the claim and asserted that [[technological singularity]] researcher [[Ray Kurzweil]] and others showed a "clear trend of acceleration, not deceleration" when it came to innovations.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Smart | first1 = J. | title = Discussion of Huebner article | doi = 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.07.001 | journal = [[Technological Forecasting and Social Change]] | volume = 72 | issue = 8 | pages = 988–995 | year = 2005 }}</ref> The foundation replied to Huebner the journal his article was published in, citing [[Second Life]] and [[eHarmony]] as proof of accelerating innovation; to which Huebner replied.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Huebner|first1=Jonathan|title=Response by the Authors|journal=[[Technological Forecasting and Social Change]]|volume=72|issue=8|pages=995–1000|doi=10.1016/j.techfore.2005.05.008|year=2005}}</ref>
However, Huebner's findings were confirmed in 2010 with [[U.S. Patent Office]] data.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Strumsky | first1 = D. | last2 = Lobo | first2 = J. | last3 = Tainter | first3 = J. A. | doi = 10.1002/sres.1057 | title = Complexity and the productivity of innovation | journal = Systems Research and Behavioral Science | volume = 27 | issue = 5 | page = 496 | year = 2010 | doi-access = free }}</ref> and in a 2012 paper.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gordon |first1=Robert J. |title=Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds |journal=NBER Working Paper No. 18315 |year=2012 |doi=10.3386/w18315 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Innovation and development===
The theme of innovation as a tool to disrupting patterns of poverty has gained momentum since the mid-2000s among major [[international development]] actors such as [[DFID]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dfid.blog.gov.uk/author/jonathan-wong-head-of-dfids-innovation-hub/ |title=Jonathan Wong, Head of DFID's Innovation Hub &#124; DFID bloggers |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |date=24 September 2014 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> [[Gates Foundation]]'s use of the [[Grand Challenge]] funding model,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2014/10/Gates-Foundation-Grand-Challenges-Breakthrough-Science |title=Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenge Partners Commit to Innovation with New Investments in Breakthrough Science – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |website=Gatesfoundation.org |date=7 October 2014 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> and [[USAID]]'s Global Development Lab.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usaid.gov/GlobalDevLab |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140406145131/http://www.usaid.gov/globaldevlab |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 April 2014 |title=Global Development Lab |website=[[USAID]] |date=5 August 2015 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> Networks have been established to support innovation in development, such as D-Lab at [[MIT]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://d-lab.mit.edu/idin |title=International Development Innovation Network (IDIN) &#124; D-Lab |website=D-lab.mit.edu |access-date=14 March 2016 |archive-date=5 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305104919/http://d-lab.mit.edu/idin |url-status=dead }}</ref> Investment funds have been established to identify and catalyze innovations in [[developing countries]], such as DFID's [[Global Innovation Fund]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/international-development-funding/global-innovation-fund |title=Global Innovation Fund International development funding |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> [[Human Development Innovation Fund]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hdif-tz.org |title=Human Development Innovation Fund (HDIF) |website=Hdif-tz.org |date=14 August 2015 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> and (in partnership with USAID) the Global Development Innovation Ventures.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/usaid-and-dfid-announce-global-development-innovation-ventures |title=USAID and DFID Announce Global Development Innovation Ventures to Invest in Breakthrough Solutions to World Poverty |website=[[USAID]] |date=6 June 2013 |access-date=14 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504030509/https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/usaid-and-dfid-announce-global-development-innovation-ventures |archive-date=4 May 2017 }}</ref>

The United States has to continue to play on the same level of playing field as its competitors in federal research. This can be achieved being strategically innovative through investment in basic research and science".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/article/21121160/declining-federal-research-undercuts-the-us-strategy-of-innovation|title=StackPath|website=industryweek.com|date=22 January 2020 |access-date=28 April 2020}}</ref>