logo
European Union's flawed investment strategy

European Union's flawed investment strategy

Observera day ago
Last year, former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi produced a landmark report on the future of European competitiveness, in which he recommended that the European Union increase annual investment by more than €800 billion ($930 billion) – the equivalent of more than 4% of its GDP. This report has now become the intellectual foundation for an ambitious strategy to revitalize growth in Europe. But Europe should be careful what it wishes for. As Japan has shown, investment is no panacea.
The idea that more investment is the key to economic success is a potent one in Europe. The so-called Lisbon Strategy, launched in 2000, sought to increase investment in research and development to 3% of GDP. That target has remained on the official EU agenda for a quarter-century, but has never been reached. In 2015, the European Commission added another investment goal: its Investment Plan for Europe sought to mobilize €315 billion in additional investment within three years, in order to increase competitiveness and long-term growth.
But investment has not saved Japan from several decades of stagnation. Since 1970, Japan's gross fixed capital formation has averaged – and, often, significantly exceeded – 30% of GDP. That is much higher than not only the EU average, but also the rate in Germany, the EU's strongest economy, where gross fixed capital formation has hovered around 23% of GDP. The four-percentage-point difference between the most recent values (26% in Japan, and 22% in both Germany and the EU) amounts to about €800 billion annually – exactly the amount Draghi recommends adding to total EU investment.
Of course, the type of investment matters. Whereas investment in new machinery leads to diminishing returns once a company has enough capacity to serve the market, investing in new ideas should theoretically be bound by no such constraints. But if one singles out R&D investment, Japan performs even better. In 2000, when the EU set its Lisbon Strategy target, Japan was already investing nearly 3% of its GDP in R&D – a rate it has maintained over the last 25 years, compared to the EU's average of 2%.
Flags are seen behind the logo of the European Investment Bank pictured in the city of Luxembourg, Luxembourg. — Reuters
And yet, despite impressive rates of investment in fixed capital and R&D, Japan's economy weakened over the last quarter-century. In the 1980s and 1990s, Japan boasted the world's second-largest economy, powered by a manufacturing sector that seemed unbeatable. Now, Japan is the world's fourth-largest economy, having recently fallen behind Germany despite having a much larger population (120 million, compared to 80 million), owing partly to yen depreciation.
One might argue that this is an unfair comparison, because evaluating an economy at current exchange rates, without accounting for inflation differentials, does not adequately reflect quality of life. But if one looks at per capita income at purchasing power parity, Japan was at rough parity with Germany 20 years ago, and is now doing worse than Italy. In any case, exchange rates are not irrelevant, at least politically: Japanese are well aware of their declining purchasing power when they travel abroad, and they undoubtedly notice foreign tourists flaunting their purchasing power in Japan. This may have helped to create fertile ground for the far right.
So, what explains Japan's economic underperformance? The answer is not unfavorable demographics. In fact, Japan's population is not shrinking nearly as fast as conventional wisdom suggests, having fallen since the turn of the century by only three million, to just under 124 million last year, with employment increasing by ten percentage points.
To explain Japan's struggles requires looking behind the headline investment figures.
While investment in R&D is strong, it is happening mostly within large firms, which are primarily interested in delivering incremental improvements to existing products or processes, rather than developing radically new ideas or technologies. True innovation is much more likely to happen in startups, but in Japan – as in the EU – the largest spenders on R&D have remained the same for decades.
Large companies have recognized the limitations of their in-house R&D efforts. Some have even created specialized Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) departments, tasked with hunting for promising ideas outside their corporate structures.
But, in 2022, the leading spenders on R&D in Japan accounted for only 7.3% of global CVC investment. That is about one-third of EU companies' share (22%), but given that the EU economy is about four times the size of Japan's, these levels are similar, in relative terms. The EU did much better than Japan by another measure, however: over 40% of European firms' CVC investment went to local startups. In Japan, that share was miniscule – 0.01% – with the rest going mostly to start-ups in the United States.
Furthermore, US and even Japanese companies have delivered substantial CVC funding to EU companies, which attracted a total of about 9% of global CVC funding in 2022. That is much less than the 80% that went to the US, but also significantly more than the tiny share – close to zero – that flowed into Japan. The lesson for the EU is clear: rather than focusing simply on increasing investment, it should seek to nurture and fortify its innovation ecosystem. Only then will it be able to deliver the kinds of game-changing ideas and inventions that underpin global competitiveness in the twenty-first century. Project Syndicate
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Euro zone industry shrinks more than feared in June
Euro zone industry shrinks more than feared in June

Observer

timean hour ago

  • Observer

Euro zone industry shrinks more than feared in June

FRANKFURT: Euro zone industrial output dipped more than expected in June even as overall economic growth held up in the second quarter, challenging views that the 20 nation currency union remains resilient to the fallout from a global trade war. Industrial output fell 1.3% on the month in June, driven by a big dip in Germany and weak consumer goods production, underperforming expectations for a 1.0% fall, data from Eurostat showed on Thursday. Adding to the negative surprise, Eurostat also revised its output growth estimate for May to 1.1% from 1.7%, suggesting that the underlying trend is weaker than thought. Meanwhile GDP grew by 0.1% on the quarter, in line with a preliminary estimate, and employment rose just 0.1% on the quarter, in line with expectations in a Reuters poll, but below the 0.2% in the previous three months. A recent string of relatively upbeat indicators from purchasing managers (PMI) data to the European Commission's sentiment reading have fuelled a narrative that consumption is keeping the bloc resilient to trade tensions, but more recent numbers, like industrial orders and a key sentiment reading from Germany, have challenged this view. Still, investors continue to bet on a modest upturn on the premise that a recent EU trade deal with the US provides much needed certainty and Germany's plans to sharply boost budget spending will support growth. This is why financial investors think the ECB may be done cutting interest rates and policymakers will sit out a temporary dip in inflation below the 2% target, as price pressures over the medium term are already building up. Growth is unlikely to take off, however, and the euro zone is facing modest expansion of only around 1% a year in the coming years, trailing other major economies, given structural inefficiencies. Compared to a year earlier, second quarter economic growth was 1.4%, a figure that is boosted by a one-off demand surge before US tariffs took effect. This figure is now seen slowing steadily before picking up in 2026. US stocks ended higher on Wednesday, with the Dow adding 1%, the S&P 500 gaining about a third of a percent, and the Nasdaq ticking up marginally. The monthly industrial fall was driven by a 2.3% drop in Germany and an 11.3% fall in Ireland, a figure that is unlikely to concern many, since Irish data is exceptionally volatile due to activity among big multinational companies, mostly in pharmaceuticals, based there for tax purposes. Industry figures showed that besides energy production, every sector took a dip last month, led by a 4.7% fall in non-durable consumer goods and a 2.2% fall in capital goods production. — Reuters

AI is a terrible therapist
AI is a terrible therapist

Observer

timean hour ago

  • Observer

AI is a terrible therapist

In January, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz announced that it had backed Slingshot AI, the world's first foundation model for psychology, bringing the startup's total capital to $40 million. A few weeks later, the European Union's AI Act, which includes a ban on manipulative AI systems, came into force. These two events highlight a troubling contradiction. Even as regulators attempt to protect users from deceptive AI practices, investors are betting that AI chatbots can treat people struggling with mental-health issues – in other words, when they are especially vulnerable to exploitation. Worse, the way that large language models are currently trained may make them fundamentally incapable of providing such treatment. The mental-health market is huge, and the use of generative AI is poised to expand significantly. The United States National Institute of Mental Health estimates that one in five US adults has a mental illness. But more than 122 million people in the US live in an area with a shortage of mental-health providers. This has given rise to a slew of AI chatbots that promise to fill the gap. Wysa, for example, calls itself the 'clinical alternative to ChatGPT' and claims to have helped six million people in 95 countries. But AI chatbots' behaviour is at odds with the delicate balance of empathy and confrontation that evidence-based psychotherapy requires. Mental-health professionals must validate patients' experiences while challenging the rigid thinking that perpetuates psychological distress. This productive discomfort helps patients examine their assumptions, driving meaningful change. Consider a patient who avoids social situations, claiming that they prefer solitude instead of acknowledging their social anxiety. A skilled therapist might gently challenge them by asking if something else is informing that preference – perhaps a fear of how others might react. This opens space for self-reflection without attacking the patient's conception of self. Current AI models tend to avoid such confrontations. In April, OpenAI rolled back the GPT-4o update because it was 'overly flattering or agreeable – often described as sycophantic.' Researchers have found that sycophancy is 'a general behaviour of AI assistants' that likely stems from the way these models are trained, particularly the use of human feedback for fine-tuning. When human evaluators consistently rate validating responses more favourably than challenging ones, AI assistants learn to echo, rather than question, the user. In mental-health contexts, this tendency towards agreement may prove problematic because psychological disorders often involve cognitive distortions that feel true to the individual and thus contribute to their distress. For example, depressed people tend to feel worthless or hopeless, while anxiety is often associated with catastrophic thinking. An AI chatbot programmed to be agreeable might reinforce these harmful thought patterns by focusing solely on validation, rather than introducing alternative points of view. As governments grapple with how to regulate AI, mental-health applications present unique challenges. While the EU's ban on manipulative AI is a good first step, it does not address the subtler problem of current models' excessive agreeableness. The US has no comprehensive federal laws or regulations for AI – and judging by President Donald Trump's AI Action Plan, none will be forthcoming. This regulatory gap will grow more dangerous as US venture capital firms increasingly pour money into AI tools that provide psychological support, and as these tools scale globally, reaching places where access to mental health care is even more limited. The mental-health market is huge, and the use of generative AI is poised to expand significantly. Addressing AI's sycophancy problem requires fundamental changes to how these systems are designed and used. Instead of optimising for user satisfaction, AI chatbots that provide mental healthcare should be trained to recognise when a therapeutic challenge is necessary. That could mean incorporating therapeutic principles and examples of effective therapeutic interventions into training strategies. Crucially, health professionals and patients must play a central role in developing these tools, given their insights into which therapeutic interactions are helpful and which are harmful. Meaningful patient involvement in design and deployment would ensure that the models serve end users' real needs, not what tech leaders assume they want. The global mental-health crisis demands innovative solutions, and AI will be an essential component. But if AI technologies are to expand access to quality care and promote long-term healing, investors should demand evidence of effective therapeutic outcomes before funding the next chatbot therapist. Likewise, regulators must explicitly require these technologies' developers to demonstrate clinical efficacy, not just user satisfaction. And policymakers should pass laws that mandate the inclusion of mental-health professionals and patients in the training of AI models aimed at providing this kind of care. Claims about AI revolutionising mental health care remain premature. Until it can master the very specialised ability of therapeutic confrontation – sensitively but firmly questioning patients' assumptions and offering alternative perspectives – it could end up harming those it is meant to help. @Project Syndicate, 2025

Trump-Putin summit to take place on US military base
Trump-Putin summit to take place on US military base

Observer

time11 hours ago

  • Observer

Trump-Putin summit to take place on US military base

WASHINGTON: The summit between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin will be held at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, a White House official said on Wednesday. The two leaders will meet on Friday to discuss an end to the more than three-year war in Ukraine, in what will be their first standalone summit since a 2018 meeting in Helsinki. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson - located near Alaska state capital Anchorage - is made up of the Elmendorf Air Force base and the Army's Fort Richardson, which were combined in 2010. The base is the headquarters for entities including Alaska Command - responsible for US forces in the state - as well as the Alaskan NORAD Region, which helps provide aerospace control and warning. The US military regularly conducts intercepts of Russian aircraft that venture near American airspace in Alaska, contacting Moscow's planes visually or electronically. Russia launched a full-scale war on Ukraine in February 2022, and Trump has spent the first months of his second term in office trying to broker a peace accord, an effort that has so far failed to yield a breakthrough. Meanwhile, Trump said on Wednesday he'd had a 'very good call' with European leaders including Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky as he prepares for Friday's summit with Putin. 'We had a very good call. He was on the call - President Zelensky was on the call. I would rate it at 10, you know, very, very friendly,' he told reporters during an event at Washington's Kennedy Center. Trump added that he wants to hold a 'quick second' meeting with Putin and Zelensky after the Alaska summit. — Agencies

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store