Example collocations logo

Innovation in sentence

3014 examples of Innovation in a sentence

This is where innovation in the measurement of governmental and philanthropic performance is making a big difference.
Innovation to reduce the delivery bottleneck is critical.
It funds innovation in the creation of new tools and services, and in their delivery.
From time to time, we should step back and celebrate the achievements that come with having the right goals, the necessary political will, generous aid, and innovation in tools and their delivery.
Concerns about overprotection of intellectual property acting as a barrier to innovation and its diffusion are not new.
Patent rules, for example, reflect the long-held assumption that strong protection provides an essential incentive for businesses to pursue innovation.
In fact, recent studies by Petra Moser and Heidi Williams, among others, find little evidence that patents boost innovation.
On the contrary, because they lock in incumbents’ advantages and drive up the costs of new technology, such protections are associated with less new or follow-on innovation, weaker diffusion, and increased market concentration.
What is really needed is a top-to-bottom reexamination of the system, with an eye to changing excessively broad or stringent protections, aligning the rules with current realities, and enabling competition to drive innovation and technological diffusion.
If the system’s defenders truly seek to promote innovation, they should welcome it in their own backyard.
Patents, however, are not the only important element of the innovation ecosystem.
Governments also promote innovation through direct funding of research and development and through fiscal incentives.
More broadly, in an increasingly knowledge-intensive economy, public policy should seek to democratize innovation, in order to boost the creation and dissemination of new ideas and promote healthy competition.
Technological advances and innovation have begun to turn the longstanding dream of energy independence into a reality.
If we use as our guide average material progress over the course of centuries, it might seem that necessity will again serve as the mother of invention, and that we will meet the population challenge, just as we have met previous challenges, through technological and institutional innovation.
We are already seeing extraordinary innovation by the private sector, which will drive the transition towards a low-carbon global economy.
For all its recent woes (which many countries would gladly exchange for their own), the US remains a dynamo of industry and innovation, and may be emerging as an energy powerhouse as well.
For example, investment in human capital enables innovation, the products of which create demand and, in turn, economic growth.
For China, the supply side should be driven more by innovation and creation, rather than by increasing inputs.
There are more than a half-billion mobile connections on the continent today; indeed, in many respects, Africa leads the world in mobile growth and innovation.
Supporting innovation and entrepreneurship can also help power change.
Such institutional reforms would go a long way toward eliminating default (or bailout) risk and creating a market-oriented financial system of balanced incentives that supports growth and innovation.
Bank regulators are starting to take these issues more seriously – an encouraging change from the 1990s and early 2000s, when the Fed was among the cheerleaders for unfettered financial innovation, without adequate consideration for systemic risk.
Here is another way of looking at the Apple problem: If Apple continues to succeed, won’t it generate the cash that it needs for innovation from its super-products, like the iPad, the iPhone, and the MacBook?
The “new classical economics,” as it became known, taught that, in the absence of egregious government interference, economies would gravitate naturally to full employment, greater innovation, and higher growth rates.
Such market optimism led to de-regulation of financial markets in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and the subsequent explosion of financial innovation which made it “safe” to borrow larger and larger sums of money on the back of predictably rising assets.
She was wrong: the complexity of modern science does not allow anyone, least of all bureaucrats, to predict where innovation will emerge.
Some argue that the higher prices reflect the fact that the US bears a cost premium for innovation.
But in many cases – Turing’s decision is just one egregious example – higher prices do not reflect investments in innovation.
Even so, some simple steps can be taken to prevent price gouging, while maintaining incentives for innovation.
BackNext