Where do you stand on Innovation Economics?

"As soon as I got this job I realised I had to learn more about economics. After all, economics is the language of government."
- Professor Robin Batterham, former Chief Scientist of Australia

As we (again) count down to the publication of the Cutler Green Paper on Australia's National Innovation System, it's a good opportunity to pause and reflect on our own system of economic thought. After all, any government intervention is going to be justified by an underlying set of assumptions and rules about how the economy and economics works.

You may already be familiar with the Keynesian school, the Supply Side school, even the Rubinomics approach, but there is increasing interest as the US Presidential Election inches closer in what has been termed "Innovation Economics". (Unsurprisingly, there is a web site, and even a quiz to help you determine which flavour of economics you subscribe to.) This is how they describe their approach:

In contrast, “innovation economics” recognizes the reality that a global, knowledge-based economy requires a new approach to national economic policy based less on capital accumulation, budget surpluses, or social spending and more on smart support for the building blocks of private sector growth and innovation.

Rather than focus on ensuring that prices accurately reflect costs to drive what conventional economists call allocative efficiency, innovation economists argue that the lion’s share of economic growth is determined by productivity and innovation

Fascinating, hey? Particularly given the apparently conventional approach taken to this area by our Productivity Commission.

So, why don't you take the quiz and post a comment on the type of economist you are (unfortunately, I fell into "no discernible philosophy").

Edited for formatting.