But you're only supporting his statements (He is, after all, a business weenie.) Its not surprising private spending has gone up to make up for the shortfall in government investment. It had to. Refer to Fig 4.4. Perfect correllation.

And how do you define R&D? Do you mean applied research to develop new products and systems? Or basic research in the sciences which may lead to the the engineering and technologies of the future. There is a big difference. I feel the role of government is to do the basic science research private enterprise can't afford because of the high risk and long horizons between discovery and the market. You can count on business to develop promising new techniques, but few businesses can (or should) go for broke on high risk, but big payoff down the line, gambles. Everybody knows space will pay off big time; Eventually, but not tomorrow, or even the day after.

Besides, Janeway specifically mentions specific areas, and how they have prospered under government investment. In fact, if you actually read his article, this is precisely the point he's trying to make:

"Why has it been in the world of information technology and, secondarily, biomedicine that venture capitalists have been successful? In brief: Only in these sectors did the state invest at sufficient scale in scientific research and in its translation to working technology."

or

"At every stage, the innovation economy depends on sources of funding decoupled from concern for economic return. As economists have long recognized, such funding will not be delivered by competitive markets. Only an active state in pursuit of politically legitimate missions — national development, national security, conquering disease — can play the required role."

"...sources of funding decoupled from concern for economic return...such funding will not be delivered by competitive markets". Hmmm. And why the bristly response? Janeway's arguments are certainly not anti-market, he's simply suggesting both state and private institutions have valid, distinct, (but overlapping roles to play). That isn't that unreasonable a position. Or as he puts it.

"Government cannot play the role either of entrepreneur or venture capitalist in creating the low-carbon economy. But entrepreneurs and venture capitalists cannot build this new economy by themselves. The venture capital model is radically unsuited to investment in fundamental science or in technological invention in its nascent stages. For the next generation of entrepreneurs and venture capitalist to have their opportunity to dance, they need government agencies as active and creative as those that served my generation."

And in my generation, too. I worked for the nuclear power industry 40 years ago. Federal money was everywhere, even their accident liability insurance was government-subsidized, and the private sector got rich. But the industry failed to pick up the ball and run with it. When the cash flow stopped...the party ended abruptly. Just like space.

Besides, all those graphs are impressive, but they tell us nothing about what is happening now. They cover long-term trends, going back a half-century or more, trends pretty much independent of ideological fashions and fads.. And there is no data at all after 2008.