December 19, 2012
Innovation Crisis or Financial Crisis?
Kenneth Rogoff in Project Syndicate:
As one year of sluggish growth spills into the next, there is growing debate about what to expect over the coming decades. Was the global financial crisis a harsh but transitory setback to advanced-country growth, or did it expose a deeper long-term malaise?
Recently, a few writers, including internet entrepreneur Peter Thiel and political activist and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, have espoused a fairly radical interpretation of the slowdown. In a forthcoming book, they argue that the collapse of advanced-country growth is not merely a result of the financial crisis; at its root, they argue, these countries’ weakness reflects secular stagnation in technology and innovation. As such, they are unlikely to see any sustained pickup in productivity growth without radical changes in innovation policy.
Economist Robert Gordon takes this idea even further. He argues that the period of rapid technological progress that followed the Industrial Revolution may prove to be a 250-year exception to the rule of stagnation in human history. Indeed, he suggests that today’s technological innovations pale in significance compared to earlier advances like electricity, running water, the internal combustion engine, and other breakthroughs that are now more than a century old.
I recently debated the technological stagnation thesis with Thiel and Kasparov at Oxford University, joined by encryption pioneer Mark Shuttleworth. Kasparov pointedly asked what products such as the iPhone 5 really add to our capabilities, and argued that most of the science underlying modern computing was settled by the seventies. Thiel maintained that efforts to combat the recession through loose monetary policy and hyper-aggressive fiscal stimulus treat the wrong disease, and therefore are potentially very harmful.
These are very interesting ideas, but the evidence still seems overwhelming that the drag on the global economy mainly reflects the aftermath of a deep systemic financial crisis, not a long-term secular innovation crisis.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 07:30 AM | Permalink






















Comments
The analysis of an economic engine must first take note of the type of government involved.
"... the U.S. is becoming a Plutonomy – an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy. And Plutonomies are far less stable than economies built on more evenly distributed income and mass consumption" (Wall Street Journal).
The plutocracies of the West where a plutonomy is the economic engine have become unstable for that reason.
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 19, 2012 9:05:45 AM
Well... no... actually.... a plutocracy can be a good thing for innovation... leaving apart the minor point that its current status as pejorative.
And just for the record smart people .neq. innovative people (ala Kasparov). And one might argue that he is more similar to a trained monkey – except instead of pushing keys for food, he plays and memorizes chess positions.
Innovation is not subject to modeling, prediction, investment, fertilizing.
Anyone that thinks they can understand and influence innovation – any more than they can great art - is an over-reaching fool.
~ My work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one. Wittgenstein
Posted by: Steve | Dec 19, 2012 1:52:36 PM
One irony in this discussion arises from the usage of "innovation".
The mortgage securities and their packaging in various types of derivative are referred to as "financial innovation". The unrestrained and irresponsible use of these "innovative" financial "products" was a key contributor to the financial crash.
So one view is that there was too much "innovation" at least in the financial sector.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Dec 19, 2012 7:43:35 PM
Post a comment