What do you think?
Rate this book
The Politics of Innovation: Why Some Countries Are Better Than Others at Science and Technology
Why are some countries better than others at science and technology (S&T)? Written in an approachable style, The Politics of Innovation provides readers from all backgrounds and levels of expertise a comprehensive introduction to the debates over national S&T competitiveness. It synthesizes over fifty years of theory and research on national innovation rates, bringing together the current political and economic wisdom, and latest findings, about how nations become S&T leaders. Many experts mistakenly believe that domestic institutions and policies determine national innovation rates. However, after decades of research, there is still no agreement on precisely how this happens, exactly which institutions matter, and little aggregate evidence has been produced to support any particular explanation. Yet, despite these problems, a core faith in a relationship between domestic institutions and national innovation rates remains widely held and little challenged. The Politics of
Innovation confronts head-on this contradiction between theory, evidence, and the popularity of the institutions-innovation hypothesis. It presents extensive evidence to show that domestic institutions and policies do not determine innovation rates. Instead, it argues that social networks are as important as institutions in determining national innovation rates. The Politics of Innovation also introduces a new theory of "creative insecurity" which explains how institutions, policies, and networks are all subservient to politics. It argues that, ultimately, each country's balance of domestic rivalries vs. external threats, and the ensuing political fights, are what drive S&T competitiveness. In making its case, The Politics of Innovation draws upon statistical analysis and comparative case studies of the United States, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Turkey, Israel, Russia and a dozen countries across Western Europe.
Innovation confronts head-on this contradiction between theory, evidence, and the popularity of the institutions-innovation hypothesis. It presents extensive evidence to show that domestic institutions and policies do not determine innovation rates. Instead, it argues that social networks are as important as institutions in determining national innovation rates. The Politics of Innovation also introduces a new theory of "creative insecurity" which explains how institutions, policies, and networks are all subservient to politics. It argues that, ultimately, each country's balance of domestic rivalries vs. external threats, and the ensuing political fights, are what drive S&T competitiveness. In making its case, The Politics of Innovation draws upon statistical analysis and comparative case studies of the United States, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Turkey, Israel, Russia and a dozen countries across Western Europe.
444 pages, Paperback
Published June 3, 2016
18 people are currently reading
254 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
November 1, 2016
This book is an exemplar of its genre for a whole host of reasons - some good and some bad.
For one, it's well written. The author does a great job of signposting the transitions through chapters, and building the argument in an orderly and coherent way. The text is readable, approachable, and engagingly written.
It's also a prototypical example of - and a great introduction to - some of the main ideas and theories in innovation studies. The first two sections are well worth reading to get an orientation to many of the causal hypotheses that have been brandied around for why some countries are more innovative than others. They're well worth reading for anyone who wants to get a better sense of the innovation field.
The book also, however, falls victim to many of the characteristic sins of the discipline. Commonplace assumptions about what ought to be measured (e.g., patent output), where (e.g., by nation state), and how (e.g., by comparing performance of different nations) end up being the achilles heel of the book. Taylor's operationalization of the internal & external threats is passing and poorly justified, and the obsession with transnational comparisons (versus, for instance, contrasting the performance of a given country over time) means that his results are so garbled by measurement inaccuracies as to be difficult to trust.
While the thesis is intriguing - that the best innovating countries are those with fewer internal threats and more external threats - the framing and justification of the research question, methods used to examine it, and ultimate conclusion are inadequate.
For one, it's well written. The author does a great job of signposting the transitions through chapters, and building the argument in an orderly and coherent way. The text is readable, approachable, and engagingly written.
It's also a prototypical example of - and a great introduction to - some of the main ideas and theories in innovation studies. The first two sections are well worth reading to get an orientation to many of the causal hypotheses that have been brandied around for why some countries are more innovative than others. They're well worth reading for anyone who wants to get a better sense of the innovation field.
The book also, however, falls victim to many of the characteristic sins of the discipline. Commonplace assumptions about what ought to be measured (e.g., patent output), where (e.g., by nation state), and how (e.g., by comparing performance of different nations) end up being the achilles heel of the book. Taylor's operationalization of the internal & external threats is passing and poorly justified, and the obsession with transnational comparisons (versus, for instance, contrasting the performance of a given country over time) means that his results are so garbled by measurement inaccuracies as to be difficult to trust.
While the thesis is intriguing - that the best innovating countries are those with fewer internal threats and more external threats - the framing and justification of the research question, methods used to examine it, and ultimate conclusion are inadequate.
December 31, 2016
America has maintained technological preeminence long enough for us to get complacent. However, as historian Donald Cardwell pointed out in the early 1970s after looking at a millenium of change, “No nation has been very creative for more than an historically short time.”
Mark Zachary Taylor, professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, poses a simple question. “Why are some countries better than others at science and technology?” In his compelling yet accessible new book, he rejects consensus explanations and instead puts domestic and international politics front and center.
Most scholars and policymakers today put their faith in institutions to drive innovation. The “Five Pillars,” property rights, R&D subsidies, education, research universities, and trade policy many contend are sufficient to unclog market failures to get creative juices flowing. But Taylor demonstrates that these policies explain some but not all of national innovation rates (measured mostly through patent filings weighted by future citations). He also points out that of the top national performers, only the US, Canada, and Japan rank well on more than two of categories. While institutions may show how nations innovate, they don’t why they do.
Another school of thought points to to democratization and markets free of government interference as keys to national science and technology success. As Daren Acemoglu and James Robinson laid out in their recent bestseller ‘Why Nations Fail,’ countries need inclusive and competitive politics to ensure institutions don’t just preserve elite wealth at the expense of dynamism. In a convincing critique, he runs a regression showing how countries that have democratized the most over the past forty years haven’t had their innovation rates increase any more than those that haven’t.
He concludes that it’s “creative insecurity” and networks that nations need. Countries need to be threatened enough externally to be willing to take on monopolies and cut back on statism, but not too overwhelmed by their neighbors to be losing wars. Given his thesis, it seems like the threat of an alien invasion is all we need to really boost total factor productivity.
Mark Zachary Taylor, professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, poses a simple question. “Why are some countries better than others at science and technology?” In his compelling yet accessible new book, he rejects consensus explanations and instead puts domestic and international politics front and center.
Most scholars and policymakers today put their faith in institutions to drive innovation. The “Five Pillars,” property rights, R&D subsidies, education, research universities, and trade policy many contend are sufficient to unclog market failures to get creative juices flowing. But Taylor demonstrates that these policies explain some but not all of national innovation rates (measured mostly through patent filings weighted by future citations). He also points out that of the top national performers, only the US, Canada, and Japan rank well on more than two of categories. While institutions may show how nations innovate, they don’t why they do.
Another school of thought points to to democratization and markets free of government interference as keys to national science and technology success. As Daren Acemoglu and James Robinson laid out in their recent bestseller ‘Why Nations Fail,’ countries need inclusive and competitive politics to ensure institutions don’t just preserve elite wealth at the expense of dynamism. In a convincing critique, he runs a regression showing how countries that have democratized the most over the past forty years haven’t had their innovation rates increase any more than those that haven’t.
He concludes that it’s “creative insecurity” and networks that nations need. Countries need to be threatened enough externally to be willing to take on monopolies and cut back on statism, but not too overwhelmed by their neighbors to be losing wars. Given his thesis, it seems like the threat of an alien invasion is all we need to really boost total factor productivity.
September 24, 2018
I highly recommend this excellent and acessible book.
"Creative Insecurity" is a particular strong thesis to explain why nations innovate more because some of the counterfactuals (e.g. the "external threat" is not military, but of a more economic type) can be explained through the theory´s very logic.
"Creative Insecurity" is a particular strong thesis to explain why nations innovate more because some of the counterfactuals (e.g. the "external threat" is not military, but of a more economic type) can be explained through the theory´s very logic.
February 6, 2023
(3.5) Libro interesante, académico, sobre el papel de la inseguridad creativa (la motivación por innovar para hacer frente a una amenaza externa) en el éxito y fracaso de los países en el ámbito de la ciencia y la tecnología.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews