Title | : | Innovation + Equality: How to Create a Future That Is More Star Trek Than Terminator |
Author | : | |
Rating | : | |
ISBN | : | 026204322X |
ISBN-10 | : | 9780262043229 |
Language | : | English |
Format Type | : | Hardcover |
Number of Pages | : | 192 |
Publication | : | Published October 29, 2019 |
Innovation + Equality: How to Create a Future That Is More Star Trek Than Terminator Reviews
-
Don't dismiss this book because the title seems to suggest yet another populist but empty manifesto. This book is written by two brilliant level-headed economists and the essays they pen here are a veritable geyser of ideas about how to optimistically promote innovation-- but from the approach that equality of opportunity is both a laudable goal and a compulsory prerequisite for an innovative society. The authors spend the first few chapters presenting and analyzing both the optimists' and the pessimists' views on questions such as: is the new technological era a Renaissance or a Dark Age for people in manual, routine, or abstract sectors of work? Will continued technological progress lead to computer-aided human superpower, or our annihilation? Does innovation require, and cause, inequality?
Some important insights uncovered by this book is the unimpeachable truth about the role of government support in fomenting innovation: government research programs, and not private labs or tech corporations, are directly responsible for voice recognition, GPS, multitouch screens, lithium batteries, the internet, and cellphone technology. 100% of new pharmaceutical drugs invented in recent years in the US are the product of grants by the National Institutes of Health. Furthermore, opportunity and robust networks in a permissive society spur new inventors to pursue the risk-taking path of patents and science-based entrepreneurship. The authors in particular make sure they put in a good word for the accelerator they spearhead within University of Toronto's Rotman School, the Creative Destruction Lab.
The authors propose several recommendations, including the need to limit or stagger the duration the patents and trademarks so that they spur inventors without indulging hidebound creatures like Martin Shkreli from monopolizing against lowered costs or further innovations, and the need for collective society to provide insurance or continued education or learning support so that the populace can take risks and continue to improve their economic capital. They also stress the importance of prioritizing the quality of teacher training.
Their ten ideas for boosting innovation are:
a) encourage healthy competition between research funders
b)foster moonshot innovation with grants
c)balance stakeholder interests in IP laws
d)build innovation training for everyone
e)use promises and prizes to encourage innovation
f) beware of tax breaks
g)reduce barriers to entry for entrepreneurs
h)build catalytic networks, entrepreneurial ecosystems
i) free up public sector science and university science for innovation
j)update national statistics -
I really enjoyed this book. It's short, accessible and explores a topic I find fascinating - the intersection between innovation and inequality. Gans and Leigh explore the big questions in this area: Should we optimistic about the potential of tech to make our world better? Or pessimistic because productivity improvements are slowing down? Will innovation make our jobs more productive and satisfying? Or will robots take our most of our jobs altogether? Does innovation require inequality? Does innovation cause inequality?
Gans and Leigh are clearly of the view that innovation and inequality need not go hand in hand. But their analysis is mostly conceptual and very US-centric. I would have loved to see a detailed examination of countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Germany. All are ranked top 10 in on the Global Innovation Index and have relatively low inequality. How are they achieving this? What are they doing in practice that is contributing to these outcomes.
A great read though, with a solid set of policy suggestions. -
Thought-provoking, especially after the changes that have happened in 2020.
-
Brief, US focused and a bit scattergun
-
More a synthesis of current research within a broad framework than the bold proposal type thing I expected