The outcome of any innovative endeavour is by no means certain. Rather, innovation entails risk for the innovator as well as for the society he's working in. The first might be considered the risk of innovation failure, which I have already addressed in a previous post. The second risk is the risk of innovation success, and that's what I'll focus today's post on.
Often times, the theory is one thing, and its application is something entirely different. Innovation policy is no exception, so that the transfer of conceptual ideas into practice is fraught with unpleasant surprise. I'd suggest two specific challenges to successful policy making in support of innovation: one is related to integrity, the other to competition.
My appreciation for Ian Morris and his big thinking has been woven into this blog already at a very early stage. He has his finger on the pulse of society's fundamental challenges; his "paradox of development" eloquently paraphrases society's eternal quest for innovation, while pointing out that any solution can only be temporary.
Innovation policy is a complex composition of tools that influence the innovation capacity and success of a society. This set of policies usually does not cover the entire innovation landscape, but leaves the fringes of the landscape unattended. Today, I'll first focus on innovation policy that embraces novelty, i.e., policy objectives especially tailored to novel supply and novel demand. I consider this a forward looking innovation policy.
About a year ago I came across the work of the historian and archaeologist Ian Morris, who observed that "change is caused by lazy, greedy, frightened people looking for easier, more profitable, and safer ways of doing things". This Morris Theorem essentially presents human sloth, greed, and fear as the key drivers for our society's appetite for change – change of our environment to our own benefit. That is what we call innovation: the purpose is an easier, richer, safer life for all of us.
understanding innovation 