The Politics of Innovation: Why Some Countries Are Better Than Others at Science and Technology by Mark Zachary Taylor (review)

Why are some countries better than others at technological innovation? Many have asked this question in the past, mainly from a socio-cultural and historical perspective. In contrast, Taylor's story concentrates on the contemporary period. He neglects the long-term factors that historians have studied for some decades, though he does cover and criticize a large part of the recent literature.

What answer does Taylor offer to his question? To him, it is certainly not market failures that explain innovation rates, contrary to what neoclassical economists suggest. Neither is it domestic institutions and policies (alone) that explain the leadership of nations, contrary to what the system approaches pretend. Institutional explanations are "overstated and oversimplified" (p. 23). To Taylor, it is rather politics that matters. "Most innovation scholars and economists," claims Taylor, "tend to ignore politics. For them, politics and government are annoyances. … This book shows that politics are the sine qua non for successful explanations of national innovation rates" (p. 19). By "politics," Taylor means threats, both domestic and external. Feeling threatened by military insecurity, but also by economic insecurity and problems such as energy, climate, and health leads to creativity ("creative insecurity" as Taylor calls it) and acts as a force or motive in favor of sustained support for science, technology, and innovation activities.

This is a very piquant thesis that, I am sure, will be debated in the future (another such thesis from Taylor is the detrimental effect of distribution policies on innovation activities). The insecurity thesis has some factual evidence, as Taylor attempts to demonstrate. It also has, if I may add, some foundation in the discourses supporting the development of policies since the 1950s, at the least (see Juan C. Lucena, Defending the Nation, 2005). Yet whether Taylor has just substituted the words "threats" and "insecurity" for that part of the problem (or motives or goals) that concern domestic or socioeconomic progress (energy, climate, and health) is worth asking for evaluating Taylor's originality.

Sound statistics are essential to support such a thesis. I do not think that Taylor succeeds. His statistics on innovation are the conventional ones: education, R&D, publications, and patents. If Taylor were to take seriously his own definition of innovation (p. 29), he would measure innovation as the commercialization of products/processes, the subsequent adoption and diffusion over time, and the effects on society. In the end, Taylor is more concerned with invention that innovation. Like most scholars he draws a distinction between the two concepts, but in reality, like most scholars again, he does not follow the lesson. Nevertheless, Taylor reinterprets the available evidence and succeeds in telling a new story.

Taylor offers a narrative that (re)organizes the several theories developed in the field. In contrast to many writers, he starts by discussing the concepts he uses, and offers some brief history in an appendix. This is perhaps motivated by an important portion of the sources used: statistics. A measure needs a concept to be measured. In any event, this is a most welcome improvement over the existing literature. The book is also full of attempts to revise the theoretical stereotypes of the field. However, Taylor uses many concepts uncritically. One is creativity, a major concept in Taylor's analysis. In the footsteps of the economist Joseph Schumpeter and his "creative destruction" (one could add Schumpeter's term "creative response" too), Taylor uses the concept of creativity in a metaphorical sense that brings very little substance to the debate. "Response" to insecurity or "development" or "production" of science and technology activities could replace creativity as well, with no unfortunate consequences for the analysis.

In the end, Taylor's book is a valuable addition to the literature on (technological) innovation. The book is the result of thirteen years of work and thought and deserves a wide readership.