Drexler recently wrote an article for McKinsey on the roots of innovation. Always a difficult quality to pin down and Drexler tries the high road of grand narrative, rather than the minutiae of what actually makes creativity tick. This is not a criticism as local studies often forget to connect the dots at a cultural or social level. Less accurate is the emphasis on science and engineering: for the countries cited, it has often led to the siren cry of technocracy and directed development. Who is cited as the primary examples of societies with 'drive':
As science and technology grow in importance, it becomes increasingly important for leaders to have a good understanding of these disciplines. Among US legislators, though, a background in science and engineering is exceedingly rare. In France, it is common. In Taiwan, many legislators have doctoral degrees in science or engineering. In China, of the nine members of the standing committee of the Politburo (the ruling body, which includes the president, the vice president, and the premier), one recently appointed member has an education in law. Previously, all nine had been trained as engineers.The 'catch up' in Asia is identified as a driver towards economic growth with cultural consequences for the acceptance and reverence of education and knowledge. Modern day equivalents of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Darwin and Einstein are celebrated, though these are often sought after for the combination of scientific and commercial acumen. Emerging middle classes wish to follow in their footsteps and get rich and famous. One day studies will no doubt reveal a complex soup of attitudes and philosophies equivalent to the radical stresses of their Victorian forebears.
Does this combine to create a civilisational thrust towards an innovative society? Drexler notes three features: drive, human capital and an ability to mobilise societal acceptance and stimulation of innovative change:
• drive—a culture that supports change and hungers for it
• human capital—the personal abilities that make world-class technology possible
• a capacity for mobilization—a society’s ability to pursue ambitious new goals
These basic elements are more fundamental than any current performance metric or economic trend, and they are durable.
Such aspects of a post-industrial society may come into play, though they are used here to implicitly critique the current structure of the Anglo-Saxon economies with their emphasis upon law and celebrity. Some of those cultural and educational weaknesses need to be addressed, but the article does hark back to the era of Big Science, a simpler culture of wonder and a time when a US President could stand up, call upon a myth and get to the Moon in a decade. Those days are past for now.
Drexler may minimise the institutional sediment for innovative and entrepreneurial activity, but his overall explanation does ring true: you need a critical mass of nerds to explain what goes on underneath the cover, if you are to remain within the game. Nerds must be nurtured and rewarded, or they will go elsewhere. We ignore the cultural roots of our success at our peril.