What Matters: Asia and the elements of innovation

22 April 2010

Social enterprise: It takes a network

By Raj Kumar

In Social Entrepreneurs

22 April 2010

Teaching the world to change

By Dan Viederman

In Social Entrepreneurs

22 April 2010

Innovating at scale in the social sector

By Jonathan Bays and Marla Capozzi

In Social Entrepreneurs

13 April 2010

The economics of social progress

By Iqbal Z. Quadir

In Social Entrepreneurs

Previous: Prizes: a winning strategy for innovation

Next: Using technology to turbocharge innovation in a downturn

Asia and the elements of innovation

By Eric Drexler

6 August 2009

Asia has strengths that promise to make it a leading center of technological innovation in the 21st century. These strengths are substantial, fundamental, and durable. At their base lie aspects of culture, on both a civilizational and generational time scale. Human capital and the capacity for mobilization build on these cultural advantages.

The term “Asia” is of course a label for a collection of very different societies. I will speak primarily of China, counting Taiwan and Singapore as strongly linked parts of what is almost a whole. South Korea shares similar strengths; Japan and India differ more substantially.

I focus on technological innovation because it drives innovation throughout the global economy, changing what we make, what we use, and what we do. Centers of technological innovation become centers of innovation across a broad economic spectrum for two reasons: innovation in technology is inseparable from the innovations that flow from it, and the regearing of a society for innovation of any kind has effects on law, capital, and business culture that spill across boundaries.

To become a world-class center of technological innovation, a society must have three basic elements:

• 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.

The drive for change

Cultures can shift between complacency and drive on a generational time scale. Where one generation struggles from poverty to prosperity, the next often treats prosperity as a natural part of life. Where one generation upholds a rigid social architecture, the next may be scrabbling in rubble and building anew. Japan and most Western societies have been stable and prosperous throughout the adult lives of their leaders. Recent history makes much of Asia quite different.

China’s social architecture was smashed in the 20th century, leaving rubble and persistent poverty as the West soared into the advanced industrial era. The rubble, though, was of extraordinary quality—the loosened parts of a high civilization. The drive for change in China is enormous for all the reasons that inspire the poor to strive. These are amplified by a conviction, which history and recent experience support, that China’s natural place in the world is far from the bottom.

The experience of change facilitates further change. People who have gone (and are continuing to go) from villages to skyscrapers in a single generation are prepared to dream of going further.

Human capital for science and technology

Cultures differ radically in their attitudes toward education. In the rising societies of Asia, education is a top priority, far above, for example, sports. During national exam season, when students study for the test that will determine their future in higher education, I found that Indian newspapers carry science and mathematics quizzes that would stump most US college graduates. Recent physics tests given to US and Chinese students entering comparable technically oriented universities produced distributions of scores that had little overlap. In Chinese societies, scholarly students have a status among their peers like that of athletes in the United States and run little risk of being marginalized, ridiculed, or beaten. In India, I found that students chase after the autographs, not of entertainers, but of scientists.

It is routine to note that Asian education relies on drill, which tends to dampen the critical thinking and spontaneous habits of thought that generate innovative ideas. Looking forward, this problem has been recognized by Asian governments, which have undertaken efforts to offset it. These efforts may have some effect. Even now, however, the magnitude of the problem may be in part an illusion. Science and technology programs in US universities are increasingly populated by Asian students and professors. As readers of leading science journals know, an increasing portion of the best research in the United States and Europe appears in papers with authors bearing mainland Chinese names. In effect, the best products of Chinese education have been selectively exported, and their innovations are counted as products of their countries of residence.

This outflow of talent, which skews Western perceptions of Chinese education, may not be permanent; indeed, it has reversed as the appeal of life and careers in China has increased. China’s spending on R&D has risen by 20 percent a year for the past decade. In the United States, the growth rate of R&D spending has been about one-fifth of this level.

The capacity for mobilization

Drive and human capital are applied through organization, by both entrepreneurs and corporations, as well as national leaders and governments. India has been outstanding in its incapacity for reform and for interfering with entrepreneurship, though this is changing. China, however, has been outstanding in its capacity for learning from experience, radically transforming government policy, and unleashing a hyperentrepreneurial business culture.

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.

A leading indicator

Perhaps the most robust indicator of change in the distribution of innovation potential is a change in the distribution of corporate research laboratories. Companies are opening new labs in China at an astounding rate. In software and electronics, NEC, Hitachi, Sony, IBM, and Microsoft all have established R&D centers in China; in pharmaceuticals, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Eli Lilly have done so. This list is not exhaustive. Recently, I read news of the groundbreaking ceremony for a $70 million research center being built by ExxonMobil Chemical in the Zizhu Science-based Industrial Park, in Shanghai.

Any system can fail, often for unexpected reasons. The future political and economic stability of China and Asia as a whole are matters for speculation. Nonetheless, the trends, the durable fundamentals, and the leading indicators all suggest that Asia, led by China, will be a leading force in the innovations that transform the world in the 21st century. The stronger global integration becomes, the better the odds of a smooth and broadly beneficial outcome.

Comment [64]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

When it comes to promoting innovation and enterpreneurship one important societal aspect which comes to my mind is the society’s acceptance of failures. And here I see a big difference between Asia particularly India & U.S. In Indian society failure is not easily acceptable to the society and the failed person suffers loss of face. So the normal tendency is to play safe, avoid risks which stifles innovation. On the contrary American society is reatively much more tolerant to failures and this has been a key driver of promoting enterpreneurship and innovation in U.S.

Bringing tolerance and acceptability to individual failures in Asian societal fabric particularly India may be a tall order.

Posted 7 August 2009, 00:51 by Jeetendra Singh
The aricle is based more on imagination than on real ground level happening. It is true Indians and Chinese are of late very keen to upgarde their knowledge and wealth acquisition. But it is equally true that for this they have to seek help of western education facilities and technology as well as their R & D facilities. At times they have not even hesitated to plagiarism. In fact but for the interest evinced by the developed countries to these countries to get increasing space for supply and trade, it would have taken much more time both for China and India to attain the present rate of growth. Recently however some change is visible that could soon overtake supremacy of western innovation and research in technology etc.,

Posted 7 August 2009, 00:45 by souren
@ James Eastwood. The “appalling” scarcity of engineers in America reflects the relatively poor career expectations that young university students have had over the past couple of decades. Having seen older engineers who were poorly treated by US corporations, many students were more attracted to jobs associated with places like Wall Street, Madison Avenue, or Silicone Valley, which had all promised students that they could become rich with only a generalist background. The American “disconnection” to which you refer was brought on not by that most alluring of myths, the Ugly American Attitude; it is a result of the rise of corporate interests over national interests. America doesn’t put out engineers because engineering school costs $120,000 and four years of time, after which engineers earn $65,000 per year. That is, until their jobs are outsourced to India to a $20,000 per year engineer. GE et al. love it.

Wise up.

Posted 7 August 2009, 00:40 by ESO
It’s so interesting to see that McKinsey is simultaneously publishing contradictory research. In “Where Innovation Creates Value” you will read, “China and India aren’t close to catching up with the United States in the ability to develop and use technological innovations”. This article has much more reasonable content, in my opinion. And at least it has some references to its sources.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Where_innovation_creates_value_2304

Posted 6 August 2009, 23:28 by RickB
The article brings forth the most essential ingredients of a society which aspires to become technologically innovative and advancing. No doubt this is becoming possible because of parental influence on the younger generation to concentrate more on education than on other traits. I stronly believe that this is the key reason why these Asian nations are leading technologically albeit slowly but surely.

7th August Biswanath Mahapatra

Posted 6 August 2009, 22:41 by BISWANATH MAHAPATRA
I strongly agree that the society must have the 3 basic elements for technological change and improvement. Of the three, the Drive and Human capital are utmost vital, moreover human capital has to be steered well by a strong leader (either by a visionery politician or by a genius technocrat). Drive has to be within in as well as without the society that includes the strong political will that can constitute a great foundation for the cause.

Posted 6 August 2009, 19:54 by Dr.Balachandra H Keni
Innovation is the key to economic growth. Since 2000 little known regulations have stifled innovaiton in the U.S. See http://hallingblog.com/2009/05/26/innovation-regulatory-road-kill/

If we do not adopt pro-innovation policies, the U.S. will quickly fall behind economically and technologically. Government neglect and arrogance in the 1970s led to the U.S. almost losing its economic and technologically leadership. We are repeating these mistakes.

Posted 6 August 2009, 19:49 by Dale B. Halling
Where is the content in this article – a few rehashed ‘observations’ on how China does not match the national stereotype (how surprising is that?) does not make it a hotbed of innovation. Given the population of China and India it would be highly surprising if they did not figure strongly in every field of endeavor over the next few decades – technological included. I don’t think this article adds anything to that conclusion.

Oh, and by the way, I have lived and worked in Singapore for 4 years and Singapore is NOT an offshoot of China, although it is a very good example of the way in which central government can foster economic and technological growth.

Posted 6 August 2009, 17:56 by David P
It’s significant how few American politicians have a background in engineering or science. In fact, it’s a little appalling. In general, it seems that American society feels completely disconnected from the world of scientists and engineers. “They give us good things, I guess, but the less we have to deal with them the better.” Children of poverty aspire to be doctors or lawyers, but most of the budding engineers seem to be the children and grandchildren of engineers. It certainly does not bode well for American innovation in the future.

Posted 6 August 2009, 16:58 by James Eastwood
One fundamental factor which you have not accounted for is “resourcefulness” of Asians in comparison to their Western cultures. In my working experience in USA, I have noticed that Asians asked for fewer resources and produce more with what they are given. This has to do with multiple of social factors : (1) large families means limited resources has to be shared. That means, taking shorter showers, sleeping with siblings in the same bed, sharing food, sharing books etc..(2) You don’t expect your parents to fulfill all your needs – most often you don’t get anything more than what was required. As a student, I was not allowed to sharpen my pencil and each pencil was supposed to last for a month. I used to write on one back side of commercial printouts. My father was not poor. We were upper middle class. So we are shy of asking for resources and do what we can with what is given(3)Multi-tasking and multiple uses: Many had to help with household businesses and study, take care of younger sibling and study, help with cooking and study.. so we became experts as multi-tasking. I can read technical papers (patents),take dinner, watch TV, listen to music and keep an eye on my kid’s computer all at the same time. We also are good at multiple uses. My mother used to use watemellon in seven different ways: cut pulp as fruit, make juice of smaller pieces, cleand and dry seeds for after dinner mouth freshner, cut skin and make vege curry, and what ever left over feed to grazing cow. So I became expert user of what ever I have – a great skill for an engineer.

Yes, Asians also have soemthing to do with their colonial history and desire to never let that happen again. When it coems to excelling, we compete very vigrously and with vigor. Losing is disgrace for most Asians. We are patient beyond limit but not passive as many westerners think.

Posted 6 August 2009, 16:30 by Amit Dharia

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Prizes: a winning strategy for innovation

Next: Using technology to turbocharge innovation in a downturn

Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.

Will Asia become the center for innovation in the 21st century?

Comment on the debate

Where innovation creates value
Is the United States on the verge of being pummeled by a technological hurricane? Professor Amar Bhidé says no and explains why the US is able to stay ahead.