K of innovation

Breznitz's case studies convincingly illustrate that some successful innovation paths have little to do with charismatic CEOs or media-friendly “a-ha” moments. The heroes of his story are experts, working within international supply chains, introducing incremental innovations at stages of design and production that are more or less invisible to outsiders. There are traces of a Brandeisian worldview that conceives of local jurisdictions as laboratories, where officials in the public and private sectors play with “novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Breznitz believes that if they understand the nuances of their local innovation ecosystem, and invest accordingly, they will be on their way to channeling the power of innovation to “foster inclusive prosperity.” This sounds good, as far as it goes. But before getting carried away with the how of regional innovation policy, it would be wise to ask why—or whether—innovation-based growth should be at the top of regional policymaking agendas. Let me lay out one suggestion for how to be more inclusive with these types of initiatives, and two reasons we ought to question the value of putting all of our eggs in the “innovation” basket. First, I wish Breznitz had included the words “labor” and “unions” in his essay. One indication of Breznitz's alignment with mainstream U.S. political culture is the way his argument takes labor for granted and marginalizes organized labor. Just consider the appalling treatment of “essential workers” throughout the pandemic, those brave souls who held society together during the grimmest weeks and months of the last year and a half. They stocked groceries, delivered masks and sanitizer, and cared for the sick. And then, as some semblance of normal life returned in the summer of 2021, they feel as though they “went from heroes to zeroes quickly,” as the nurse Dominique Muldoon put it. There's no mystery here: many essential workers are in occupations that are typically perceived as low-status, and multiple studies have shown that a disproportionate percentage of essential workers are women and racial and ethnic minorities. Is it too much to ask for these workers and their families to be at the center of policies that seek to build inclusive prosperity? Sadly, it is not unusual for scholars or advocates who sing the praises of innovation to omit labor. This is one reason why Lee Vinsel and I sounded the alarm about “innovation-speak” in our recent book, The Innovation Delusion: How Our Obsession with the New Has Disrupted the Work That Matters Most. As we describe there, actual innovation is the profitable combination of new or existing knowledge, resources, and technology. In many cases innovation can be a good thing, from emissions-reducing electric cars to life-saving medicines and vaccines. By contrast, innovation-speak is a sales pitch, typically cast in the language of fear and in the dialect of business buzzwords and jargon. A lazy but all too common mistake is to use “innovation” as a proxy for narrow values—such as efficiency, convenience, or simply novelty for its own sake. But not all innovations bring positive societal changes with them: some obvious examples include fentanyl and facial recognition. Simply put, it is a delusion to believe that innovation itself can cure our problems, which are not just technical but also social and political. And it should be equally obvious that undirected, brute innovation can be—indeed, has been—a significant driver of inequality, especially when it is not accompanied by the rules and regulations needed to curb its destructive potential. Finally, it is worth reflecting on the instinct within U.S. political culture to look to growth to solve our societal problems. Growth is the totem of modern economics, as is the central assumption that Breznitz rehearses: namely, that innovation-based growth automatically promotes economic well-being and inclusive prosperity. Our society urgently needs to find a way to dismantle these assumptions—and to embrace a vision of socioeconomic life that looks beyond mere consumerism and the profit to be gained by constant disruption. I am encouraged by social movements that are leading the conversation around topics such as sustainable development, Strong Towns, the care economy, and the circular economy (which reduces waste and preserves natural resources through tactics like reuse and repair). Economists contend that economies should grow at 2 or 3 percent annually. Even if we accept this premise, we will always need to devote more attention and resources to maintaining the overwhelming majority—97 or 98 percent of our economy!—that supports daily life. In other words, we need to pay more attention to the maintenance and care of what we have, rather than getting carried away with escapist fantasies about innovation and growth.