I read with interest the article in BusinessWeek that ranks countries by their "innovation friendliness". These are countries that have an atmosphere conducive to innovation. The list is that of countries that have "the right mix of pro-innovation policies and superior results".
While there is no argument that pro-innovation policies play a big role in fostering innovation, why should policies matter in the first place? What if a country delivers superior innovations despite pro-innovation policies? Where would such a country fall on the list?
Also, why should innovation input score matter? Is the proof not in the pudding anymore? How does GDP per capita and FDI matter? Does a country have to have large amounts of resources to be able to innovate? Sometimes great innovations are created and delivered in highly resource constrained settings precisely because large amounts of resources are not available. Is such innovation inferior by any means?
The world around us is changing rapidly. The hangover of the industrial revolution is over. Computers and the internet have created an even playing field. Such surveys need to upgrade what they look for and how they measure innovation effectiveness.
Great observations! In fact I would use Bangladesh's Grameen Bank as an example of how one is able innovate in the most resource constrained of environments. And to further add to that, we do not have to limit ourselves to innovation with current information/knowledge available over the internet; simple ideas such as microfinance have the potential to change the way the world has operated. Sometimes, it is too much information on how things work (or are supposed to) limits our ability to think out of the box.
ReplyDelete