Before getting into the subject, I think it appropriate to spend a few moments on two tips of the iceberg that, in my view, play a fundamental role in the world of innovation.
The first, because of its background, its psychological, social, economic impact, etc., this first point represents something that definitely, on the one hand, gave excellent results to the nation that emerged victorious in one of the largest and bloodiest wars of humanity, and on the other hand, the rest of the nations, sadly, did not learn their lesson.
Yes, I am talking about the European Recovery Plan, better known as the Marshall Plan. This consisted of a colossal economic super injection; under the modality of loans and direct aid, it was used to stimulate and promote productive, technological, industrial, scientific and infrastructure projects. As a consequence, Europe experienced the phase of greatest growth in its history, with increases of 35% in industrial production between 1948 and 1952, managing to reach agricultural production before the war. Be careful with a Marshall Plan, reinforced, improved, optimized and expanded.
The second point, due to its importance in the development of humanity, is known and recognized today as human capital (inventory of knowledge, skills and capacities useful for production accumulated by individuals and organizations, and therefore, companies and countries), the main responsible for the evolution of productivity and other aspects such as competitiveness and economic growth.
In the new structure, employees and workers are no longer seen as a cost to be considered as human capital, technical partners in innovation. The knowledge, skills and experiences of engineers and technicians are considered the most important source of innovation.
Personally, I do NOT conceive the term "human capital", rather I consider it derogatory and denigrating, this term (everything that enters the market is called "capital": natural capital, social capital, commercial capital, financial capital, capital physical, industrial capital, human capital), today represents a whole theory, whose origin dates back to the year 1776 with the contribution of the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, in his work »An investigation on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (original title in English: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations), or simply The Wealth of Nations ”, should be deleted from our lexicon, we are human beings, thinking beings with imagination, reason and intelligence.
In total harmony with what was stated by José de Souza Silva et. there., in the work «The Innovation of Institutional Innovation» (New Paradigm Network, Quito, October 2005), «… revealing the talent to think beyond existing experience and prior knowledge. We are "human talents". One thing is the ability to manipulate "resources" or "capital", another thing is the talent to manage talents, mobilizing their imagination, ability and commitment, from the context, interaction and ethics. ».
Well, keeping these two tips of the iceberg in mind, let's get down to business.
Innovation
The term innovate etymologically comes from the Latin innovare, which means to change or alter things by introducing new features and has received a considerable number of definitions:
Peter Drucker
“Innovation is the specific tool of innovative entrepreneurs; the means by which to exploit change as an opportunity for a different business (…) Is the action of endowing resources with a new capacity to produce wealth. Innovation creates a 'resource'. There is no such thing until man finds the application of something natural and then endows it with economic value "
Freeman C.
“Innovation is the process of integrating existing technology and inventions to create or improve a product, a process or a system. Innovation in an economic sense consists of the consolidation of a new product, process or improved system (Freeman C. (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 2nd ed. London, Franes Printer, page 7, cited by Medina Salgado and Espinosa Espíndola).
Commission of the European Communities - COM (2003)
"Innovation consists of" producing, assimilating and successfully exploiting novelty in the economic and social fields ""
And so I could go on and on pointing out authorities and their concepts but I think it's time to put on the table what was pointed out, masterfully, by the professor of Applied Economics and ordinary professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Navarra, Professor Miguel Alfonso Martínez-Echevarría, who tells us in his article "The Enigma of Innovation" that "growth and innovation escape the positivist views of human action, and that it is convenient to adopt other perspectives"
This author, an expert on the subject, assures that “only from a humanistic approach, which understands man as the unexpected, is it possible to achieve a broader sense of rationality, which allows discovering the true meaning of innovation and the way to promote it. "
And so, to defend this thesis, he gave himself the task of making a brief exposition of the difficulties encountered by the British economist Alfred Marshall, the German philosopher, economist, jurist, historian, political scientist and sociologist, Maximilian Carl Emil Weber, known as Max Weber and the Austro-American professor, economist and sociologist Joseph Alois Schumpeter, when they tried to explain innovation, and more specifically, the action of the entrepreneur.
Alfred Marshall, unlike the French mathematical economist, León Walras (who considered economics as a pure mathematical problem), in love with the theory of biological evolutionism, tried, using the biological metaphor, to build the type of economic science he was looking for.
He claimed that evolutionary biology was the most appropriate to develop a science of human action, where prediction could be combined with innovation.
Echevarría tells us that Marshall's similarity between biology and economics is rooted in the structure of the division of labor that entails specialization and organization. "The basis of the entire wealth creation process is the accumulation of knowledge, which gives shape and organization to social processes, enhancing production. Knowledge and organization are, for Marshall, the essential factors of production and development, both in the economy and in man himself. Through knowledge and organization, the company dynamically adapts to changing market conditions, giving rise to the appearance of new products, new processes or new organizational forms. Innovations and changes that, according to Marshall, depend on the attitude of the person who performs the role of leader within the company."
Max Weber highlights and places the accent on the importance and necessity of «charisma» and thus, Echevarría tells us: “Weber's conclusion is that without the irrationality of a passion, that drives them and endows them with new goals, bureaucracies they are destined, sooner or later, to the collapse of their own efficiency. In order for this not to happen, they need "charisma", that breath of life that comes from outside, which encourages new ways of doing things. The task of creating value, of carrying out innovation, is thus the essence of what Weber called "charisma", something situated beyond the possibilities of instrumental rationality. "
It is not by chance, rather, the undeniable fact that efficient corporations increasingly feel the need for charismatic and innovative managers, capable of injecting democracy into the bureaucratic scaffolding, capable of undermining the bureaucratic apparatus with particles of humanity, is not a coincidence. capable of imploding routine and unimaginative behavior, capable of eliminating the "despotism of bureaucracies", which, sooner rather than later, ends in metastases that collapse and destroy the efficiency of any company or mega-company (corporation).
Joseph Alois Schumpeter, one of his concepts that has had the most influence is that of innovation. According to this professor, economist and sociologist, there is a state of no growth, the economic "circuit," and a state of growth, "evolution." The passage from the "circuit" to "evolution" is effected through innovations, which are the engine of growth.
Schumpeter knew and admired Walrasian theory, the philosophy of Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, Menger's economics, and Weber's sociology. This range of views, many of them antagonistic, are present in his works and predictions. This great economist, sociologist, intellectual and social thinker was totally pessimistic about the survival possibilities of the capitalist system; at the same time, and within his vision of Marxist origin on the dynamic (dialectical) transformation of economic systems, he suggested that this failing capitalism would be succeeded by imperative of economic and non-economic logic by a new system: socialism).
Now, in tune with Professor Echevarría, the manifest tension in his works between the static and the dynamic, between balance and growth, between the economist and the businessman, is really remarkable and evident. His objective and great challenge was to achieve an economic theory that would give entry to the dynamic and the innovative in the paradigm, cold and static, Walrasian.
And so, Echevarría tells us: “for Schumpeter the economy was an evolutionary process tending to equilibrium, a circular flow, not regular, but stationary. If there is no innovation, that circular flow will remain stable, behaving in a perfectly predictable way. Everything is determined by the established institutional framework. The only way to alter this tendency towards equilibrium is through the appearance of innovation. ", And he continues to tell us:" Innovation, once introduced within the circular process, causes the appearance of reaction forces that progressively restore the stability, and lead to a new situation of circular flow, shaped by a new institutional environment. In Schumpeter's view, the entrepreneur becomes a kind of demiurge of capitalism.Its mission is to stir the waters periodically, by means of a process of "creative destruction", to give rise to continuous motives for investment and profit. Capitalism is by nature a form of economic change that can never be stationary. That is why a demiurge is needed in charge of striking the horn of plenty so that new wealth and progress can be overturned. "
This low and very superficial flight of the positions of Marshall, Weber and Schumpeter, very well related by Echevarría, seems to suggest that what concerns the neoclassical models of growth and innovation are being controlled and directed by our methodological inability, by our myopia to deciphering and addressing the essentially cultural nature of the causes of economic development.
And again, using the words of Professor Echevarría: “Already in the 14th century, Italian humanists had said that for republics to be strong and allow a truly human and civil life, it was essential to put into practice policies aimed at participation, to the commitment of all with the common objectives. What they sought was not primarily to enrich themselves, but to achieve better citizens and better people. It is true that they attached importance to the wealth of the city and the ways to increase it, but they knew that this was an effect, not a cause. They did not seek wealth for the sake of wealth, but considered it a natural consequence of a better political culture of citizens. "
Professor Echevarría, my respects, congratulations and THANK YOU for your contributions.
Footnotes
- José de Souza Silva, Juan Cheaz, Julio Santamaría, María Adriana Mato Bode, Suzana Valle Lima, Antonio Maria Gomes de Castro, Leonardo Salazar, Albina Maestrey, Nelson Rodríguez, Patricio Sambonino, Freddy Javier Álvarez-González Medina Salgado C. and Espinosa Espíndola M. (1994). "Innovation in modern organizations".) Drucker Peter (1985). Innovation and the innovative entrepreneur. Ed. Edhasa.COM (2003) “Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions”. Innovation policy: updating the Union approach in the context of the Lisbon strategy. Brussels (03-11-2003). (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0112: END:ES:PDF) See COM (1995) 688, which also gives a more detailed definition:“Innovation is the renewal and expansion of the range of products and services, and associated markets; the introduction of new methods of production, supply and distribution; the introduction of changes in management, work organization as well as in the working conditions and qualifications of the workers ”. These definitions remain a valid basis for our approach to innovation policy and correspond to the idea that the European Council in Lisbon made of the importance of innovation for competitiveness.Please do not associate the British economist Alfred Marshall with the Marshall Plan since it was named after the Secretary of State of the United States, George Marshall, who made it known in the speech of June 5, 1947 at Harvard University,making public the general lines of the contribution of the United States to the European recovery after the events of the Second World War.
