Profit drives innovation. But concentration of power in an industry with vertical and horizontal integration stifles competition and makes profits less because of the higher cost of entry into that market.
You don't need to build a better mousetrap if you control the market.
One part I see missing (or I just did not see it). A better mousetrap is part physical reality and part perception. If you are a master at perception (PR and marketing), you can build a perceived better mousetrap without actually building a physically better mousetrap. And PR can be a lot less expensive than physical innovation.
We and the world have all become masters at PR and saying the right thing (talking points) to create the right perception. I wonder how this affects the model.
Fantastic post! But an even better example of how the Republic of letters would have benefited a scientific genius was Galileo. He was sponsored by a rich duke and made tremendous contributions but ultimately he was unable to spread his obviously innovative ideas because the church persecuted him. Newton in England had no such problems just a few decades later because he was effectively part of that republic of letters where him and Leibniz were able to communicate with other intellectuals in other countries.
Interesting post here on the econ Nobel winners Mokyr, Aghion and Howitt. Btw, I'm so pleased to see Mokyr finally winning the Nobel because one it was long overdue and second, Mokyr is one of my favourite economists alive.
I guess the most important lesson from Mokyr is that a government that protects persons and property and supports a free market for ideas best serves to promote human welfare. From a study of the European Enlightenment, he understood that “to advance the material conditions of humanity,” it is necessary to be open to new ideas and to constrain the power of government for the good of society. Those two ideas “and their triumph in the market for ideas,” argues Mokyr, “created a massive synergy that led to the economic sea changes we observe.” Notably, “from industrialization and the growth in physical and human capital to the discovery and mastery of natural forces and resources” that could not have been imagined in the mid-18th century. If cultural change explains the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, has cultural change really been explained? Or have we once again credited the black box here?
And hence, Mokyr suggests that limits on government and a free market in ideas created the conditions necessary for the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the Great Enrichment. And after reading his books, I now look at the economic, social, and political world in quite the different way than before.
Can anyone please guide me in literature , both theoretical and or empirical, on why this doesn't happen the same way in small or medium developing countries ? There's anything solid after centre-dependency frameworks?
Profit drives innovation. But concentration of power in an industry with vertical and horizontal integration stifles competition and makes profits less because of the higher cost of entry into that market.
You don't need to build a better mousetrap if you control the market.
One part I see missing (or I just did not see it). A better mousetrap is part physical reality and part perception. If you are a master at perception (PR and marketing), you can build a perceived better mousetrap without actually building a physically better mousetrap. And PR can be a lot less expensive than physical innovation.
We and the world have all become masters at PR and saying the right thing (talking points) to create the right perception. I wonder how this affects the model.
Fantastic post! But an even better example of how the Republic of letters would have benefited a scientific genius was Galileo. He was sponsored by a rich duke and made tremendous contributions but ultimately he was unable to spread his obviously innovative ideas because the church persecuted him. Newton in England had no such problems just a few decades later because he was effectively part of that republic of letters where him and Leibniz were able to communicate with other intellectuals in other countries.
Interesting post here on the econ Nobel winners Mokyr, Aghion and Howitt. Btw, I'm so pleased to see Mokyr finally winning the Nobel because one it was long overdue and second, Mokyr is one of my favourite economists alive.
I guess the most important lesson from Mokyr is that a government that protects persons and property and supports a free market for ideas best serves to promote human welfare. From a study of the European Enlightenment, he understood that “to advance the material conditions of humanity,” it is necessary to be open to new ideas and to constrain the power of government for the good of society. Those two ideas “and their triumph in the market for ideas,” argues Mokyr, “created a massive synergy that led to the economic sea changes we observe.” Notably, “from industrialization and the growth in physical and human capital to the discovery and mastery of natural forces and resources” that could not have been imagined in the mid-18th century. If cultural change explains the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, has cultural change really been explained? Or have we once again credited the black box here?
And hence, Mokyr suggests that limits on government and a free market in ideas created the conditions necessary for the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the Great Enrichment. And after reading his books, I now look at the economic, social, and political world in quite the different way than before.
Can anyone please guide me in literature , both theoretical and or empirical, on why this doesn't happen the same way in small or medium developing countries ? There's anything solid after centre-dependency frameworks?
The best book on why growth varies across time and place is the Koyama and Rubin book I linked to https://amzn.to/4nMBelE