The Politics of Innovation

Mark Zachary Taylor's new book, The Politics of Innovation: Why Some Countries Are Better than Others at Science & Technology, is an impressive scholarly achievement. It is a methodologically rigorous work on an inherently difficult topic that nevertheless provides a clear, precise, and persuasive explanation to the research question in a very readable and accessible way. While its findings have implications for several subfields within political science, The Politics of Innovation should be a foundational text in the science & technology (S&T) literature

The book opens with a discussion of Cardwell's law, which posits that even highly innovative states tend to decline over time, typically replaced by a new leader whose time at the forefront of technology will also be limited (3). This informs Taylor's central research question: why are some states better than others at innovation in S&T? To some degree, we would expect that all states should seek to innovate, so how can we explain the difference?

Modern states are capable of providing certain key goods that can foster innovation. These public goods are vital for the resolution of market failures that can squelch innovation. The provision of property rights, subsidies for research and development, education, research universities, and trade policy can create incentives and favorable social contexts for innovation. Perhaps more importantly, Taylor argues, resolving so-called “network failures” or obstacles to the flow of information and collaboration among innovative individuals is another critical task that only a state can address. He identifies personal networks (both domestic and international), innovation clusters (like Silicon Valley), and the provision of standards, which governments can facilitate, as greatly enhancing the likelihood of innovation in S&T. But under what conditions are we most likely to see these policies, institutions, and network effects interacting to successfully achieve innovation in science and technology?

The answer is what Taylor calls “Creative Insecurity.” In explaining the concept, he illustrates the challenges to innovation created by domestic distributional political conflicts. “Creative insecurity is the condition of perceiving more threats from external hazards than from domestic rivals. It is the positive difference between threats of economic or military competition from abroad and the dangers of political-economic rivalries at home” [author's emphasis] (216). Left to their own devices, domestic political actors focused on parochial interests and the distribution of public goods are likely to confound innovation. However, “the presence of external economic or military threats constitute a force that can counteract the domestic distributional politics that cause S&T stagnation” (216).

Therefore, when faced with an external threat, states are forced to place domestic politics aside and implement policies that address the sources of market and network failures and thus create an environment that fosters innovation in science and technology. Taylor makes a very persuasive case for the influence of Creative Insecurity utilizing a variety of methods to set the groundwork for analytical discussion and test the predictions of the theory.

The Politics of Innovation also represents an impressive mixed-method approach to tackle a difficult research question. Taylor's commitment to methodological rigor is apparent in his use of “triangulation” to make admittedly probabilistic explanations. The consistent use of a variety of statistical indicators to illustrate differing levels of innovation across states only provides the basis for a more detailed and rich discussion of how specific states achieved differing levels of innovation. Although Taylor is quick to acknowledge that these case studies are more plausibility probes than definitive tests of Creative Insecurity, the careful depictions of the differing political contexts (domestic and international) and innovative trajectories of Israel, Taiwan, Ireland, and Mexico are compelling, as is the discussion of the experience of the early American republic. While many experts would agree that the first two states achieved high innovation rates while the latter two were less successful, it is the nature of domestic political struggles and the perceived threats emanating from the external security environment that interact to provide the conditions under which states are most likely to embark on policy programs that initiate and foster innovation.

Despite Taylor's meticulous and comprehensive analysis, one obvious criticism of his model is its reliance on perceptions of external threat to determine outcomes. The narratives he presents in the respective case studies are plausible, yet historians or other experts may disagree on the intensity of what is clearly a qualitative assessment of threat at any given point in time. Moreover, the nature of the insecurity that overcomes domestic political hurdles to spur innovation must be serious, but also somewhat long term. Any direct or imminent threat to a state's security would likely push domestic political disputes to the side, but also would channel all available resources to the immediate defense of the state. Therefore, while Taylor's model is straightforward, clear, and persuasive, questions of measurement and interpretation of any given state's international and domestic political contexts present a challenge to the applicability of the theory.

To be fair, Taylor consistently and self-consciously highlights potential limitations of his argument and instances of ambiguity in the diverse and expansive empirical record of S&T policies across states over time. Yet rather than weaken the explanatory power of his approach, this commitment to transparency of analysis and measurement only underscores the high quality of Taylor's research and the daunting nature of the underlying challenge of explaining differing national rates of innovation.

Moreover, Taylor is quick to remind readers that there is more work to be done. Further case study research on successes, failures, and all varieties of moderate innovators are necessary to comprehensively assess the explanatory power of Creative Insecurity. But Taylor has provided a very useful framework and baseline for that analysis. It is clear that The Politics of Innovation should be a required reading in the S&T literature, but it also has important implications for students and scholars of security studies and political economy. It is truly an impressive work, and Taylor's deployment of helpful graphics and statistical tables throughout the book greatly contribute to its accessibility and “readability,” which should be of interest to a readership beyond academia.