In the following article, one of the leading experts in
studying the effects of innovation, Nathan Rosenberg, is interviewed by
Peter Marsh of the Financial Times.
To my mind, his two most interesting observations are that:
1. Important innovations usually take a long time to diffuse through an
economy and achieve their full -- and diverse -- effects. A corollary of
this is that it is impossible to forecast just what the final effects of
an innovation might be -- even if it is a fairly trivial modification of
an existing product or method. I agree. It is only in the last decade or
two that it is being fully realised the momentous effects the automobile
has had in separating work and home locations and, consequently, in
destroying mixed-ability communities and helping to increase the pace of
social stratification. Furthermore, since the enlargement of women's jobs
in the modern economy, the automobile has meant that mothers can take
their infants to day-care centres and resume work much earlier in the
lives of their children, taking them away from the boredom of housework
(all the more boring because of the disappearance of communities
around them), with the consequence of encouraging them to further reduce
family size to what is now less than replacement rates.
2. New technologies, says Prof Rosenberg, do not necessarily displace old
ideas. This is something I've been dwelling on today since hearing a BBC
Radio 4 programme last night on early man. In these days of the vast
output of music on the radio and sales of CDs (not forgetting the
increasing illegal downloading of CD tracks via the Internet!), we are
tempted to think that the music industry is a recent phenomenon -- or, at
least, that it is more important today than it was in times past.
A few minutes reflection on the role of music during past historical
periods will dispel that notion immediately -- music has always been
important -- but what brought the point home sharply to me was the
evidence of the various experts on the programme -- neurologists,
anatomists, palaeoanthropologists -- about the musical abilities of early
man going back to at least 40,000 years ago (with some neurological
evidence that speaking in musical tones probably goes back 500,000 years
and preceded speaking in words). What was astonishing to me was not only
the evidence of very early musical instruments such as bone flutes and
what were probably lyres but also, in some caves in France, stalactites
with well-worn marks indicating that they had been struck as percussion
instruments. Furthermore, these particular stalactites, selected from the
others around them, were uniquely pitched and also carried symbolic
scratchings on them as, probably, an early form of musical notation to
help the troglodytic music student! Given the natural resonance of caves
there must have been many notable performances; and there must have been
many brilliant composers and stalactite exponents -- generations of them
-- whose rhythms we shall never hear.
Keith Hudson
>>>>
WHY PROGRESS WILL ALWAYS CATCH US OUT
The impact of inventions is seldom clear immediately
Peter Marsh
When comparing mankind's greatest inventions, it is easy to rate the
achievements of the past above today's innovations. The latest
improvement in Microsoft's operating system seems puny set against the
water wheel, the steam engine and the printing press.
Nathan Rosenberg rejects this view. The 75-year-old professor of
economics at Stanford University is a leading authority on technological
change. He has published a series of books and articles on how sometimes
small, barely noticed technological advances can cause great upheavals,.
perhaps not immediately but after decades or even
centuries.
The problem in assessing what is going on today, Prof Rosenberg says, is
the diffuse nature of much of technology -- which now permeates virtually
all areas of human life -- and the fact that the most important
innovations alter existing activities, rather than making new ones
possible.
And while previous technological advances have often resulted in large
and wholly comprehensible physical objects -- such as the first railway
locomotive -- the significance of, say, a breakthrough in receptor theory
in biotechnology, or how a new type of ceramic capacitor will improve the
mobile phone is harder to grasp.
Prof Rosenberg has become adept at probing virtually every
technological discipline to back his view that changes sometimes take a
long time to make their mark. A good example is the electronic computer,
now more than 50 years old but, in the professor's view, barely
developed. "I am confident the full impact of the computer, even
now, lies well into the future," he says.
Much of Prof Rosenberg's thinking is laid out in his 1986 book, How
the West Grew Rich: the Economic Transformation of the Industrial
World, which he wrote with L.E. Birdzell. The book chronicles the way
a series of inventions changed the world, often by triggering new
innovations that built on what had gone before.
An example is the invention in the 14th century of the mechanical clock.
By spawning new industries in precision crafts, the clock paved the way
for many modern devices that require accuracy in manufacture, from the
car to the gas turbine generator.
The ability to make such links puts Prof Rosenberg into a select league
of economic historians who can look back over thousands of years to help
make sense of what is happening today. In recent years, Prof Rosenberg's
preoccupations have shifted into areas such as nanotechnology, chemicals
and biotechnology.
To track what is happening, it is best, according to Prof Rosenberg, to
look at leading universities, which he describes as mines of
technological advances, having a huge potential to benefit society. In
terms, of the amount of money going into this field, the US is a long way
ahead of Europe, says the professor. "In 2001, of the $32.7bn spent
by US universities On research and development, nearly 60 per cent went
on life sciences, including medicine and biotech. A continuation of such
high spending levels will doubtless translate into substantial commercial
advantages as well as into extensive improvements .in the human condition
generally."
Europe has not done enough, he says, to make its universities link up
with the business world. "For better or for worse, US universities
have long had an interest in being close to business. Not all Americans
like the idea of their universities being close to business -- but they
mind a lot less than in Europe," he says.
The point about industry/university collaboration, he adds, is that no
one should expect instant results. Frequently, technologies appear in a
primitive state. As this improves, their influence changes appreciably.
"When, in the late 1940s and 1950s, people were trying to forecast
the impact of computers, they failed to realise how much the computers
themselves would change. The first digital electronic computer in 1945-46
was a God-awful thing containing 18,000 vacuum tubes. People were right
to predict a very modest demand for computers if they had remained as
they were, and if silicon chips had not been invented and inserted as
substitutes for vacuum tubes," says Prof Rosenberg.
He recalls the discussions in the 1980s about the mobile phone. One
consultant forecast 1m mobile phone subscribers in the US by 1999; the
true figure turned out to be 70 times higher. He says it has always been
difficult to look ahead. Just over 100 years ago, the commissioner of the
US patent office tendered his resignation, on the grounds that there was
nothing left to invent.
Too often, people focus on assessing brand-new ideas and fail to
appreciate how old technologies -- often less visible, and subjected to
less media attention than new ones -- can gradually increase their
impact. Prof Rosenberg points to the wheel, perhaps the oldest mechanical
artefact, invented in about 3,500BC. From their use in pottery or
transporting stone, wheels and other rotary devices are now fundamental
to huge areas of industry. A more recent example is the laser, invented
in the 1960s. Lasers were initially regarded as no more than research
tools. Now they are used in thousands of applications, from compact disc
players to weapons -- but with little fanfare.
New technologies, says Prof Rosenberg, do not necessarily displace old
ideas, but add to them. "In [medical diagnostics] magnetic resonance
machines now play important roles; but that doesn't mean that the need
for X-ray machines no longer exists. In research and development, around
two-thirds of total expenditures are devoted to development -- what
engineers do -- as opposed to research, which is conducted by scientists.
Most of the expenditures on development today are devoted to making small
improvements on technologies that already exist."
Prof Rosenberg disagrees with those who, because of the growth of service
industries, say manufacturing is no longer important. The
"innovation push" from manufacturing is vital to spurring
growth and better living standards elsewhere in the economy. Much of the
sophisticated computer hardware used in fields such as banking and
retailing relies on advances in manufactured products. He argues that
"The rising share of the labour force in the service sectors has
been very much dependent on .... the manufacturing
sector."
Prof Rosenberg reserves his final admonition for those who say that
Silicon Valley -- where he lives -- has run out of steam. To be sure, he
says, it is suffering a difficult recession. But it retains
"enormous capacity" for innovation in areas from electronics to
biotechnology, he says, although the full impact of these changes will
take a long time to work through.
Patience, says the professor, is a necessary discipline for many aspects
of life, and all the more when it comes to tracking technological
progress.
>>>>
