Paul Krugman (v odzivu na članek Jill Lepore v New Yorkerju) ima dober point v kritiki glorificiranja velikh inovacij (disrupcij) kot prihajajo iz Silicijeve doline: te velike inovacije so zgolj namenjene zadovoljevanju apetitov finančne industrije (pomislite na Facebook, Twitter ipd.), njihov “realni učinek” pa je minoren (koliko kvalitetnih delovnih mest so nadomestile po izgonu industrije v Azijo?). In kot primer daje Nemčijo, ki ji uspeva z manj glamuroznimi inovacijami, pač pa s proizvajanjem visoko kakovostnih tradicionalnih proizvodov izvažati svoje znanje in spretnosti in pri tem zaposliti svoje prebivalce po spodobnih plačah.

Andrew Leonard reports that Silicon Valley types are not pleased. You can understand why. But their annoyance also tells you why the whole disruptive innovation thing took off: it glamorizes business, it lets nerdy guys come across as bold heroes.

 

The same impulse, I think, is why Schumpeter gets cited so much. If you read his stuff directly, it’s interesting, I guess, although his attempts to explain the business cycle were a waste of good paper. But it’s that glamorizing phrase “creative destruction” that did it, because it’s so flattering to the big money (and excuses a lot of suffering, too).

…

And in trade, as in business competition, it’s far from clear that the big rewards go to those who trash the past and invent new stuff. What’s the most remarkable export success story out there? Surely it’s Germany, which manages to be an export powerhouse despite very high labor costs. How do the Germans do it? Not by constantly coming out with revolutionary new products, but by producing very high quality goods for which people are willing to pay premium prices.

So here’s a revolutionary thought: maybe we need to do less disruption and put more effort into doing whatever we do well.

Vir: Paul Krugman, New York Times