My Dear Chun
i appreciate your comments on the propensity for innovation in a given region. Have attached a few papers, read them at your leisure. more can be found at sristi.org/anilg
let me respond briefly:
a) i agree that any one can innovate, but different people have varying propensity to innovate in different sectors and areas. For instance in economically backward regions, if households depend upon livestock or collection of forest products or some such system of survival, it is natural that then they would deepen their knowledge about that resource and variation underlying that. Thus they may have deeper knowledge about taxonomy of livestocks breeds or may have ability to distinguish better or more productive animal from less productive animal, that is inevitable, is not it?
b) not all people in any region will have similar knowledge. Asymmetry will imply that some are more sharp observers than others. It is same in your class after all.
c) now, some will just have what we call traditional knowledge and some will make improvements in traditional knowledge. those who make improvements may qualify to be called as innovators.
d) in developed region, there are always some sectors in which development may be not advanced as others. Constraints in those sectors may generate possibilities of innovations. But in general, i must assert that in such regions, one finds less grassroots innovations( may be pioneering and entrepreneurial youth in- migrate from other regions and they may really be more innovative. We have found evidence of traditional knowledge being used in every day life in districts in which dairy sector is most advanced in India and where infrastructure is also very strong. So innovations may not be tried only by poor is right, though exceptions are fewer.
e) one of the aspect of our work which has remained less appreciated is that many innovators do not know that they have done innovation. till a context is created. if you take some posters with you about innovations form different regions of China and India, then ask local people, they might really be able to then re look at their own repertoire.
f) economic background may not always be a good predictor of propensity to innovate though at macro level, i have suggested that in moderate developed regions, innovations may be maximum. it is bell shaped curve in which both extremely developed and extremely poor regions lack enough individual unaided, or unattached and non-institutional innovator
i hope this helps take the discussion forward. pl discuss with your class fellows and let me have their reactions
anil
春 王 wrote:
Mr anilg,Hello!First, please allow me to introduce myself to you .I’m a student of tianzing university of finance and economics and the major i am studying now is marketing.Several days ago,Mrs zhang(Liyan zhang) held a meeting with us.She told us the issue between you and her .At the same time ,she gave us your email address and asked us to send email to you about what we think .I feel so lucky to have this chance to communicate with you.In my opinion,the compulsion to innovate is weak in the regions which are most prosperous or necessitous.Because,what the poor(most poor) only can do is to support their family,they have no cost to do the innovation.And,the rich(most rich) need to innovate nothing.What they care about is how to use the expensive and advance things(usually those things are ready made).My hometown is a very remote village with a delayed economy.In your opinion,the poor have desire to innovate strongly.But,in fact,the poor in my hometown usually have no interests in innovating.The tools and means to produce food are following old conventious.On the other hand,how about the rich,i think the result will be amazed.The rich dislike to do any physical work ,because all things have been done for them.As for innovation,they don’t know nor do they care.So,here comes out a question:Who are the active innovators?Actually,it is self-evident.The secondary economic community did the most innovations.And,here i must to explain that those people like to do innovating usually have high knowlege,they know how to do more things butcost less than other people.I’ll return my hometown in winter vacation this year.I will have some tallks with my seniorityrelatives ,by this way,i think i can learn more ,and write up those things what Mrs zhang(Liyan zhang)has told us to get.Many thanks!May you be happy at your future work!Chun wang2006.11.15
Working with innovators since the past one year, going around the country meeting them and finding them coming across from all sections of the society, ihere would like to share some of my observations
1. many innovations are derived out of need to solve a problem eg Remya joses’s washing machine, saidullah sahab’s amphibious cycle, madhav mahajan’s mango nipper etc
2. many innovations come out of interest
3. some people may innovate seeing the plight/problem of others eg amrutbhai’s pulley
4. some innovations are due to the keen observations of the innovators like in most of the cases of development of plant varieties…
5. many innovations owe themselves to leisure and prosperity. The innovator had nothing better too so he invested his time and came out with something
6. some people see innovations as a short cut to fame (though innovating itself is a time taking process)
7. some innovate to make business opportunities…
8. many of the innovations are also result of serendipity
9 and many innovate just for the sake of innovating..such people live in a different world and at a different level
The reasons and motives may be many but there is always an underlying feeling of ‘doing something different’ and for all these the trigger is always the prevailing conditions around the innovator, whether family, neighbourhood or society at large.
There is also a definite overlap in many of the observations mentioned above..
some of my views just wanted to share…
Respected Sir,
This is Sai Deepak from IIT Kharagpur, i worked as an intern under you in May-June 2007. I would like to contribute to the above discussion.
To attribute one’s propensity to innovate solely to one’s economic background is too empirical in the face of historical examples. the issue may be split into a few fundamental questions which i believe are irreducible:
1. What is innovation?
2. Why does an individual innovate? In other words, what is he trying to achieve?
3. What does he need to innovate?
4. What has he achieved?
Without bringing in too much of semantics, one may define innovation as a positive change induced in the natural course of working of a natural or artifical object.
The second question is possibly the most important around which this whole discusion revolves. let us not confuse this for “need for innovation” as in its importance to economics. what is it that drives a person to innovate? Going by the usual theories of design development, innovation primarily requires the identification and definition of a problem. The word “problem” has negative connotations, so i shall change it to challenge and then again to “opportunity”. The word problem is best suited in the ‘poor man’s context’ and the word opportunity suits better to a rich man’s context. So the sutle change in the perception of innovation is certainly on account of the consumer or the producer’s requirement and socio-economic status. This means that the idea’s metamorphosis certainly has a relation to economics. however, in none of these cases is the idea absent which means the stereotype that “poor men innovate and rich men are lazy” is too simplistic and does not bring out the dialectics in the issue.
The third and fourth questions entirely depend on the second. I would further go on to state that the first too is contingent on the second.
In continuation with my earlier post, i would also like to say that i concur with nitin since he has echoed my reference to historical examples. Civilizations such as the ones on the Ganges and the Rhine have been the source of all philosophy and science in the ancient times. Most such civilizations enjoyed nature’s bounty and invested their leisure in the pursuit of higher goals and for the common good of the society contrary to our view that rich men dont innovate. Also, let us try and place this argument with reference to the transformation in societal behaviour in the last few decades. Individualism is on the rise, consequently, those who have it all do not invest it for the good of their brethren and those who dont, innovate only for themselves and not with an altruistic spirit. Merely because our sympathies lie with the poor guy, we need not paint him in honey and nectar at the expense of the rich since it is ultimately the rich who provide the means of fruition for the poor man’s ideas. (none of these ideas are indicative of my social status in case anyone has doubts)
well, economic poverty alone can not explain the propensity to innovate.
But the compulsions to innovate are far more with those who have every thing to lose if the status quo continues. But may gain some thing, if change comes. The rich may not be under such a pressure. The mindset is also influenced by the life experiences, why else so many with adjust with the problems while some will break out of them,
more we are rejected, greater the loneliness and higher is the anger at being not understood, greater are the chances that search for change will increase. At least through one’s own pursuits. But if we are accepted easily, even by those who we respect, where is the incentive for exloration?
the disaonance between what we are, where we are and where do we want to be is importnat to trigger an exploration. whether that willlead to innovation may depend upon the degree to which the motivations and triggers are able to synergsie one;s pursuits with th efeedback of users of our innovations
a;