"Private firms focus their research efforts according to short-term, market-driven priorities, motives which often contradict long-term sustainable development and economic growth" (Levine 1998 675). Result=inequality/scarcity.
Further, Levine (1998 675) notes that large academic institutions that are more likely to consider long-term concerns are put in the position of directing national innovation systems; please see above for the problems inherent in that (turf wars).
Despite all that, Levine does still believe technological progress is the answer to scarcity, at least in environmental arenas. Levine notes that "As far back as 1911, Joseph A. Schumpeter integrated innovation into economic development theory by showing a positive correlation between involvement in a commercial transaction and the generation of new products, devices or systems" (1998 675). But in the past decade, science and technology research have been threatened, rather than supported (Levine 1998 675), making it doubly difficult to posit that technological progress can realistically overcome scarcity; technological innovation work itself suffers from scarcity caused by the vagaries of politics and corporate interests.
The next problem with technology solving problems of scarcity lies in the concept of competitive advantage. Kaounides (1999 53+) hypothesized that:
National systems of innovation that possess world-class science and technology infrastructure and institutions engaged in frontier research will, first, play an increasingly important role in contributing sources of competitive advantage to domestic agglomerations of industries and firms, and, second, act as a magnet attracting inward flows of foreign direct investment and R& D. facilities, which, together with parallel international alliances of domestic institutions, would enhance the generation of research externalities, local spillover effects, and economy-wide increasing returns for networks of interrelated firms and industries in the domestic economy, thereby reinforcing their role in competitive advantage.
Kaounides (1999 53+) found, however, that there was no easy straight-line progression involved. Recent research "points to far more complex interactions than the linear view suggests ... not only do science and technology interact in a complex two-way process, but basic research and government institutions (e.g., advanced measurement and testing facilities and technologies) can play an important role" in making the technologies available in the sectors of the economy in which they would have the most desirable effects.
Kaounides (199 53+) concluded that there was an increasingly vital role for government to play in support for both fundamental and directed research, and in promoting networks of alliance between business and academia. The key management task, Kaounides decided, involved organizing R& D. And innovation process so that it would benefit companies in a competitive fashion (1999 53+); competition by its nature breeds scarcity as one company attempts to disenfranchise its competitors in some way. Scarcity on some level follows any competitive loss, whether it is scarcity of good movie roles for losing the Oscar or scarcity of a job and food because the computer company one works for is bested in the marketplace; all scarcity is relative.
Everything to date is simply a reflection, in one pocket of the economy or another, of Clark's contentions regarding the social creation of scarcity. This hypothesis is operative, moreover, in times of great technological progress, or little. Indeed, it one wants to follow his line of reasoning to Adam Smith, it is unassailable. "Adam Smith saw wealth in terms of the material prosperity of the society as a whole. The primary cause of poverty in Adam Smith's economics is an insufficient production of real wealth, which he defined as 'the annual produce of the land and labour of the society' " (quoted by Clark 2002 415+). As technological progress removes the produce of the land and labour from the purview of more and more citizens, it would stand the test of logic that fewer and fewer citizens would be participating in Smith's version of abundance, and would therefore experience scarcity. Smith was an idealist in many ways. He proposed that: "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged" (quoted by Clark 2002 415+).
But he was realist enough to see the "damaging effect" various forms of economic competition, not to mention hoarding, had on the public's morals, and therefore on the distribution of wealth and experience of scarcity. Clark noted that while mankind as a whole might become richer whether by technological advancement or some other means, "does not, of necessity,...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now