Institutional development and fostering innovation

Necessary risks

The production of innovative ideas and ventures is an inherently risky endeavour. Introducing a new idea requires individuals to traverse unknown territory and risk putting themselves up for failure. A culture of innovation is preceded by a culture that allows its inhabitants greater freedom, a larger spectrum of identities and institutions that allow individuals to develop their own moulds rather than those laid out by their group.

Given nuances and subtleties, clubbing cultures together strips a great deal of information from our understanding. But such an information pulp also distils for us common traits amongst our subjects, which in this case are factors that could hypothetically help in the development of a culture of innovation.

Fostering innovation depends on individuals who are able to make a break from certain social norms and foster their own creative talents. Such individuals are allowed to develop into their own social moulds, radically different than what society might have to offer. Innovation requires society to give such individuals a certain space in terms of how they develop and how they express themselves at various stages. To foster a culture of innovation, individuals must have the option to break away from established social norms and practices, to form their own rituals, however at odds they may be from the status quo.

A defining aspect of social training in most Asian cultures is a firm emphasis on loyalty to one’s social group and viewing the needs of the group as being over and above those of the individuals that comprise the group. The whole is seen as being greater than its parts. The pros and cons of such an ideology may be debated. The issue at hand however are not the flaws inherent in such a system but its suitability for promoting culture of innovation

The cultural outcomes of group loyalty, obedience and deference to authority that are common to Asian societies, including those of the sub-continent, are rooted in a broader atmosphere of insecurity and an understanding that the role of state institutions is partisan to those with some form of bargaining power, one reason why the group is given more importance than the individual. A large, well organised group has greater bargaining power and ability to extract concessions from the state as compared to a group that is not as cohesive.

The formation of a group that is well organised also requires deference from its members. In order to maximise its bargaining power, the group optimises the role of each member, casting the social moulds within which each member must grow. A powerful family in Pakistan will have members across various institutions: politicians, bureaucrats, businesspersons, all working towards channelling the state’s power towards the group.

It is not just the group that benefits from the individuals sense of duty towards it. The individual’s access to state power and institutions would be negligible without the group. In countries with less developed institutions, especially those related to justice and policing, the individual is placed in a position of vulnerability. The scale of such vulnerability is inversely proportional to the socioeconomic standing of the individual. Access to government services such as an acceptable level of healthcare and access to judicial and other state institutions becomes increasingly restricted the farther down an individual is on the socioeconomic ladder thus requiring the group’s collective bargaining power in order to secure access to such institutions.

To promote a culture of innovation, individuals must be allowed to develop their own social moulds. The development of identity ought to be the outcome of an individual’s choices rather than a function of the group’s needs. The development of a sound set of institutions allows individuals to have a greater sense of individualism by reducing the individual’s vulnerability in breaking off from the group. The idea is to reduce the risks inherent in the system for the individual, thereby allowing them greater leeway in their decisions.

Living in an environment with institutions that have yet to develop a non-partisan method of dispensing functions is likely to result in the group being given greater preference, thus stymieing the proliferation of different social moulds and identities. The statement is axiomatic in the sense that it rests on the argument that one of the factors essential for developing a culture of innovation is an environment that allows individuals to take on different identities that have been selected by the individual, through their own choice, rather than by the group, for its own benefits.

This is not to say that innovation can never be an outcome in cultures where groups are given greater preference. Innovation would occur, but would that be at the optimal level?

The central debate can be broken down into this; the development of institutions allows individuals the liberty to stray from the group and develop their own sense of self, which is an important component in fostering a culture of innovation. However, due to the prevalence of underdeveloped institutions, it is in the interests of the individual to support the group by fitting into one of the social moulds that the groups deems necessary for its survival and subsequent growth. A limited number of social moulds coupled with a set of values that give preference to deference and respect for authority results in a culture where outcomes related to innovation are sub-optimal.