Skip to main content

Innovation Policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and Reality in Knowledge-Led Productivity Growth

  • Chapter
The Innovation for Development Report 2009–2010

Abstract

In the immediate post-Second World War years a series of millenarian movements known as “cargo cults”3 swept through Melanesia. They emerged in the aftermath of intensive US contact in the course of the Second World War. These contacts led to a substantial increase in the material goods available to Melanesian islanders, but the end of the war meant that such material goods became less available as military withdrawal occurred. In these circumstances cargo cults emerged in which prophets would promise the return of cargoes of material goods by their ancestors (often expected to take the form of the Americans) with cargo typically shipped in the airplanes that had been such a common feature of the war experience. The means by which the return of the cargo was to be encouraged varied between different cults in different islands, but frequently involved the ritual preparation and construction of a variety of structures such as airfields, storage facilities, landing strips and associated paraphernalia. Cult members were encouraged to abandon previous cultural practices and often mimicked the behavioural characteristics of Americans (Worsley, 1957; Jarvie, 1964). The emergence of these cults did not lead to the return of material cargo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2006. Innovation in Australian Business 2003 (Reissue). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apax. 2005. Understanding Technology Transfer. London: Apax Partners Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995. Innovation and Industry Evolution. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. “Public/private technology partnerships: evaluating SBIR-supported research.” Research Policy 3l(l):145–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. “Standing on the shoulders of midgets: the US Small Business Innovation Research Program. Small Business Economics 20(20):129–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, David B., Link, Albert N. and Scott, John T. 2002. “Public/private technology partnerships: evaluating SBIR-supported research.” Research Policy 3l(l):145–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • AUTM. 2005. US LicensingSurvey FY 2004. Northbrook, IL: AUTM. US Patent Office. “Patenting by organizations.” Washington, DC: US Patent Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R. 1993. The Dynamics of Industrial Competition: ANorth American Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R. and Gellatly, G. 2003. Innovation Strategies and Performance in Small Firms. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J. and Scarpetta, S. 2004. “Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries.” Policy Research Working Paper Series 3464, The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Fernald, J. G., Oulton, N. and Srinivasan, S. 2003. “The case of missing productivity growth: or does information technology explain why productivity accelerated in the United States but not in the United Kingdom?” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP8, June.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L. M., Kodama, F. and Florida, R. (eds.). 1999. Industrializing Knowledge: University Industry Linkage in Japan and the United States. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge Innovation Performance Centre (CBR/IPC) Innovation Benchmarking Survey. at: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/

  • Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma. When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. and Walsh, J. P. 2002. “Links and impacts: The impact of public research on R&D.” Management Science 48(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, D. 2006. Secrets of the World’s Largest Seed Capital Fund. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosh, A. D., Hughes, A. and Lester, R. 2006. UK PLC: Just How Innovative Are We? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge MIT Institute: University of Cambridge. Available at: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/news/160206_Report_only.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Dertouzos, M. L., Lester, R. K. and Solow, R. M. 1989. Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney, R., Haskel, J. and Heden, Y. 2003. “Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing.” The Economic Journal 113:666–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2004. Facing the Challenge: The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment. Report from the High Level Group Chaired by Wim Kok. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D., Baily, M. N. and Remes, J. 2005. “US Productivity after the Dot Com Bust.” McKinsey and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feynman, R. P. 1985. Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character. New York: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flamm, K. S. 1987. Targeting the Computer: Government Support and International Competition. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. and Krizan, C.J. 2002. “The link between aggregate and microproductivity growth: Evidence from the retail trade.” National Bureau of Economic Research NBER Working Paper 9120. August.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardello, A. and Malerba, F. (eds). 1999. The Organization of Economic Innovation in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, R. and Harmgart, H. 2005. “Retail productivity.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Paper WP05/07. London: IFS, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. 2004. “Exploring the patent explosion.” CBRWorking Paper, WP 291. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. University of Cambridge. September.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N. and Scott, J. T. 2003. “Universities as research partners.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(2):485–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helpmann, E. (ed.). 1998. GeneralPurpose Technologies and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B. and Trajtenberg, M. 1998. “Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965–1988.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80(10):119–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A. 2007. “University industry links and UK science and innovation policy.” In S. Yusuf and K. Nabeshima (eds). How Universities Promote Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank. pp. 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2007. “Innovation policy as cargo cult: Myth and reality in knowledge-led productivity growth.” In Bessant, J. and T. Venables, (eds). Creating Wealth from Knowledge. Meeting the innovation challenge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A. and Scott Morton, M. S. 2005. “ICT and productivity growth—The paradox resolved.” CBR Working Paper, WP 316. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. Cambridge University. December.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2006. “The transforming power of complementary assets.” MIT Sloan Management Review 47(4):50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvie, I. C. 1964. The Revolution in Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jebens, H. (ed.). 2004. Cargo, Cult and Culture Critique. Ho nolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K. and Salter, A. 2006. “Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovations performance among UK manufacturing firms.” Strategic Management Journal 27(2):131–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lécuyer, C. 2006. Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. 1999. “The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR program.” Journal of Business 72(3):285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R. K. and Piore, M. J. 2004. Innovation: The Missing Dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, L. 1993. Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and Beyond. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C. and Geroski, P. A. 2005. Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter or Dominate New Markets. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuckin, R. H., Spiegelman, M. and van Ark, B. 2005. “The US advantage in retail and wholesale trade performance: how can Europe catch up?” The Conference Board Working Paper 1358, New York, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey Global Institute, in association with Solow, R. M., Bosworth, B., Hall, T. and Triplett, J. 2001. US Productivity Growth 1995–2000: Understanding the Contribution of Information Technology Relative to Other Factors. McKinsey Global Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Money Tree. 2007. “Money tree report.” PricewaterhouseCoopers. Available at: www.pwcmoneytree.com/moneytree/

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. 2007. “University-industry research collaboration and technology transfer in the United States since 1980.” In S. Yusuf and K. Nabeshima (eds.). How Universities Promote Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank. pp. 164–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. 1998. Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2001. “Fostering hi-tech spin offs: a public strategy for innovation.” OECD Science Technology Industry Review. Special Issue 26. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003a. ICT and Economic Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, Industries and Firms. París: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003b. The Sources of Economíc Growth ín OECD Countríes. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Institute of Retail Management. 2004. Assessing the Productivity of the UK Retail Sector. Templeton College. Oxford. April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilat, D. and Lee, F. C. 2001. “Productivity growth in ICT and ICT using industries: A course of growth differentials in the OECD?” STI Working Papers 2001/4. OECD. June.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C. and Ziedonis, A. A. 2003. “Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: a re-examination.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 2l(9):1371–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segaller, S. 1998. Nerds 2.0.1: A BriefHistory of the Internet. New York: TV Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, G. M. P. 2006. “Innovators and the research base: an exploration using CIS4.” In Report for the Department of Trade and Industry/Office for Science and Innovation. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 1996. “Competition, cooperation and innovation: organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress.” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 8:1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ark, B., Inklaar, R. and McGuckin, R. H. 2002. “Changing gear: Productivity, ICT and service industries: Europe and the United States.” Research Memorandum GD-60. Groningen Growth and Development Centre. University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. J. 2000. “The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the Small Business Innovation Research program.” RAND Journal of Economics 31(1):82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessner, C. W. (ed.) 2001. The Small Business Innovation Programme SBIR: Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC: National Research Council and National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies: Summary Report. Washington, DC: National Research Council and National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worsley, P. 1957. The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of ‘Cargo’ Cults in Melanesia. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, S. and Nabeshima, K. (eds). 2007. How Universities Promote Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2010 Augusto López-Claros

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hughes, A. (2010). Innovation Policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and Reality in Knowledge-Led Productivity Growth. In: The Innovation for Development Report 2009–2010. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285477_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics