Why Joel Mokyr’s story of how science becomes technology is incomplete

Joel Mokyr, a distinguished economic historian and Nobel laureate, has significantly influenced the discourse on economic development by emphasizing the critical role of technology and culture. His work, particularly on the 'Enlightenment's Gifts' and the 'Industrial Revolution', posits that a competitive market for knowledge, driven by an 'Industrial Enlightenment', is the primary engine behind sustained technological progress and, consequently, improvements in human welfare. This perspective highlights the importance of open exchange of ideas, rational inquiry, and the application of scientific principles to practical problems as fundamental to economic growth.

The article in question, however, critiques Mokyr's narrative, suggesting it offers an incomplete historical account. While acknowledging his success in pushing economists to seriously consider technology and culture, the critique argues that the notion of a purely competitive market for knowledge yielding sustained welfare improvements isn't fully borne out by historical facts. This challenge implies that other factors, perhaps less market-driven, played crucial roles in the historical transition of scientific knowledge into practical technology and societal benefit.

Key stakeholders in this debate include Joel Mokyr himself, representing a prominent school of thought in economic history. The author of the critique, presumably an economic historian or a philosopher of science, represents a counter-perspective that seeks a more nuanced understanding of historical processes. Beyond these academics, the debate is highly relevant to policymakers, who design national innovation strategies, and to the general public, whose welfare is directly impacted by technological advancements. Understanding the true drivers of innovation helps in formulating effective policies.

Historically, the transition from science to technology has been complex. While the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1760-1840) saw significant market-driven innovation, many foundational scientific discoveries pre-date or were independent of immediate market pressures. Furthermore, state patronage, private philanthropy, and non-profit institutions have historically played substantial roles in funding basic research and fostering scientific communities. For instance, the Royal Society in Britain, founded in 1660, was crucial for scientific exchange, often without direct market incentives. Similarly, the Manhattan Project during World War II exemplifies massive state-led scientific and technological endeavor for a specific national objective, demonstrating that innovation isn't solely a product of competitive markets.

For India, this debate holds immense significance. Post-independence, India adopted a mixed economic model with a strong emphasis on state-led scientific and technological development. Institutions like the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were established to foster indigenous capabilities, often operating outside immediate market competition. This approach aimed at self-reliance and addressing national priorities, from food security to strategic defense. The National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) 2020 underscores India's commitment to leveraging science and technology for sustainable development, emphasizing both public and private sector participation, along with fostering an inclusive innovation ecosystem.

India's Constitution also implicitly supports the promotion of scientific temper. Article 51A (h) mandates every citizen to 'develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.' While not directly about market competition in knowledge, it underscores the foundational importance of scientific pursuit. Moreover, policies like 'Make in India' and 'Digital India' aim to boost domestic manufacturing and digital infrastructure, often relying on a blend of market incentives and government support to drive technological adoption and innovation. The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in India, governed by various acts like the Patents Act, 1970, and the Copyright Act, 1957, attempts to balance the protection of innovators' rights with public access to knowledge, reflecting a complex interplay between market mechanisms and societal welfare.

The future implications of this debate are profound. If innovation is not solely market-driven, policymakers must consider a broader range of interventions, including public funding for basic research, creating collaborative ecosystems, and supporting non-profit innovation. This could lead to more robust public-private partnerships, a focus on 'open science' initiatives, and policies that address societal challenges (like climate change or public health) where market incentives alone might be insufficient. For India, a nuanced understanding means balancing its drive for economic growth through market competition with its historical commitment to state-supported research and development, ensuring that technological progress genuinely translates into equitable welfare improvements for all citizens and aligns with national strategic goals like 'Atmanirbhar Bharat'.