Every time I read about the design industries growing in developing nations and the threat they pose to established western design industries, I can't help but remember some point Lawrence Lessig makes:

1. creativity and innovation always build on the past
2. the past always tries to control the creativity built on it
3. free societies enable the future by limiting the power of the past

So generally speaking, politically and socially freer and more open societies should be capable of enabling futures that less free and open societies cannot even conceive of.

To me the question isn't one of developing vs. developed, but rather of more free and open vs. less free and open. My guess is that those societies that are more free and open (whether in developing or developed states) should outperform less free and open societies in terms of innovation.

So in terms of innovation, perhaps financial investments and number of PhDs are irrelevant in comparison to a society’s creative and intellectual climate. Does the society punish dissent? How hierarchical is it? How much social mobility does it allow? Does the culture encourage acquiescence to authority? How much does the culture value obedience? How fixed are their gender roles? Do they discourage exploration versus execution? Do they embrace orthodox thinking? How strong do they adhere to the past?

While many developing nations may have talent and drive, they (at least the one I am familiar with) appear to be politically, socially, and sometimes economically, less free and open than we tend to be in more developed nations. (Please take this as the generalization it is meant to be; obviously there will be some cases that do not agree).

So as long as there are large cleavages between developing and developed nations in terms of freedom and openness, I suspect there will be equally large cleavages in the nature and quality of their respective innovations—despite financial investment and technical education. So then the biggest question is (and it’s a similar question on a corporate level too) not do these people want to be innovative, but rather will their societies allow them to be innovative.

One comment, one question. First, the comment:

If there's anything I've learned from the whole IDII debacle (Interaction Design Institute Ivrea) , it's that the people are what matter most. The building is just a container for the people...but it makes a convenient poster-child.

The allure of buildings probably rests somewhere in the notion of a mad-scientist's lab. Lots of cool stuff happens inside, and occasionally something interesting lurches out from within (which is usually when you have to replace the dead scientist). The problem, however, is that those laboratories are never where the party's at. Parties, for some reason, always seem to end up in the kitchen.

And if we're talking about buildings to spur design creativity, the last thing we should want is a lab high up on a mountain that the villagers point to in fear whenever livestock starts disappearing. Rather, if the goal is to inspire and provoke collaboration and dialogue, then maybe we need to aim for a model that's more like the kitchen (vulnerable though it may be to bad puns about "cooking up" new ideas).

Now, the question (completely unrelated to the above):

We are used to viewing the world through the competitive lens of business. If we're not winning (whoever "we" constitutes), then "they" are. And thus we understand business on a country vs country, economy vs economy basis.

Yet the point you make above, that "Sustainability is the most important driver of innovation of all", a view that I share and wholeheartedly embrace, has the potential to fundamentally alter the world's perception of this dynamic.

Rather than competition, do the issues and influences surrounding sustainability (peak oil, limited water supplies, global warming, and so forth) instead suggest a future of cooperation? What does it really mean if England achieves a completely economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable society if the rest of the world isn't on the same level? This is precisely the problem facing the world today as the United States refuses to acknowledge its contribution to global warming: as much as other countries around the world can mitigate or eliminate their emissions, in the end the atmosphere has no respect for man-made lines drawn on a man-made map.

What is the value, in the long term, of fostering schools and centers, design or otherwise, which prepare students and professionals to enter a world of market-based competition pitting country against country, economy against economy, when the real issue suggested by sustainability is one of a common plight: air, water food, land.

This is the problem I struggle with, because as much as Paul Hawken et al can suggest a new economic model, from where (and just as importantly, when) does such a model arise? Is such a model to be found in isolated design centers around the world, segregated by economies and lines drawn on maps? Where can we find the means to address the problems which no one country has the capability of solving?

As a brainstorming idea: Perhaps design centers around the world could be merged with the idea of a traveling circus, that the mixing of people and flow of ideas spreads beyond the borders of individual countries and is instead world-wide. Although this might sound naive, signs currently point to countries slowly recognizing that circumstances in far-off lands can hold direct and indirect consequences for them. Might such a trend point towards an openness to a different notion of collaboration?

I have been following with keen interest the Cox Review, DOTT07, the media coverage of
Design v Innovation and all the arguments breaking out regards who has the
right to call themselves a designer. Designers have been accused of being arrogant and territorial. I don't blame them. I believe it is true that many individuals from all walks of life have the ability to 'think-creatively' - whether that's as small as improving a work
process. But how many of them can bring that new idea or service to market without the skills of a designer? The work and research of scientists and technologists of all type spark new innovations but rarely do they have the proximity to the consumer or the design skills to turn their results into commercially viable propositions. The financiers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, marketers all have a role to play in bringing new propositions to market - but again rarely, if ever without several professional design disciplines being involved. Creative
or innovative thinking is within most people's grasp but 'design thinking'
brings the many disparate aspects of innovation together and visually
translates, often complex issues, into a tangible proposition that everyone can
understand. That is the skill of a professional designer. Personally
I do not believe that design is innovation, I believe design plays a
fundamental and critical role in the innovation process. It makes sense of it
in a way everyone else can buy into. The Design
Council and many others consistently promote design as adding value to
business. I personally feel that the reason designers are feeling so
uncomfortable with the 'everyone can be a designer' claim is that it
fundamentally de-values their role, their years of professional training and
experience. They have to sit back and listen to government bodies, politicians and others hail design as the big saviour to UK plc whilst often taking away the credit from the
designers themselves. Over
recent years designers have seen the public profile of 'design' itself grow and
grow - and yet their own profession has become a commodity. Who is
protecting the interests of the design profession? BDI is trying as best it can
for a small, non-funded, body representing design & innovation. But all the
time 'design' continues to be territorially fought over it is little wonder
that designers feel like pawns in a political game. The Cox
Review and the proposal for design & innovation centres are likely to house
everyone but designers - leaving them on the outside looking in. I agree with
John Thackara's comment about diverting some of those
funds into sustainability - that at least would mark out a role for the design
‘professionals’.

I posted a 'review' of the Cox report at City of Sound recently.

[John, I've been trying to email you recently on john@thackara.com, but it keeps bouncing back. Is it me or is if you?!]

Good article. Worth noting Christopher May's arguments on the information economy, that informational work is actually more suited to "task migration" and offshoring than non-informational work. And that place-specific service tasks (health, education) should be given increased focus (this could also relate to design - i.e. less focus on export / tech innovation, more on sustainable processes).

It's good to see some acknowledgement of what is essentially racial prejudice underlying the assumption that developing nations will always be the destinations for outsourcing. I think the creative industries in "developed nations" would be well advised to consider what services they may be able to provide to companies based in China or India.