Traditional factors, like land, labor, and capital, were unable to express economic growth.
In 1957, Robert Solow put forward the theory that the missing factor was technological change.
A key turning point came in the late 1970s when the term “innovation policy” took off.
Innovation became a resource that could be fostered, grown, created, molded, instrumentalized.
In other words, you can instrumentalize instrumentalization.
Innovation-speak took off at an even faster rate beginning in the early 1990s.
Disruptive innovation is neither as frequent, nor as important as Christensen led people to believe in the many books he sold and the many talks he gave around the world.7.
Christensen and his disciples dealt in snake oil for the innovation age. The overemphasis on revolutionary technological change has led to a series of false prophets and empty promises.
By drawing our attention to falsehoods and things that rarely actually matter, they damaged our culture.8. From gene therapy to biotechnology to nanotechnology—waves of jargon and technobabble have washed over us with little payoff.10.
Given the prevalence of such empty promises, one of our chief tasks must be sounding out false idols. Scholars have shed complaining about “neoliberalism,” an economic and political philosophy that came to power with the rise of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.