I have to acknowledge that among the countless things that I have never finished to convince is everything related to the innovation. Why? Independent of other things, because its use in Chile, it seems to me that it is not more that the last version of a favorite sport, our elite: to show how the town is not at the height of ‘today’s challenges’, and that -in the end – the blame (not to be good citizens in modern, developed, picture etc) is in them.
And so we declare that we have a problem with that the population is not innovative enough, as well as years ago was not sufficiently enterprising and before who knows which thing it was not.
Now, the problem is that -on the contrary – I think that a good part of our problems is due to the elite, in part to the attitude that their approach to the topic of innovation sample: Because the main problem to innovate, if you want to, it is precisely this negative view, menospreciadora, that the elite has on the rest of the population. The elite depends on, at least in its self-consciousness, of thought, best -thought of modern, developed, illustrated, to the height of the present, globalized, whatever – which the rest of the population. And as it is clearly better, then it clearly justifies the look and actions of authoritarian, daily humiliating that it does, because what else is worth an average population barbara in the end?
As a way to show that the problem for innovation (or for what is in reality), one can think of a recent interview published in The Third from someone whose name I prefer not to remember. An ex-member of the Committee of Innovation critical actions because, clearly, they are not experts, and because -and here’s the crucial thing – not the thing to do: send 20 or 30 people abroad to become experts in innovation.
Repitamoslo: The solution to the lack of innovation of the chilean society is to send 20 or 30 people to become experts. Do I need to say why that is total nonsense? Why do you think that a social problem because there are some experts in the elite is not to understand anything at all? What is a sample that our central problem is the incredible limitation of the elites to think outside of them?
For the record that the strategy of sending people out to study foreign systems in itself is not bad. The japanese used it extensively in the Meiji era and evil they were not. But we have tried many times -it would not be the first time that you send people to become experts abroad – and we don’t work for you (*).
(*) The exception would be the Chicago Boys. But in this case, the boys devoted themselves effectively to structural change. That I think is also what it would take for the case of innovation. In the same way, with all the rejection of cultural heritage at the world market, when structurally the actions required were of the market, well we ended up in that world; something tells me that that should happen in the world of innovation. But for something among the most innovative nations are the nordic, and among the myriad things that differentiate us will not be amiss to remember that they are more equal societies than ours. Is not so only a matter of differences in the Gini index, is a difference in the equiparidad of treatment -who are treated as equals – I believe is crucial.