Tue Dec 16 02:10:00 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the provided text, followed by a news article based on it:
Summary
The article critiques Nobel laureate Joel Mokyr’s economic theories on technological progress and sustained growth. While acknowledging Mokyr’s contributions, the author argues that his views are overly simplistic and Eurocentric. The critique focuses on five key areas:
- “Curse of Concavity”: Mokyr argues that knowledge escapes diminishing returns. Critics contend that recent technological advancements have not produced the same productivity jump as previous ones.
- Role of Instruments: The article points out that new tools emerge from complex negotiations rather than simply being “better tools.”
- Institutional Environment: Mokyr suggests four conditions for innovation, but critics show that other areas of the world at the time had similar markets for ideas and sophisticated markets.
- Elitism in Innovation: Mokyr’s focus on a small “upper tail” of innovators overlooks the importance of “micro-inventions”, skilled artisans, and “collective invention”.
- The Role of the State: Mokyr’s perspective on the government may not be strong enough considering a government should not be too controlling, as it is for instance in China and certainly as it was in the Soviet Union, but also not too absent, which is the direction in which the U.S. is moving, but a government that sort of sits in the middle and it guides and it advises and it regulates a little bit, but it still lets the forces of free markets operate.
The article argues that Mokyr’s narrative marginalizes the roles of imperialism, everyday labor, and broader social and political contexts in driving progress. It suggests that innovation is a more complex, socially embedded process than Mokyr’s model suggests.
News Article
Nobel Laureate’s Economic Theories Face Scrutiny
December 16, 2025 – Newly minted Nobel laureate Joel Mokyr’s theories on technological progress and economic growth are facing increased scrutiny from historians and economists. In his Nobel lecture in Stockholm, Mokyr reiterated his long-held belief that a self-reinforcing relationship between science and technology, driven by a small intellectual elite, is the key to sustained economic growth.
However, critics argue that Mokyr’s perspective is overly simplistic and Eurocentric, neglecting crucial historical and social factors. A recent article in The Hindu dissects five key areas of contention.
First, the article challenges Mokyr’s concept of escaping the “curse of concavity,” arguing that recent technological advancements haven’t matched the productivity gains of earlier eras.
Second, the article contends that new tools and technologies don’t simply appear but are the result of complex negotiations between various actors, not just the result of scientific advancements.
Third, the article critiques Mokyr’s view of innovation institutions, arguing that until the late 18th century, some parts of China and India were also commercially sophisticated and had complex markets and their own knowledge elites.
Fourth, the article questions Mokyr’s focus on an “upper tail” of innovators, emphasizing the vital roles of skilled artisans, incremental improvements (“micro-inventions”), and “collective invention” in driving progress.
Finally, the article questions Mokyr’s perspective on the role of government in shaping knowledge and social order.
“Mokyr has done well to force economists to take technology and culture seriously as historical forces, yet the picture he offers of protected incentives and a competitive market for knowledge yielding sustained improvements in welfare isn’t borne out by the facts of history,” the The Hindu article concludes. “Innovation can’t be narrated only from the vantage point of the ‘upper tail’ if it needs to explain modern growth. Instead we need to piece it together as a social process in which labour, infrastructure, administration, and imperial power ‘apply’ ideas but also shape what counts as an idea and who can benefit from it.”
First Piper 