Is Apple one of the most innovative companies in the world? Most people would think so (so-so iPhone 5 specs notwithstanding). Google? Ditto. Baidu? Sure. Tencent? You know jack about Chinese companies if you don’t think so. All these companies made the recently published Forbes’ “The World’s Most Innovative Companies.” The authors of this study, Jeff Dyer and Hal Gregersen, based the rankings on what they called, innovative premium, which they detailed in their book, “The Innovator’s DNA” (co-authored with Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen). Noticeably, Facebook is not on the list, because it has not yet established a track-record. Some may scoff at the fact that this “innovative premium” is based more heavily from an “investor’s” perspective, but as the authors contend, perception based on people’s wallet is hard to beat. Baidu and Tencent ranks #5 and #11 respectively. Google and Apple? #24 and #26. As Mr. Unknown argued in the prior post, political freedom doesn’t really correlate with innovation. Well, for the “freedom” loving nuts out there (the religious types), the Forbes’ list should hopefully make them question their faith.
Of course, Ray, in the comments below is absolutely right:
I think you really need to define what political freedom really is? Is China politically really “less free” than the US or Russia? Is a suffrege system a prerequisite?
How come important world body such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, WTO not based on a suffrege system?
Where I previously left off, I may give the impression that China is somehow “less free” politically compared to the U.S.. As Allen has said a number of times in the past, the U.S. is more ‘free’ because of her unique circumstances allowing her to feel less threatened by certain political action. In that context, America is more free. America is repressive in many ways too. Actually, I prefer our readers to continue discussion at Mr. Unknown’s recent thread, because in this short post, I only wanted to show couple of examples of what Mr. Unknown was talking about.
Anyhow, for convenience, I’d prefer to define political freedom as how truly responsive a government is to its citizens. Now, a polity by itself can be too selfish and too warmongering. So, we should remind ourselves that the logical conclusion to “free” may very well mean a group of greedy people consuming everything on this planet before other people get to have an equitable share. A warmongering public may want to invade and kill everyone else on this planet or relegate them to second-class status. Political ‘freedom’ has its limits.
So, “less free” or “more free” is important, but not everything. The notion that ‘freedom’ is everything is a Western narrative. It’s a religion other peoples frankly don’t have to pound their chest on. The rest of the world should also consider what Eric Li concludes not so long ago in The Christian Science Monitor, “China’s political system is more flexible than US democracy:”
In this season of political change around the globe, in China, in the West, in Japan, and the Arab world, is water carrying the ship? Is water overturning the ship? What kind of ship does the water truly want to carry? A little less ideological bias and a little more intellectual honesty might tell us some simple truths: Electoral rotations do not necessarily produce flexibility or legitimacy; one-party rule does not mean rigidity or lack of popular support.
I highly recommend a read by following the link above.