Jim Heskett, Harvard Professor and coauthor of the recently released (and heftily titled) Ownership Quotient: Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work for Unbeatable Competitive Advantage , posted a brief review of Amar Bhidé's Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World at Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge site yesterday. Bhidé takes a contrarian view to Thomas Friedman's World is Flat pronouncement. Summing up the book and its argument, Heskett asks: If one agrees with these hypotheses, what does this mean for investments in basic science on the part of any government?
If one agrees with these hypotheses, what does this mean for investments in basic science on the part of any government? Would some of that money be better deployed in supporting education in areas such as marketing and entrepreneurship that fosters entrepreneurial thinking and behaviors, providing credit to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and instituting tax policies that encourage the provision of venture capital? Or is the world really flat? Do the "techno-nationalists" have it right? What do you think?If you'd like to know why Bhidé's book led him to this question and take a stab at answering it, head on over to the original post, read and leave a reply.