Sofija Mijalkovic

Innovation is a global force, but its nature, drivers, and outcomes vary significantly across different regions. Cultural values, economic structures, education systems, and access to resources all shape how innovation takes place, and what problems it seeks to solve.

Europe

Europe tends to focus on sustainable and regulatory-driven innovation, particularly in sectors like clean energy, health care, and digital infrastructure. The European Union plays a strong role in funding research and creating common standards. Countries like Germany and Sweden excel in industrial and technological innovation, while nations like the Netherlands and Estonia are leaders in digital government and green tech.

Asia

Asia is a powerhouse of technology-driven innovation, but it’s far from homogenous. Japan and South Korea lead in robotics and advanced manufacturing. China has become a major global innovator, especially in e-commerce, AI, and fintech, supported by a vast market and heavy government investment. Southeast Asia is emerging rapidly in digital services and startups, often leapfrogging legacy systems with mobile-first solutions.

Africa

Innovation in Africa is often resourceful and socially driven, addressing local challenges in creative ways. With limited infrastructure in many regions, mobile technology has become a central tool—especially in finance, agriculture, and education. Kenya’s mobile money platform M-Pesa is a standout example. Innovation here is typically frugal, practical, and aimed at community-level impact.

America

The Americas present a wide spectrum. The United States is a global leader in cutting-edge innovation, driven by Silicon Valley’s ecosystem of venture capital, research universities, and tech entrepreneurship. Latin America, on the other hand, focuses on adaptation and inclusion, with Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia fostering vibrant startup scenes in areas like e-commerce, transport, and financial inclusion.

While innovation is a global phenomenon, it is deeply shaped by local needs, opportunities, and constraints. Understanding regional differences helps highlight the unique value and creativity that each part of the world brings to solving problems and shaping the future.

The Global Innovation Index (GII) 2024, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), evaluates the innovation performance of 133 economies using 78 indicators across various domains, including institutions, human capital, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication . While the GII encompasses a broad spectrum of innovation metrics, the explicit inclusion of open innovation practices is not directly evident in the current framework.

 

Understanding Open Innovation

Open innovation refers to an innovation model where organizations utilize both internal and external ideas, as well as internal and external paths to market, to advance their technology. This approach emphasizes collaboration with external partners, including academia, industry, and the public, to co-create and disseminate knowledge and technologies.

 

Current GII Indicators Related to Open Innovation

While the GII does not have a dedicated indicator labeled “open innovation”, several existing indicators indirectly capture aspects of open innovation:

• 7.1.3 Global Brand Value, Top 5,000, % GDP: This indicator assesses the brand value of the top 5,000 global brands as a percentage of GDP, reflecting the commercialization aspect of innovation.
• 7.1.4 Industrial Designs by Origin/bn PPP$ GDP: This measures the number of industrial design applications filed by residents, indicating design innovation activities.

These indicators, while not exclusively focused on open innovation, provide insights into collaborative and design-driven innovation activities within economies.

 

Proposed Inclusion of Open Innovation in the GII

To more comprehensively assess open innovation practices, the GII could consider incorporating new indicators or modifying existing ones to capture the following aspects:

Collaborative Research and Development (R&D): Metrics on joint R&D projects between public institutions and private enterprises can reflect the extent of collaborative innovation efforts.

Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms: Indicators measuring the effectiveness of knowledge transfer from academia to industry, such as licensing agreements and spin-offs, can provide insights into open innovation dynamics.

Open Source Contributions: Tracking contributions to open-source projects can highlight the engagement of economies in collaborative innovation platforms.

Innovation Networks and Clusters: Assessing the presence and performance of innovation clusters and networks can shed light on the collaborative environment conductive to open innovation.

 

Incorporating open innovation metrics into the GII would provide a more nuanced understanding of how economies leverage collaborative approaches to drive innovation. By expanding the indicator set to include measures of collaborative R&D, knowledge transfer, open-source participation, and innovation networks, the GII can offer a more comprehensive assessment of innovation ecosystems worldwide

Peter Thiel’s Zero to One presents a compelling case for monopolistic, secretive innovation as the key to groundbreaking technological progress. Thiel argues that true innovation occurs when companies create something entirely new, rather than  improving already existing products. Thiel writes that monopolies, not competition, drive radical technological change because they have the resources, stability and time to take risks and create and innovate without the pressure from competitors.

In contrast, open innovation embraces the idea that collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and external contributions fuel technological advancement. Open innovation suggests that companies can benefit from external research, partnerships, and even their competitors’ advancements to accelerate breakthroughs. This philosophy appears to stand in direct opposition to Thiel’s core beliefs, which prioritize proprietary control and monopoly-driven innovation.

 

The Conflict Between Open Innovation and Zero to One

 

Internal Innovation vs. Collective Innovation
Thiel argues that monopolies foster innovation because they allow companies to invest in long-term research without being immediately outcompeted. However, monopolistic control often discourages knowledge-sharing, limiting the overall progress of an industry. Open innovation, by contrast, thrives on collaboration between multiple actors, including startups, universities, and large firms.  Open innovation enables collective problem-solving that can lead to faster and more widespread technological advancements.

Radical Breakthroughs vs. Incremental and Cumulative Progress
Thiel’s “zero to one” framework suggests that the most valuable companies are those that create entirely new markets, rather than improving existing ones. Open innovation, however, recognizes the importance of building on and improving already existing things, progresses, discoveries, etc. While Thiel’s approach might result in occasional revolutionary breakthroughs, open innovation ensures steady and continuous improvements, increasing the likelihood of more frequent change and improving the world altogether.

Blocking Competition vs. Accelerating Competition
Thiel views competition as a destructive force that reduces profits and stops true innovation. He advocates for more monopolies and less competition. Open innovation, embraces networked intelligence, where multiple contributors, including competitors, contribute to advancements in technology. This approach aligns more closely with industries like open-source software, where collaboration has led to rapid technological advancements that benefit everyone, rather than a single dominant player.

Thiel’s fear of excessive competition leading to stagnation can be mitigated by open innovation’s ability to accelerate the pace of technological advancements. When companies, universities, and individuals collaborate, innovation is not limited to a single company’s capabilities. This networked approach ensures that new technologies emerge more rapidly and benefit a wider range of industries and consumers.

Open innovation challenges Thiel’s model but also offers a way to enhance his vision—by creating an environment where companies can achieve breakthrough innovation without isolating themselves. A balanced approach that integrates aspects of both philosophies may be the most effective path toward sustained technological progress.

Peter Thiel’s Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future (2014) presents itself as a blueprint for creating successful businesses that move from “zero to one”. As a co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, Thiel offers an insider’s perspective on entrepreneurship, emphasizing monopoly power, contrarian thinking, and technological innovation, and how each of them affect business.

One of Thiel’s most thought-provoking claims is that great entrepreneurs must embrace contrarian thinking. Contrarian thinking means you don’t blindly follow the trend and what most people are doing, but embrace your ideas and believe in them. 

 

Some questionable, contrarian Peter Thiel’s beliefs:

Monopolies Are Good, Not Bad

Thiel’s View: Monopolies are actually beneficial because they allow companies to make long-term investments in innovation. He argues that the most successful businesses (e.g., Google, Amazon, Facebook) create monopolistic advantages by offering unique, high-value products that no one else can replicate, and by creating the monopoly, they can spend less time competing on the market and spending more time to focus on innovation and its workers. Peter also states that monopolies in “his theory” aren’t bad because they will whatsoever be replaced by new monopolies as time goes on.

Correct: On paper this sounds right, but with numerous examples in real life we can see this theory doesn’t really hold up. How many monopolies exist today. Not many. That’s because huge companies that got to the top will do anything to stay there, including destroying upcoming competitors by any way possible, be it buying them, or literally killing whistleblowers (Boeing). He writes that monopolies have more time to concentrate on innovation, because they have no competition. That is also something that sounds ok on paper, but doesn’t exist in real life. Why would McDonald’s or Disney innovate? They don’t need to, they have no reason for it, they are already on top and already successful, why would they change anything? Innovation comes from competition, trying to be better than the other person, trying to convince someone to buy your product over other’s products, so you have to come up with something new, to intrigue buyers. Monopolies already have all the buyers, so they don’t innovate. The cleanest example I can think of is Disney right now. Every single movie is the same, all animation is the same,  no new style, they only make retellings of old stories, nothing new, no innovation.                      

Competition Is for Losers

Thiel’s View: Competition erodes profits and makes businesses fight over the same pie instead of expanding the pie. Instead of competing in an existing market, startups should aim to create entirely new markets where they can be the dominant player.

Correct: Thiel sees it as no competition = more time to focus on innovation, and that really doesn’t exist in the real world today. It is also incredibly difficult for startups to even get to such high positions on the market, because of the monopolies stopping them.

The Education System Is Overrated

Thiel’s View: Higher education is a bubble, and many students accumulate debt without gaining real-world skills. He even created the Thiel Fellowship, which pays young entrepreneurs to drop out of college and start companies instead.

Correct: A college degree absolutely doesn’t guarantee anything, that you will be good at your job, that you will even have a job (expect if you’re studying to be a doctor or a lawyer, then you absolutely have to have a college degree), but business what you need is motivation. You can go to college, but if you’re not interested, not reading books on your own, not studying on your own, not trying on your own, you will not be as successful as someone who didn’t go to college, but has the absolute motivation to succeed.

The Future of Innovation Is Stagnating

Thiel’s View: Outside of software and the internet, technological progress has actually slowed down. He argues that industries like energy, transportation, and medicine have seen less radical innovation than expected and that society needs more risk-taking in these fields.

Correct: While you can see some innovation in industries like transportation, for example self-driving cars, there definitely has been less of a jump in evolution of these industries compared to the evolution of software and internet industries. I believe the reason behind that is that monopolies, who mainly control not-online industries, prevent startups from participating and succeed in that traffic, so most startups go somewhere where they can succeed, where there isn’t as much control and monopolies, and that’s internet and software.

Globalization Is Not the Future—Technology Is

Thiel’s View: Globalization is just copying existing ideas and spreading them worldwide (going from “1 to n”), whereas real progress comes from breakthrough technology that creates entirely new solutions (going from “0 to 1”).

Correct: Yes, Thiel is correct, progress comes from new, innovative technology that creates new solutions, but progress isn’t just that. The definition of progress: “Develop towards an improved or more advanced condition.” So if somebody takes an already existing technology, or idea, and changes it a bit, improves it, they still make progress. Going from nothing to one thing (0 to 1) is progress, but going from one thing to another thing, or from one thing to two, or more similar things, that are slightly better (1 to n) is also progress. I believe the future is further globalization, so that everyone in the world can work with whomever they want, innovate whatever they want, and solve whatever problems they want, no matter where they are. Technology shouldn’t oppose globalization, it should help it. They aren’t two different forces that work against each other, but two means for a better world that can’t work without each other.

Individuals Over Many

Thiel’s View: “Brilliant individuals” are the driving force behind technological revolutions. 

Correct: While having strong leadership and good, bold ideas is important, one person can not achieve many things. Thiel’s thinking oversimplifies the part collaboration holds in innovation. History demonstrates that many breakthroughs—such as the development of the internet or advancements in medicine—result from collective efforts rather than just one genius person. Thiel’s brilliant individuals who succeed on their own basically don’t exist. While he celebrates people such as Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, who are good, capable, innovative managers, he overlooks the funding, money, teamwork, infrastructure that enabled them to succeed.

 

While Zero to One provides a good structure for understanding entrepreneurship, it should not be taken as unquestionable rules. A more nuanced approach—one that acknowledges the importance of collaboration, regulation, and ethical considerations—would provide a more balanced and realistic vision of the future. People should engage critically with Thiel’s ideas, adopting what is useful while remaining wary of his more ideological statements.

 

This post is based on the video about privatization, it’s effects and flaws.

First off the term asset management should be defined. Asset management is a practice of increasing total wealth over time by acquiring, maintaining and trading investments that have the potential to grow in value.

Financialization, the process of making money in the financial services sector while ordinary people struggle, plays a big role in the increasing costs of living. The companies that control much of the infrastructure we depend on, such as asset management funds, want to privatize everything in the public sphere.

Through time asset managers mainly changed their investments from stock as their main assets to more “real” assets, such as infrastructure, social infrastructure, commercial real estate, and so on. It’s basically owning homes, roads, hospitals, schools. These assets affect much more people than the non-existent online assets ever could. By owning so many, previously public, objects asset management affects people who work in those establishments and provide basic services.

Asset managements firms like BlackRock and Vanguard have a significant stake in major US corporations, collectively owning between 20 and 25% of the shares. They are usually thought to work together to amplify their influence, but the reality is that their holdings are passively managed, and individual managers may not even be aware of each other.

Historically housing assets were thought to be bad as it was complicated to satisfy home owners, however, the financial crisis changed this perception, as it was seen as evidence that home ownership had reached its limit, leading to increased interest in housing assets by asset management firms. After the financial crisis significant owners of housing became professional corporate landlords. They can do the job of providing housing more efficiently than small private landlords. Because of these housing assets being more and more invested in, there have been major shortages of housing in bigger cities. Furthermore, the financial crisis and low interest rates have led pension funds and other investors to seek assets that can deliver regular annual yields, such as rental housing.

Asset managers and housing investors don’t want more housing stock. They want it less and less, so that they can increase the price of what they already have. The demand dictates the price after all. The less of a something there is, and the more the people want it, the more expensive it will be.

The consequence of relying on private investment for infrastructure and housing is that private investment often prioritizes profit over the well-being of individuals and communities. Housing owned by asset managers have high eviction rates and bad living conditions and they usually lack investment for maintaining infrastructures. The current approach to privatization and private investment doesn’t address the needs of the public. A good example of asset managers not seeing people and the care they need in housing investment but only number and money is care homes. A study in the US showed that care homes that are owned by asset managers have a higher mortality rate than those owned privately. That is of course because the asset managers don’t invest nearly enough in nursing.

The comparison of the US and China shows the contrast capitalism and communism. In the video they state that China is better positioned to meet long-term structural investments because of the state’s deep involvement in the economy. In contrast, the West has outsourced investments to the private sector and markets, which may not always prioritize investments that are not financially beneficial. This outsourced approach can lead to less effective resource allocation compared to countries like China. An example is given of how developers in the UK, faced with capped prices set by the government, decided not to bid in an auction for renewable energy contracts because they would not make enough profit. They also state that China has built twice as much solar capacity compared to the United States, emphasizing the contrast in investment approaches between the West and China.

Capitalism, as we have already seen, is based on privatization, which goes so far, by privatizing basic human rights, such as healthcare in the US and the water industry in the UK. The privatization attracts asset managers, which leads to underinvestment and deteriorating services. Asset managers focus more on minimizing costs and maximizing revenues, rather than the quality. Significant amount of money in the privatized water industry goes to the shareholders instead of investing. Asset management firms prioritize short-term profit and the quick sale of assets, there are no long-term investments which better the industry, which only worsens the problem for the privatized industry. Asset managers are inappropriate owners of critical, essential infrastructure. Unfortunately governments have not taken much action on this issue, partly because they have become reliant on these actors as the supposed solution. When governments and regulators do try to clamp down on them, asset managers often threaten to withdraw investments, which puts politicians in a difficult position.

One example of how privatized infrastructure can shape and constrain the development of a city is in Chicago where Morgan Stanley’s investment in parking infrastructure lead to the rising of parking fees and limitation to the city’s ability to implement cyclist-friendly infrastructure. It is common that assets are split and sold separately, firstly selling to the private sector, leaving   the public sector with unattractive and less desirable assets. That practice is known as “splintering”.

Both the public and private sectors can have issues as owners of assets, however, the public sector offers the possibility of different outcomes compared to private sector ownership, particularly in terms of asset management. One key difference is the role of the public sector in funding and owning critical infrastructure assets. In this case, the public sector is able to generate revenues from the use of these assets, such as toll roads or public utilities. This income can then be reinvested into the maintenance and development of the assets.

Currently it seems that the negative effects of privatization far outweigh the positive. Higher water and energy bills, evictions, and limited housing opportunities are currently big problems, that are ever so increasing, so how big will they even be for the future generations?

The way I see it is that the only people who will be making more and more money are those in the financial services sector, while the rest will only be losing money. That is because while their pays are increasing, they aren’t increasing nearly enough to keep up with the insane price rises that we see today. A worker’s pay may increase 10%, but what is that going to help him when the housing prices increase by 60%. With the privatization of housing, the social system is more and more reminding me of feudalism. The rich keep getting richer while exploiting the poor who keep getting poorer. The rich control that system, so of course they’re not going to let it change and risk losing their wealth. The only way to change this system is to make changes at it’s core, which is hardly possible.

spoilers ahead The movie “Arrival”, directed by Denis Villeneuve came out in 2016. It starred Amy Adams in the lead role as a linguistics professor, Louise Banks, and Jeremy Renner as Ian, a physicist. They are brought to one of the twelve alien landing sites to figure out what the aliens want, but for that they need to learn their language and teach them English. The good thing, maybe even amazing is that this movie is one of the rare philosophical movies today, with an amazing story and concept. One of the best elements of the movie is the way it handles the focus on communication and understanding. Communication can be incredibly difficult, especially when it comes to other species and backgrounds that are much different from ours. The Arrival does a great job of portraying this challenge, showing how nonverbal cues and inflections can be used to bridge the gap between cultures. Banks and the aliens must work hard to make each other understand, showing a great amount of mutual respect for the other. The movie also focuses heavily on the idea of time and how it can affect our lives. They presented that idea through the alien language, saying that it’s non linear, but circular, a cycle. Just as we are three dimensional beings, we are not bound by length or width, the aliens and their language are fourth dimensional and are not bound by time, so anyone who speaks the language is also not bound by time, but can see their past, present and future at the same time. That’s where we get the answer why the aliens even came to Earth. They saw their future, saw they needed help from humans and came to Earth to help the humans evolve in order for the humans to be able to help in the future. To help them evolve they offered humans a weapon, their language. The first human who learned the language was Louise Banks who throughout the movie actually sees the future and the past at the same time. We begin the movie thinking her daughter had already died but then learn that her daughter hadn’t even been born she was just seeing her future. But there’s a philosophical question right there, once she can see the future, can she change it? Should she have a daughter she knows is going to die? Or is she going to try to save her life? And did the aliens see their demise and are trying to prevent that by getting the help of humans and by that trying to change the future, or did they already see the humans helping them.

I also really love the design of the aliens and alien ships. Although you can’t really see the full body of the aliens because they are mostly shown as the picture above, and the one time you can see them they’re not very visible, because they are covered in smoke, I still love the ominous feeling they give off. Below is the picture of how the aliens really look. One bad thing I want to mention is that the movie shows the situation from only one point of view, America’s. It’s very subjective instead of taking the true scientist route and being more objective. I think showing how the entire situation was unveiling in different cultures could have been more interesting and that they wasted that opportunity to make an even better film.

 

Overall I think the positives out way the negatives. This is a pretty good and fun movie and I will always recommend it to sci-fi fans.

 

Capitalism is an economic system in which all the means of making money are private, owned not by country, but by people. It’s a system that allows accumulation of wealth and encourages competition for private profit. Most of the countries today have capitalist economies and in some of them, mainly in the USA, exist laws that favor companies rather than people.  Compared with Europe, companies in the USA have it much easier, they can grow bigger and faster, because of the larger market, but the people have it worse. They have less vacation days, no maternity leave and the biggest thing, nothing is free. No free healthcare, daycare, schools, because everything is private.

Feudalism in the middle ages

Capitalism is believed to have started in the 18th century, maybe even the late 17th century after the demolition of feudalism. Capitalism and feudalism may be similar, but there are some key differences, in capitalism everyone is free to become rich and powerful, while in feudalism you have to be born in wealth and power, meaning aristocratic to be able to live like that. Also in capitalism people own the companies and land, while in feudalism, while the noble makes money off of it, the land belongs to the king.

The first capitalist country and the first global economic superpower was Great Britain. They rose to that position in the 19th century because of the technology they had at the time was more advanced than the other countries. Advanced manufacturing technologies allowed faster production and railway systems and steamships allowed faster connection to other countries, meaning more buyers. With that more companies came to be and the ones that already existed became so big they started monopolizing the economy.

British East India Company logos

The Boston tea party

One of those monopolizing companies actually grew so big they became probably the most powerful company to ever exist. British East India Company. That company is a good example of capitalist evil. They monopolized their tea so much, that they didn’t let the settlers in the US sell their own tea, but made them buy theirs while also making them pay taxes for the US and for Great Britain. In some way they could be credited with creating the US, because it was their tea that was thrown in the ocean during the Boston tea party. The real evil of this company can be seen in the east Asia though. They not only monopolized the economy so much that no other companies could even start to exist, but they started selling opium and other addictive drugs, so that people would get addicted and start buying more and more from them.

To summarize, in one hand capitalism can be good, because it gives everyone freedom to become rich while doing whatever they wish, no matter who they are, it produces wealth and innovation and gives power to the people. And on the other hand capitalism can be bad, because once the first person comes to the top, they want to stay there and will do whatever they can do to so, including monopolizing the market (Disney is a great example) and stopping innovations.