I engage with the dominant view on limited need for modification when models are transmitted across regions in global innovation policy. Although the authors criticize the “one-size-fits-all” methodology and promote the idea of localized adaptation, I contend that a more profound shift is necessary — advocating for a model of radical localism, whereby regions should completely forsake standardized frameworks in preference for policies developed exclusively based on local needs, historical backgrounds, and socio-political contexts.

Consider for one moment the continued talk about “Silicon Valley” ecosystems as being the global gold standard. From Turkey to Tunisia, countries around the world try to emulate their own Silicon Valleys, but very often under the influence of international actors and delegations that have no more than one recipe for “success.” The problem, as Pfotenhauer (2023) makes clear, is that this often produces policies in contradiction to regional socio-cultural environments, such as Bavaria’s “conservative innovation culture,” which holds on to stability more than change. What could motivate Bavaria, Turkey, or Tunisia to pursue an imitation of the Silicon Valley paradigm of “disruption for the sake of growth” when their economic and social goals are very different?

Observations by Haddad (2021) on Mediterranean Arab countries confirm this idea. Policy imports, especially pressured ones from international aid organizations, fail in these countries because they do not respect the complex postcolonial identity and regional socio-political structures. These countries are encouraged to implement models which work well in the West without considering if they are relevant for decidedly different institutions. For instance, Haddad argues that science parks and technological clusters rarely succeed in Tunisia largely because their principles do not match the centralist form of government, and the limited role reserved for the private sector.

This goes beyond mere questions of compatibility; it reflects the colonial mentality still deeply ingrained within the policies of global innovation, which hold that the paradigm from the West is intrinsically superior and universally applicable.

The Case for Extreme Localism It means radical localism now argues for policies developed from the ground-up analysis of the local socio-economic situation, historical institutional setting, and political environment without imported models. The whole idea is to recognize every region as an individual innovation system where policies get created not just as variant paradigms but as an altogether new structures based on facts of the locality.

This could imply, for instance, innovating to support traditional strengths-essential areas like agriculture or textiles-other than focusing on high-tech clusters for Turkey. In the case of Tunisia, this could include a slight bias toward small and domestically owned enterprises over technological giants in the process of setting up a system less dependent on foreign investment and hence more viable within its socio-political context. The approach is contentious because it develops that there cannot be one benchmark for “successful” innovation policy. It also insists on the possible need to retreat by international agents and allow regions to develop systems that look very different from the Western models currently favored.

With such a perspective, innovation policy can begin to evolve from being a source of global homogenization into a genuinely heterogeneous space wherein regions set their own terms regarding success well away from any latent assumptions of Western measurements and indices. I argue that this radical localism is not only a realistic approach but a necessary corrective to the implicit colonialism still presents in global innovation policy. What need is there for developing countries to replicate a high-technology, high-risk model of Silicon Valley when more often than not, their social and economic goals are quite different? Should they not be trusted-and have it considered-to define what innovation means to them?

References:

• Pfotenhauer et al. — 2023 — Understanding regional innovation cultures
• Haddad2021 — Situating innovation policy
• Irwin et al 2021 — Isomorphic Differences Datei