Introduction
Contemporary economic policy suffers from technofetishism, reducing innovation to a mere flash of invention. Dan Breznitz demonstrates that this approach is flawed: innovation is not an event, but a process and practice. This article explains why copying the Silicon Valley model leads to a "geography of illusions" and how to reclaim innovation sovereignty through rigorous institutional engineering, rather than relying on the theatrical liturgy of grants.
The Innovation Myth: Why invention is not the same as success
Equating innovation with invention hinders development because it ignores the stages of implementation and scaling. An invention without production capabilities remains a costly exhibit. True prosperity is built through four stages of innovation: novelty, production engineering, component improvement, and mass assembly. Regions that focus only on the "flash of genius" lose their edge, as it is the masters of implementation who control value chains. To avoid this trap, the state must stop being "theatrical" and start supporting real productivity.
Geography of Illusions: Why copying Silicon Valley doesn't work
Copying Silicon Valley often results in the loss of value to global capital centers that siphon off talent and intellectual property. Instead of building their own "ecosystems," regions should create agency-driven institutions that not only fund research but also ensure knowledge absorption by local industry. Traditional support fails when institutions become mere "enablers" without mechanisms for execution. Success requires moving from decorative technology parks to strategies where local firms actually take control of the technology.
Innovation as Power Engineering: Between agency and decoration
Intellectual property systems, financialization, and data enclosure create a value-capture machine that blocks innovation. Instead of promoting knowledge diffusion, patents foster "patent thickets," while short-term financial logic (e.g., stock buybacks) drains funds from R&D. To reclaim sovereignty, we need "institutional prosthetics for reason": taxing stock buybacks, patent reform (to make it easier to challenge weak claims), and regulations like the Data Act, which turn data enclosure into access. We will only achieve technological sovereignty if we design an architecture where innovation serves to build productive capacity, rather than just rent-seeking.
Summary
Innovation has ceased to be a neutral good, becoming a battleground for sovereignty over the future of economies. To move beyond the theater of symbols, we must redefine innovation: as the ability to build lasting prosperity through value protection and competence development. The real challenge is no longer just creating something new, but the ability to manage it in a way that does not make us hostages to global capital centers. Can we replace the liturgy of grants with rigorous institutional engineering that truly serves the citizens?