The ‘quantity economy’ refers to an economic model prioritising the sheer volume of economic activities, such as production, consumption, and trade. This model has been in turmoil after Trump’s victory, who boldly announced trade protectionism and duties. On the other hand, the ‘quality economy’ focuses on the qualitative aspects of economic growth, such as the well-being of citizens, environmental sustainability, and social equality. The quantity economy is also in chaos following the waves of tourists flying ‘Low-Cost’ and causing house rents to skyrocket, with owners preferring the ‘Bed & Breakfast’ model to long-term rentals for residents. Again, there is turmoil at airports due to an increasing number of flights, which causes overcrowding and noise pollution. Turmoil ignites tensions about the measures to be adopted.
Despite the confusion, the quantity economy dominates the scene. Among the causes hidden under the carpet of social conventions is the lack of economists with a rare combination of qualities. Maynard Keynes argued that the <<economist must have a high standard in various fields. He must be a mathematician, a historian, a statesman, a philosopher – or at least he must be to some extent>>. Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to the accountants’ metrics of quantities of products, services, sales and profits. The light is shed on the quantitative successes, such as the increase in GDP and corporate profits. The adverse outcomes are overlooked: for example, the revealing inequality in income distribution, the low incidences of protected natural areas and a below-average availability of urban greenery per capita, as well as one of the highest levels of urban waste production per capita.
If the alarm were to sound on the poor quality of growth, it would be not only Trump’s tariffs that would be of concern, but above all, his agenda that does not contain Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. The Scottish economist and philosopher valued qualitative parameters – fairness, honesty, benevolence, and empathy – in assessing the quality of economic activity, which is high if conducted to benefit society. If the invisible hand of competition represented by Adam Smith in his work The Wealth of Nations could induce selfish behaviour, the same author, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, suggests that human beings, as social creatures, tend to shake hands to regulate their relationships better. Between selfishness and altruism, the range of cultural values is vast. Depending on the circumstances, the selfish accent or the altruistic intonation will set the scene. Selfishness and altruism chase each other in the cultural space. Today, this space is monopolised by quantity. As the Japanese like to say, if the water flows purely from the source and flows clear upstream, there is no need to purify it downstream. In short, quality must be anticipated. It, like health, must be maintained and improved. Nothing more than preventive actions can serve to enhance company performance qualitatively. And interventions must be carried out continuously because quality is dynamic, changing the perception that both companies and consumers have of it over time.
Quality is a long, all-round adventure. The growing quantity paints the short-term scenario pink. It is the quality that indicates the path to long-term prosperity. It is a pity that the voices we hear are only those of contingency plans to minimise the impact of protectionism and duties. While waiting for another accident, we limit ourselves to proposing to manufacture in the territory where the goods are destined and to wink at some Chinese producer to come and invest in our country. We forget that devoid of quality with the luminous circle of moral feelings, quantity stimulates rivalry and foments discord.
Lao Tzu’s vase. The emptiness that can be created inside it releases creative energy for economic growth in the name of quality.
Clay, said Lao Tzu, one of the most famous philosophers of ancient China, is used to shape a vase. But its use depends on the internal emptiness that can be created. If the vase is overloaded, independent investigators would be needed, resistant to the pressure of lobbies. The emptiness we propose is more than an alternative to being a full vase; it is a different way of thinking. Through the emptiness, we can glimpse a world entire of potential that arises from the actual behaviour of people, where expectation, uncertainty, creative power, altruism, limited rationality and intrinsic motivation coexist in a sort of chaotic soup: very different from Homo Oeconomicus, a rational and strictly selfish character. This societal understanding, as opposed to a purely economic focus, is the key to our future, as Professor Martin Curley, former vice president and director of Intel, reinforced this argument. He stated that the key to the future is understanding that we live in a society, not an economy. Too many people forget this too often.
Emptiness is not nothingness but a dynamic, complex and diversified reality. Empty spaces of identity (“Who am I now that I no longer have a job”) and expectations (“I don’t see any opportunities in my future”) are distressing. Empty spaces are full of surprises that release creative energy and are exciting. A vase so solid, dense and therefore impenetrable that it leaves only the void between molecule and molecule, atom and atom, is not. In other words, it is a vase that preserves the status quo, lacking the need to anticipate and manage change. A vase whose internal void allows the movement of people and ideas to expand the field of knowledge is surprising. As the Italian writer Alberto Savinio argued, knowing many things means judging them more freely and, therefore, better. The less one knows the more one believes that only those things exist, to have faith only in those.
Liebig’s Barrel. Qualitative economic growth comes from the scarcest resource: scientific entrepreneurship.
In 1828, the German botanist Carl Sprengel stated that the sum of all available resources does not govern the growth of a plant but by the quantity of the scarcest resource. In turn, the German chemist Justus von Liebig designed a barrel whose staves had different heights. The shortest stave determines the amount of liquid that can be contained in the barrel. Likewise, the availability of the scarcest resource determines qualitative economic growth. Not all the staves of the economic barrel are tangible, like land, labour, and capital. The culture of scientific entrepreneurship is the intangible stave representing the scarcest resource. While all eyes are on the barrels full of fine wines, the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Demis Hassabis, a scientist who straddles academia and entrepreneurship and co-founder of an artificial intelligence company that later became Google DeepMind. Hassabis is a shining example of how, at the crossroads of scientific curiosity and entrepreneurial passion, it is possible to climb the rankings of qualitative economic growth and the prizes awarded to scientific discoveries.
Nobel Prize-winning ideas generate scientific entrepreneurship if we eradicate the habit of talking about entrepreneurship by pairing it with Made in a Country. As Honoré de Balzac wrote to the Duchess of Abrantès, immutable sentences on human affairs constitute a traditional science, and no one has the power to add a pinch of wit. It would indicate intellectual vivacity to valorise Made in Science in addition to the Made in a Country brand, the golden goose nourished by incremental innovation. Focused on the vocation of the territory, traditional techniques and local materials, that brand, sliding towards luxury, addresses the super-rich in the race to grab things intended for the few elitists. The exclusive lifestyle requires an even higher inequality in the distribution of income.
Suppose the stave of Made in Science is short. In that case, the universal nature of scientific knowledge and international collaboration and its potential to address the challenges posed by climate, food and nutritional insecurity, artificial intelligence are sacrificed. Indeed, the stave is short. Why? Nobel-winning ideas breed scientific entrepreneurship if not trapped in the valley of death where <<the funding gap occurs between the point where researchers exhaust research grants and the point where technologies are viable enough to attract venture capital. It poses a serious threat to the UK’s economic prospects as a home for innovative companies>>. So said Irene Tracey, Chancellor of the University of Oxford. The Santa Fe Institute, which studies complex systems science, fears that the science engine may run out of fuel (new ideas) due to various factors. Institutional and bureaucratic inertia imposes excessive administrative burdens. Lack of long-term funding discourages risky and visionary projects. Conservative thinking that demands conformity to the dominant view of where science should go holds back revolutionary ideas. Weak educational foundations that reject critical thinking in favour of standardised testing discourage creativity.
As the president of Oxford and the Santa Fe Institute testify to the vicissitudes of scientific entrepreneurship, it becomes clear that consumer-oriented enterprises thrive, rewarding improvements to what already exists. Consumers are comfortable with products and services that are familiar and easy to adopt. At birth, the scientific enterprise resembles an ugly duckling that becomes a beautiful swan. Unfortunately, familiarity with what is known and the desire to acquire consumer goods are curses that suffocate the duckling. However, by understanding and supporting the principles of Liebig’s Barrel, we can play a crucial role in fostering scientific entrepreneurship and preventing the suffocation of the duckling. Looking toward Sprengel and Liebig can only do good.
