Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Failure as Virtue

Entrepreneurial knowledge and the societal acceptance of failure should be seen as stepping stones or building blocks to economic progress.

From the Wall Street Journal Blog (bold emphasis mine)

Economists at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have just released what they claim to be the crystal ball of economics: a model for predicting a nation’s future growth more accurately than any other techniques out there.

“The Atlas of Economic Complexity” ranks 128 nations based on their “productive knowledge” — the skills, experience and general know-how that a given population acquires in producing certain goods. Countries with a high score in the report’s “economic complexity index” have acquired years of knowledge in making a variety of products and goods and also have lots of room for growth. Essentially, the more collective knowledge a country has in producing goods, the richer it is — or will be.

The 364-page report, a study led by Harvard’s Ricardo Hausmann and MIT’s Cesar A. Hidalgo, is the culmination of nearly five years of research by a team of economists at Harvard’s Center for International Development.

“The essential theory … is that countries grow based on the knowledge of making things,” Mr. Hausmann said in a phone interview. “It’s not years of schooling. It’s what are the products that you know how to make. And what drives growth is the difference between how much knowledge you have and how rich you are.”

The above seems quite applicable to the Philippines. As I have been pointing out, four out ten college graduates are unemployed and about 13% of college graduates emigrate.

The Philippine economic predicament has hardly been about the lack of education but mainly the inadequacy of the relevant entrepreneurial knowledge or “knowledge to make things”. And most importantly, a conducive environment for entrepreneurs to underwrite on such risks.

And because risk-taking is an integral part of the market economy, the outcome of either success or failure is indispensable. Failure should also be seen as capitalist virtue from which entrepreneurs can build on, learn and innovate from.

This excerpt from an insightful article by Professor Steve Horwitz and Jack Knych at thefreemanonline.org (bold emphasis mine)

Economists, especially those of the Austrian school, often emphasize how entrepreneurs discover new knowledge and better ways of producing things. But entrepreneurial endeavors frequently fail and the profits thought to be in hand often don’t materialize. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over half of small businesses fail within the first five years. But failed entrepreneurial activity is just as important as successful entrepreneurial activity. Markets are desirable not because they lead smoothly to improved knowledge and better coordination, but because they provide a process for learning from our mistakes and the incentive to correct them. It’s not that entrepreneurs are just good at getting it right; it’s also that they (like all of us) can know when they’ve got it wrong and can obtain the information necessary to get it right next time.

On this view failure drives change. While success is the engine that accelerates us toward our goals, it is failure that steers us toward the most valuable goals possible. Once failure is recognized as being just as important as success in the market process, it should be clear that the goal of a society should be to create an environment that not only allows people to succeed freely but to fail freely as well.

The seeming preference by the Philippine society to focus on mass ‘public’ education and on the growing web of regulations will serve as constant source of perpetual socio-economic frustrations because these policies have not been dealing with the fundamentals of the problem: Mass graduates in a political environment that seems unfriendly to business or to entrepreneurship which only places additional strains on current unemployment figures.

Yet fear of failure converted into public policies known as public goods or safety nets encourages political dependency, abdication of personal responsibility, indolence and importantly the curtailment of civil liberties.

From the economic dimension, this implies diversion of scarce resources from productive activities. The obverse side of each safety net underwritten or regulation imposed means employment losses somewhere.

In focusing on the wrong factors evidently we get the wrong outcomes. Worst, since current woes reflect on the failures of political policies, the effect has been noticeably widespread. Yet politicians tend to pass the blame on someone else.

Unfortunately, accountability from these policy failures has practically been absent or are imperceptible from the public’s perspective. In other words, the opportunity cost from each political action have been intangible, unseen or unnoticed by the public.

Thus, the underlying populist tendency to the current social ills has been to ask for more of the same wrong prescriptions or ‘doing the same thing and expecting different results’ a quote on insanity prominently attributed to Albert Einstein.

In politics, a culture of ‘insanity’ seems to be the norm.