Short abstract:

In 1973, a fledgling group of innovation scholars labelled the famous "Limits to Growth" as "Models of Doom." Using critical ethnostatistics, I examine the pro-innovation econometrics SPRU developed for this project and its lasting impact on the epistemic culture of innovation research and policy.

Long abstract:

Histories of innovation research and policy highlight the centrality of the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex. The writings of Christopher Freeman especially, but also many other SPRU researchers, played a significant role in establishing innovation studies as a field of research and in establishing innovation policy as a distinct framework for governmental thinking about the economy. SPRU research shaped innovation models toward a systems approach and normalized statistical measurements toward what became the OECD standards. But before all this, SPRU began building its reputation for econometric analysis with its first book: “Thinking about the future: a critique of the Limits to Growth” (1973).

The “Limits to Growth” (1972) had been a major attempt to quantitatively falsify the assumption that endless growth is possible on a finite planet. The SPRU response was one of many that presented alternative (political) assumptions and econometric modelling. It advanced the view that sufficient technological progress could overcome any natural limits. And when it was reprinted for an international audience as “Models of Doom” (1973), the SPRU book helped characterize the Club of Rome as overly pessimistic doomsayers. Others have examined the impact of this early SPRU research within the “Limits…” debate. But in this paper, I consider the impact this work had on the developing fields of innovation research and policy. Taking a critical ethnostatistics approach, I argue that the pro-innovation econometrics SPRU developed for “Models of Doom” had a lasting impact on the epistemic culture of innovation studies.