Historian Donald Cardwell once mused that “no nation has been very creative for more than an historically short period,” a concept that has since been dubbed Cardwell’s Law. This notion casts a long shadow over those who ponder the future of innovation. Is it feasible for the United States—or any nation for that matter—to escape the confines of Cardwell’s Law and cultivate a perpetual atmosphere of creativity?
To tackle this question, let’s zoom in from the grand stage of nations to the more intimate theater of cities, which often serve as veritable incubators of innovation. Although Cardwell’s Law was originally intended to encompass entire societies, its essence is easily applicable to urban centers. Historically, city-states were the precursors to modern nations, acting as crucibles for institutional innovation. For centuries, it was cities—not sprawling nations—that commanded the loyalty of their inhabitants.
A somewhat disheartening takeaway from my book, Centers of Progress: 40 Cities That Changed the World, is that a city’s peak of creativity, much like a shooting star, is often fleeting. Matt Ridley, a British science writer, highlights this in his foreword: “Global progress depends on a sudden series of bush fires of innovation, bursting into life in unpredictable places, burning fiercely, and then dying rapidly.”
Can we identify any outliers in this trend? Are there cities that have managed to sustain an unexpectedly prolonged golden age of innovation, and what insights can we glean from their experiences?
The cities I explored in my book are often celebrated for their achievements over extended periods, though, ironically, this is frequently because, in bygone eras, progress was notoriously slow—not due to some breakthrough that sidestepped Cardwell’s Law.
Take writing as an example: it was a gradual evolution from basic pictographs used by ancient accountants for record-keeping, transforming into symbolic scripts, and ultimately into complex cuneiform characters. Uruk, an ancient Sumerian city, is credited as the birthplace of writing. Its historical significance spanned centuries, largely because its monumental achievement unfolded over generations. We would hardly want to emulate a society that advanced at such a painstaking pace.
In stark contrast, the modern era has seen an acceleration of progress, yet the window for creativity seems to shrink. Manchester, often dubbed the workshop of the world, thrived during the Industrial Revolution, but its reign lasted only a few decades. Houston played a pivotal role in space exploration for a similarly brief period. The youngest person to have walked on the moon is now 89, and Tokyo, once a global tech capital in the 1980s, has faced decades of economic stagnation. The San Francisco Bay Area, the birthplace of Silicon Valley and the digital revolution, is witnessing its technological crown slip as innovations sprout in other locales. In contemporary times, innovation’s golden age in any region often lasts just a few decades—or even less.
To comprehend why this pattern is so pervasive, we must analyze the fundamental conditions that either nurture or hinder sustained innovation. Economic historian Joel Mokyr articulated this in a thought-provoking 1993 essay, where he described the precarious tightrope societies walk to cultivate creativity—a narrow path where a single misstep can lead to disaster. “In retrospect,” he observes, “the most surprising thing is perhaps that we have come this far.”
What factors contribute to the decline of innovation hubs, making Cardwell’s Law ring true? Though groundbreaking innovations have emerged from a wide array of locations—from Song-era Hangzhou to post–World War II New York—these creative epicenters typically share several critical attributes. The loss of these features often heralds their decline: a state of relative peace, an openness to fresh ideas, and a robust framework for economic freedom.
Free enterprise and healthy competition are vital for fostering innovation, with cross-border trade playing a crucial role in amplifying that competition. However, it’s essential not to conflate free exchange with the complete dissolution of borders: vast empires under centralized control often stagnate technologically, and a fully integrated global government could spell disaster. A certain level of international competition can be beneficial, just not the type that escalates into war.
War diverts creative energies into developing more destructive weaponry rather than technologies that improve living standards. Additionally, losing a conflict can lead to the obliteration of a society. During wartime, innovators are often stymied in their attempts to collaborate across borders, and even domestic thinkers may struggle to cooperate due to the secrecy that accompanies conflict. While World War II is often credited with hastening computer development, one could argue that it delayed innovation by stifling collaboration among innovators, from Konrad Zuse in Berlin to Alan Turing in Britain. Even in peaceful times, innovation can be curtailed when freedoms are restricted and openness is suppressed.
In summary, progress is endangered when peace is sacrificed for war, openness is stifled by censorship, and freedom is undermined by draconian laws.
Hong Kong serves as a recent and poignant illustration of how swiftly the conditions conducive to progress can vanish. During its rapid economic rise in the 1960s, Hong Kong transformed from one of the world’s poorest regions to one of the wealthiest, largely through policies of “noninterventionism,” allowing its citizens the freedom to compete and collaborate for mutual enrichment. However, this proud legacy of limited government, rule of law, and individual freedom has been brutally stifled by the heavy-handed tactics of the Chinese Communist Party.
Despite sobering cases like Hong Kong, there remains a glimmer of hope. While centers of progress may often be short-lived, the historical trend of rapid creativity should not deter us. To defy Cardwell’s Law, we need only a discerning willingness to learn from past mistakes and an unwavering commitment to safeguard the essential conditions for future innovation.
