In his book Innovators, writer Walter Isaacson makes a strong case for the importance of the role and legitimacy of government in fostering innovation and creativity through the development of public goods like the infrastructure of the internet.  In the midst of Cold War concerns about Russian invasions and the threat of destruction to the power grid, there were simultaneous efforts at creating decentralized infrastructures in both transportation and communication that led on the one hand to the contemporary highway system that has emphasized decentralized personal transportation through the automobile as well as the contemporary worldwide web with its decentralized mass of people wanting to be heard that has led to the proliferation of blogs and wikis of various kinds.  It is worthwhile to consider, briefly at least, the role of the government in creating infrastructure and regulating utilities, and what it means for the behavior of businesses and individuals in the world.  How can the government’s role in innovation and creativity be justified?

On the one hand, there is little evidence that the government as a whole is particularly skilled in creating things itself or even in efficiently spending the tax money it receives from citizens.  That said, there is no doubt that government had a heavy involvement in the creation of the earliest computers as well as the development of the internet, similar to its massive importance in transportation expenditures that led to the development of railroads and highways.  In many ways the development of highways and railroads as well as the internet can be considered as similar efforts on the part of the government to create an infrastructure that supports the well-being of the people as a whole, efforts in internal improvements that go back to the early days of the American republic when such state and federal institutions as canals, the first and second national banks, the National highway, and other efforts sought to encourage the development of the United States as a whole.  Other countries have similarly engaged in such efforts at promoting the creativity of the people, be it through a direct subsidization of creators through patronage or through public-private partnerships.  Often such efforts have been justified via military necessity, such that the highway system was designed to allow for the rapid transit of armored units around the United States in case of invasion and the internet was designed as a way to improve the robustness of the communications infrastructure in case of a Soviet attack.  Whether or not the creators of such infrastructure had any militaristic ambitions (many did not), the internet joins the computer as well as the longitude clock as being supported by governments for military reasons that had far-reaching implications well-beyond those reasons for support.

Creating a public good and then ensuring its openness to ordinary citizens allows for public and private welfare to become commingled with each other.  For one, the fact that the internet is a public good allows for people to then develop their own creativity, whether it is through the creation or the use of various software that depends on the internet, or whether it is through the benefits of communication that are allowed by such a public good.  The use of taxpayer money judiciously spent in building public goods also gives the government a rooting interest in providing for the fairness of the behaviors of those who utilize this public good for their own personal profit.  This allows, for example, for the possibility that communications platforms will be treated like public utilities and that companies will be unable to show hostility against a certain population because of their own political bias.  It allows for government actions against those who would seek to monopolize the public commons for profit, or who would attempt to put public records behind paywalls so that people could profit off of that which was created to serve the public at large.  Just as decentralization preserves political and military goals of making the United States (and other technologically advanced nations) more resistant to foreign threats, it also serves for the benefit of the people of those countries by giving them the opportunity of self-expression and the development of networks of friends and supporters through the open roads and networks that are sponsored by public efforts.

To the extent that we are interested in the social and cultural context of innovation, it is worthwhile to examine the implications of the government construction and maintenance of infrastructure that is useful in fostering creativity.  For one, it suggests that there is a tension that exists in creativity between public efforts to support political and military aims that simultaneously create the space for innovation to blossom.  New technologies and new networks between previously disconnected areas allow for increased flow of information and people, and that in turn fosters creativity as these flows are managed and encouraged.  New roads and new means of communication provide the outlets for private self-expression, the building up of communities of like-minded people who may be marginal in their own physical spaces but find comfort in virtual ones, and also provide new opportunities for profit for those who provide goods and services by and through those networks.  Private enterprise and public well-being can be served through the same means, as the tension between public and private, encourages widespread discussion about boundaries and legitimacy and hopefully an appreciation for those who serve the well-being of others, even if it is for motives and interests that we do not particularly share.