Reporter's Notebook

Does the Maker Movement Matter?
Show Description +

In posts in the American Futures series, James Fallows argued that the “Maker Revolution” offered new opportunities for American entrepreneurs, inventors and designers, customers, and workers. Readers report their experiences with this part of the new digitally transformed economy. (If you’d like to add examples, please write us here.)

Show None Newer Notes

The Maker Movement: If Hamilton Were Around, He Would Be a Fan

if this man were around now, he would be promoting the Makers. (Wikipedia.)

The previous two installments in this series, “The Tools Revolution” and “Agility,” of course concentrated on the private businesses, large and small, and the entrepreneurs who have created and applied the tools that are changing manufacturing in a way parallel to what the internet era has done for (and to) the creation and dissemination of ideas.

But just about every complex achievement has a complicated back story. In their recent book American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us To Forget What Made America Prosper, Jacob Hacker of Yale and Paul Pierson of Berkeley underscore what any honest look at economic history reveals. Namely, that the great eras of economic advancement, from England during the first modern industrial revolution, to the versions of that achievement in Germany and the United States and Japan, to the transformation of post-Mao China, have involved public efforts that promote, support, and encourage private economic innovation.

In modern China’s case, the government’s major role for better (and worse) has been obvious. Similarly with the 20th century rise of Japan and Germany — and England through its era of most rapid growth as well, for those who have actually read Wealth of Nations and know that it is something quite different from a libertarian tract. This is a case I tried to lay out in detail long ago in an Atlantic story called “How the World Works,” which is online.

For now I’ll skip the rest of the argument about how public/private interactions have been so much more fruitful than either alternative: pure statism, or entrepreneurs without the benefit of public investment (for instance, in medical sciences, agriculture, aerospace, info-tech in America), public education, public infrastructure, public rules of fair competition, and so forth. I direct you instead to the Hacker and Pierson book — or to a musical you might have heard of, called Hamilton.

Instead I’m using the occasion of tomorrow’s kickoff of the National Maker Week, at the White House, to note some of the public ways in which city, state, and national institutions have been encouraging the private I’ve mentioned and will describe in further installments.

***

1) From the White House. You can read about the “Nation of Makers” events that kick off on June 17 here. If the current administration were Republican, its support for small-scale entrepreneurs involved in tangible manufacturing would seem natural. Since the current administration is not Republican, I take its support as a sign that maybe — God willing? — we might actually have a case of agreement on practical economic advancement for Americans, beyond the normal national-level paralysis. Maybe?

Please let me dream for a minute.

The Week of Making kicks off on June 17 (White House)

***

Graphic from the Maker City Playbook, now available online here.

A few days ago I argued that the Maker Movement finally depends on the ingenuity and effort of private entrepreneurs and of companies large and small — but that these efforts go much faster, further, and better when supported by a range of public-private collaborations.

This is consistent with the long lesson of American economic development (as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have argued in their new book, and as I have discussed over the years), in which the nation’s dominant private industries — from agriculture and energy to info-tech and aerospace and bio-tech — have been sped by publicly funded research, training programs, regulatory standards, and trade policies. (Clyde Prestowitz has a very good new Washington Monthly article on the real history of America’s economic rise, here.)

The advantages of public-private partnership apply to the new Maker Movement as well. My wife Deb and I have reported on several aspects of this, for instance the way K-12 schools, community colleges, research universities, and local “maker spaces” have fostered local hardware skills. (Selected articles here.)

Here’s a list of several recent developments:

  • The National Maker Faire is on this weekend — right now! —  in Washington. If I were in town, I would be there.
  • The White House has declared this the National Week of Making, running through next Friday. Enjoy.
  • The White House has also just announced its Champions of Change award winners, in the maker category. Congratulations!
  • In a similar vein, the Department of Education has released its own set of maker-related grant winners in the Career Technical Education (CTE) category. As Deb and I have chronicled over the months, CTE programs have repeatedly been the most inventive, practical-minded, and economically effective kinds of educational innovations we’ve seen around the country. Congrats to these winners too.
  • My friend Peter Hirshberg just yesterday released online his Maker City Playbook, which is designed to collect, compare, and disseminate useful tactics from the most effective maker zones around the country. After the jump I have one sample passage from the book; I’ll say more about it in upcoming dispatches. For now, I encourage you to give it a look; the full text is available free, online. Congrats to Peter and his colleagues for carrying out the project and to the Kauffman Foundation, whose studies I have often cited, as the main underwriter. (For the record: Deb and I have no involvement with any of these groups except as followers of their work.)