Innovation Economics · Quadrant

Schumpeter Mark I and Mark II.

The young Schumpeter saw innovation as the work of entrepreneurial outsiders disrupting established markets. The older Schumpeter saw it as the systematised output of large corporate R&D laboratories. Both are right, in different sectors and different decades. Mistaking the regime is a category error. Pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and frontier AI are Mark II. SaaS, fintech and consumer apps are Mark I. South African fintech is mostly Mark I. Frontier-model AI is Mark II globally and, for now, almost entirely outside Africa.

Mark I · disruptor-led Mixed regime Stagnant / commoditised Mark II · incumbent labs Capital intensity → Disruptor permeability → Frontier AI Frontier AI — mk II, capital 92, permeability 18 Pharma Pharma — mk II, capital 88, permeability 12 Semiconductors Semiconductors — mk II, capital 95, permeability 8 Aerospace Aerospace — mk II, capital 84, permeability 14 SA fintech SA fintech — mk I, capital 22, permeability 78 SaaS SaaS — mk I, capital 28, permeability 82 Consumer apps Consumer apps — mk I, capital 18, permeability 88 MEA BPO MEA BPO — mk I, capital 36, permeability 62 MEA hardware MEA hardware — mixed, capital 64, permeability 32 Utilities Utilities — mk II, capital 78, permeability 18
Sectoral composites. Colour by regime: indigo = Mk I, amber = Mk II, slate = mixed.

The thesis

Mark II regimes concentrate gains in capital and high-skill labour, with thin pathways for outsiders to capture rents. Mark I regimes are more permeable but more volatile — the median entrepreneur fails. The inequality consequences of an economy depend on the mix; an economy that is Mark II at the frontier and informal at the base, with a thin Mark I middle, looks a lot like South Africa.

← All models