Why Is Creativity More Important Than Capitalism?

Creativity (Photo credit: Mediocre2010)

Haydn Shaughnessy, ForbesContributor

Do you know your creativity quotient?  Creativity sounds a little weak, a touchy-feely topic, but it turns to be one of the most important memes of the past 100 years, and very definitely ranks alongside concepts (or ideologies) like capitalism in the pantheon of big ideas.

I admit to being a creativity sceptic. When it came into vogue thirty years ago I cringed. Creative? What’s wrong with busy? Or dedicated. Or hard working. But creativity’s rise – measured by the use of terms “creative” and “creativity” in Google‘s nGram database – has been relentless for over a century. It is NO fad.

For those that don’t know it the nGram database contains roughly 4% of all books ever published, in the case of this data in the USA and Britain.

The problem of creativity – how to manifest it in disciplined environments – hasn’t changed much during that period.



But if you look at the chart below you can get a sense of its importance.  The use of “creative” dwarfs terms like technological progress and scientific progress.

In fact digging a little deeper I found out:

The use of the language of creativity is increasing when people write about scientific progress. Progress itself is a term in declining use, seemingly replaced by the idea of creativity, at least in the sciences. You can’s see that from the chart – to get to that data I examined the use of a variety of terms over the period 1960 – 2010.

The best Google nGram data goes up to 2000 but I checked search interest in these terms, post 2000, and the patterns continue.

The use of creativity is increasing in business and management literature, declining where people write about religion and education, and of course rising when people write about cities.

Jonah Leher’s book Imagine underlines the slacker nature of creativity but also it’s importance. Let’s face it the quest to be more creative as a society is as old as (modern) business.

Creativity is big in entertainment too, naturally, if entertainment is taken to include art and music but surprise, surprise the use of the term in entertainment declined in the period 1981 – 2000, while it increased in association with business and management.

Is all this just a reflection of publishers pumping more books out? No, all data is normalised.

Is there anything to conclude from the data?  The themes of creativity have been pretty consistent down the years – how organizations stifle it, how necessary it is, and how it creates risk.

The one lacking ingredient seems to be a creative answer to those problems, though I think we may be on the cusp of one (more of that later in the week).

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Let’s all be Malaysians first & Proud to be Malaysian !!

HOW right Wong Sai Wan is in The Star column “How frail our unity is”, that our so-called “togetherness and unity” is only “skin deep” and at “surface level” at best.

As a Malaysian who has lived in this country for 60 years, I can only say that the depth of our “unity” is receding as the years roll by instead of becoming deeper. It is not only “skin deep”.

Racial and religious politics have taken a toll on the fabric of society as more and more people are identifying themselves first by “race and religion” instead of nationality (“Malaysian”).

If we do not arrest this slide, we will become a nation divided. We must make serious efforts to stem this tide.

I believe there are three main areas we need to look into, and politicians must be on the frontline to stem this tide.

Politicians from both sides must stop harping on our differences, be it religious or racial.

Religious leaders must ensure that religion is not forced onto others, or making one religion more important than the other.

Every effort must be made by society at large to view ourselves as “Malaysians first” rather than by race.

Indonesia is a classic example of how the different races view themselves as “ Indonesians first”. Ask a Chinese in Indonesia who he is and the reply will be “I am Indonesian”.

The media, like Wong said, must ensure that it does not play up sentiments of any kind but report the news as it is, from a “human view point” rather than race or religion.

In schools, especially, the heads must ensure that the children view each other as “ classmates” rather than by race.

There must also be a healthy “mix” at all levels of employment of the people of different races.

This will help us view each other as “ workmates” rather than racial individuals.

1Malaysia can only be achieved when we are “ Malaysian first” rather than portraying ourselves by our race.

All forms or documents must not highlight race or religion unless absolutely necessary.

Unity can only be strengthened if efforts are made, not through slogans, advertisements or banners.

Let us as Malaysians take this step to view each other as just that. I am Malaysian.

MICHEL FREDICK WRIGHT, Batu Caves.

Proud to be Malaysian

I WRITE in response to “Liow: Govt wants more ethnic groups to join the civil service” (The Star, Feb 20).

In that article, Gerakan Youth secretary-general Dr Dominic Lau was quoted as saying that “unlike Americans, who were proud to call themselves Americans regardless of their race, not many Malaysians could identify themselves as Malaysian first”.

That is a totally outrageous remark. I would say Malaysians are proud of their nationality.

This is my personal experience being a student overseas.

I am an international postgraduate student in Brisbane, Australia.

Whenever people ask where I come from, I would proudly tell them I’m a Malaysian, coming from Ipoh. Some are confused as my ethnicity is Chinese yet I’m not from China, Taiwan or Hong Kong.

I elaborate by saying my ancestors came from China and I’m a third generation Chinese in Malaysia. But China is not my country. My country is Malaysia.

The fact that I’m a Malaysian makes me unique, being able to communicate not only in Mandarin and Cantonese but also in Bahasa Malaysia and English.

I have no problems communicating with people from various backgrounds, all thanks to my upbringing in Malaysia.

I’m not denying my Chinese roots of course, but when people ask my race, I say I’m Malaysian, and by ethnicity I’m a Malaysian Chinese.

There are many Malaysian student bodies in Queensland’s universities and we are all proud of telling the world that we are Malaysian. We don’t feel embarrassed being Malaysian.

During Malaysian roadshows, we proudly display the Malaysian flag, introduce Malaysian cultures as well as the great heritage of Malaysia.

Malaysia is blessed with natural resources, peace and diversity. Are we not proud being Malaysian? Yes we are!

I think the problem is back in Malaysia where politicians tend to separate the rakyat based on ethnicity.

Each political party champions only its people – Party A for Malay, Party B for Chinese, Party C for Indian, and the rest for “lain-lain”. But we are Malaysian.

It is not that we cannot identify ourselves as Malaysian first but when we fill up forms – bank forms, government documents – there’s always a column for race.

It makes it seem as if we will be treated differently if we state our ethnicity.

After half a century of independence, we are still forced to identify ourselves based on ethnicity.

Now, if we don’t call ourselves Malaysian first, is it the rakyat’s fault or the politician’s fault?

We are Malaysian, and we couldn’t be prouder, if you can’t hear us, we shout a little louder ... 1Malaysia!!!

WONG WENG-YEW, Brisbane, Australia.

Related post:

 How frail the Malaysian unity! 

Trade war looms over EU tax

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

This week, 26 countries will meet to organise retaliation against the EU over its move to tax airlines for their emissions. This may be the first salvo in dangerous trade wars fought over climate change. 

A TRADE war is looming over the European Union’s move to impose charges on airlines on the basis of the greenhouse gases they emit during the planes’ entire flights into and out of European airports.

Many countries whose airlines are affected – including China, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and the United States – consider this to be unfair or illegal or both.

Since their protests have not yielded results, officials of 26 countries are meeting in Moscow this week to discuss retaliatory action against the EU.

The EU’s move, which took effect on Jan 1, and the tit-for-tat actions by the offended countries, is the first full-blown international battle over whether countries can or should take unilateral trade measures on the ground of addressing climate change.



Developing countries in particular have been concerned over increasing signs that the developed countries are preparing to take protectionist measures to tax or block the entry of their goods and services on the ground that greenhouse gases above an acceptable level are emitted in producing the goods or undertaking the service.

Besides the airlines case, several other measures are being planned by the EU or by the United States that will affect the cost of developing countries’ exports.

In fact, trade measures linked to climate change may become the main new sources of protectionism.

The EU’s aviation emissions tax is thus an important test case, and this could explain the furious and coordinated response by the developing countries, which form the majority of the protesting 26 nations meeting in Moscow.

The countries are particularly angry that the EU is imposing a charge or tax on emissions from the entire flight of an airline, and not just on the portion of the flights that are in European airspace.

The EU action takes effect by including the aviation sector (and airlines of all countries) in the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

Beyond a certain level of free allowances, the airlines have to buy emission permits depending on the quantity emitted during the flights.

As the free allowances are reduced in future years, the cost to be paid will also jump, thus increasingly raising the price of passenger tickets and the cost of transporting goods, and affecting the profitability or viability of the airlines.

The China Air Transport Association has estimated that Chinese airlines would have to pay 800 million yuan (RM387mil) for 2012, the first year of the EU scheme, and that the cost will treble by 2020.
The total cost to all airlines in 2012 is estimated at 505mil (RM2bil), at the carbon price of 5.84 (RM23.30) per tonne last week, according to Reuter Thomsom Carbon Point.

Last September, when the carbon price was 12 (RM48) per tonne, Carbon Point had estimated the cost to be 1.1bil (RM4.4bil) in 2012, rising to 10.4bil (RM41.6bil) in 2020.

While this may generate a lot of resources for Europe, airlines in developing countries will in turn have to pay a lot.

There are many reasons why the concerns of the affected countries are justified, as shown by Indian trade law expert R.V. Anuradha, in her paper on Unilateral Measures and Climate Change.

Since each country has sovereignty over the airspace above its territory (reaffirmed by the Chicago Convention), the EU tax based on flight portions that are not on European airspace infringes the principle of sovereignty.

The UN Climate Convention’s Kyoto Protocol states that Annex I parties (developed countries) shall pursue actions on emissions arising from aviation through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, only Annex I countries are mandated to have legally binding targets. This UNFCCC principle is violated by the EU requirement affecting airlines from both developed and developing countries.

ICAO members have been discussing, but have yet to reach agreement on, actions to curb aviation emissions. Last October, 25 countries issued a paper in ICAO protesting against the EU measure.

While the United States has challenged the EU action in a European court, China has ordered its airlines not to comply with the EU scheme unless the government gives them permission.

In addition, retaliation measures such as imposing levies on European airlines and reviewing the access and landing rights agreements with European countries are being considered by the 26 countries.

What happens in this aviation case is significant because there are many other unilateral measures linked to climate change being lined up by developed countries.

These include the EU plan to impose charges on emissions from maritime bunker fuel, a US Congress bill that requires charges on energy-intensive imports from developing countries that do not have similar levels of emissions controls as the US, and several schemes involving labels and standards linked to emissions.

If these unilateral measures are implemented, then developing countries will really feel they are being victimised for a problem – climate change – that historically has been largely caused by the developed countries.

Moreover, this will lead to a growing crisis of both the climate change regime and the multilateral trade regime.