The Mechanisms and Preconditions of Innovation‑Driven Sustained Economic Growth

Traditional economic growth theories have long anchored output expansion in capital accumulation, labor input growth, and scale economy expansion, yet these factors can only deliver short‑term economic expansion and inevitably lead to growth bottlenecks and diminishing marginal returns in the long run. For decades, global economies have struggled to break free from the “growth stagnation trap” after completing industrialization, with many mature economies facing sluggish productivity growth and stagnant per capita income growth. The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences recognizes three leading economists—Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt—for their systematic interpretation of innovation‑driven economic growth, filling the theoretical gap in long‑term sustainable economic growth and reshaping the mainstream analytical framework of modern industrial economic evolution. Their research clarifies two core dimensions of sustained growth: the social and ideological preconditions for technological progress, and the dynamic industrial iteration logic of creative destruction, providing a solid theoretical basis for global industrial upgrading, policy formulation, and cross‑regional industrial optimization. This article disassembles the core theoretical mechanisms of their research, sorts out the practical constraints of innovation‑driven growth in real economic operation, and explores actionable paths for economies to build long‑term growth momentum through technological innovation and industrial iteration.
 

1. Theoretical Evolution: From Factor‑Driven to Innovation‑Driven Growth Paradigm

Neoclassical growth theories represented by the Solow model attribute long‑term economic growth to exogenous technological progress, but they fail to explain the generation mechanism of technological innovation and the internal connection between social systems, ideological changes and technological progress. Endogenous growth theories emerging in the late 20th century break the exogenous technological progress assumption and incorporate human capital, R&D investment and industrial iteration into the growth model, but most early endogenous models ignore the historical and social preconditions of technological innovation, leading to limited explanatory power for cross‑country and cross‑era growth differences. Before the innovative research of the 2025 Nobel laureates, academic circles could not systematically answer a core question: why technological progress can trigger sustained economic growth in specific historical and social contexts, while only bringing sporadic industrial upgrades in other environments.

The collaborative research results of Mokyr, Aghion and Howitt completely upgrade the endogenous growth theoretical system and construct a complete analytical paradigm of innovation‑driven growth. The research system is divided into two complementary core modules. The first module, led by Mokyr’s historical economic research, defines the essential preconditions for technological progress to be transformed into economic growth, revealing that sustained technological innovation is not a spontaneous industrial behavior but a result of the evolution of social culture, ideological concepts and knowledge systems. The second module, jointly proposed by Aghion and Howitt, builds the Schumpeterian Growth paradigm, quantifies the dynamic growth logic of creative destruction, and clarifies how technological iteration eliminates backward industries, optimizes industrial structure, and realizes continuous economic efficiency improvement. The combination of the two modules solves the two core pain points of traditional growth theories: the lack of research on the preconditions of innovation and the vague dynamic mechanism of industrial innovation iteration.

The paradigm shift from factor‑driven to innovation‑driven growth also reshapes the evaluation standard of industrial economic development. Factor‑driven growth relies on the continuous input of land, labor and capital, with growth efficiency determined by resource stock and input scale. In contrast, innovation‑driven growth takes technological progress and industrial iteration as the core driving force, and its growth sustainability depends on the social innovation ecosystem and industrial creative destruction capacity. This theoretical shift provides a new judgment basis for judging the development potential of economies and industrial clusters, and explains why resource‑poor economies can achieve long‑term growth breakthroughs through innovation, while resource‑rich economies may fall into growth stagnation due to the lack of innovation mechanisms.
 

2. Core Theoretical Preconditions of Sustained Technological Innovation Growth

As the sole recipient of half of the 2025 Nobel Economics Prize bonus, Joel Mokyr’s research focuses on the historical origin of technological progress and sustainable economic growth, breaking the single industrial economic analysis perspective and integrating economic history, social history and ideological history to summarize the essential preconditions for converting technological progress into sustained growth. Mokyr’s long‑term research on European industrialization from 1750 to 1914 confirms that the technological breakthroughs of the Industrial Revolution were not accidental industrial results, but inevitable outcomes of the evolution of European social ideology and knowledge systems. His core “growth culture” theory and “industrial enlightenment” concept lay a theoretical foundation for judging the sustainability of national innovation growth.

Mokyr proposes that the first core precondition for sustained technological growth is the popularization of useful knowledge and the transformation of scientific cognition logic. Traditional technological progress in pre‑industrial societies was based on empirical experience, with scattered technical skills and no systematic scientific theoretical support, so technological improvement could only bring marginal production efficiency optimization and could not trigger industrial revolutionary changes. The industrial enlightenment movement in Europe changed this logic, forming a complete knowledge system that explains the principles of technological innovation. Systematic scientific knowledge enables technical improvements to be replicated, iterated and popularized on a large scale, turning sporadic technological breakthroughs into continuous industrial innovation momentum. This is the fundamental reason why modern large‑scale industrial growth only emerged after the enlightenment revolution.

The second key precondition summarized by Mokyr is social openness to new ideas and technological changes. Any technological innovation will break the original industrial pattern, eliminate backward production modes and impact traditional interest groups. Societies with closed ideological systems and rigid industrial mechanisms will form strong resistance to new technologies, resulting in innovative technologies failing to be applied and promoted on an industrial scale. By sorting out centuries of European economic development data, Mokyr verifies that regions with inclusive social cultures, loose institutional constraints and tolerant attitudes towards technological trials always maintain faster technological iteration speed and more sustainable economic growth vitality. In contrast, regions that restrict new ideas and solidify traditional industrial structures will inevitably fall into technological stagnation and economic growth bottlenecks.

Mokyr’s research also clarifies the interactive mechanism between economic welfare and innovative growth. Sustained technological progress will continuously improve social production efficiency, optimize product supply quality, and raise residents’ economic welfare level. The improvement of welfare level will in turn promote social investment in education, scientific research and knowledge popularization, further expand the scale of useful knowledge, and form a positive cycle of “technological progress‑welfare improvement‑innovation empowerment”. This cyclic mechanism is the core guarantee for long‑term stable growth of innovation‑driven economies, and also an important standard for evaluating the maturity of national innovation ecosystems.
 

3. Creative Destruction: Dynamic Mechanism of Continuous Industrial Growth

Based on Schumpeter’s classic innovation theory, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt further quantify and model the creative destruction mechanism, building the widely recognized Schumpeterian Growth paradigm. This paradigm perfectly explains the micro‑dynamic logic of innovation driving macroeconomic growth and makes up for the deficiency of Mokyr’s historical macro research in industrial micro‑operation. The core view of their research is that sustained economic growth is essentially a continuous iterative process of eliminating backward production capacity, replacing old technologies with new ones, and upgrading traditional industries through technological innovation, and creative destruction is the core power to maintain industrial vitality and economic growth.

Different from static efficiency optimization theories, the creative destruction growth mechanism focuses on dynamic industrial iteration. In the factor‑driven growth stage, industrial development pursues static scale efficiency, and enterprises tend to solidify production modes and avoid technological transformation risks to maintain stable profits. This operation mode will lead to industrial homogenization, overcapacity and diminishing marginal returns. The creative destruction mechanism breaks this solidification state: innovative enterprises gain excess profits through technological breakthroughs, forcing backward enterprises with outdated technologies to withdraw from the market or carry out technological upgrading. This market‑oriented elimination and iteration mechanism continuously optimizes industrial structure and improves overall industrial production efficiency.

Aghion and Howitt’s theoretical model also clarifies the role of government and policy in innovation‑driven growth. Different from the laissez‑faire market view and excessive government intervention view, their research confirms that government policies play a key guiding role in creative destruction. Reasonable industrial policies can encourage R&D investment of enterprises, reduce the trial and error cost of technological innovation, and protect the development of emerging innovative industries. At the same time, policy supervision can avoid excessive market monopoly formed by innovative enterprises, maintain the vitality of market competition, and ensure the sustainable progress of creative destruction iteration. This research conclusion provides a core theoretical basis for the formulation of national industrial upgrading and innovation incentive policies.

The practical applicability of the Schumpeterian Growth paradigm has been fully verified in global industrial economic development. In high‑tech industries such as new energy, artificial intelligence and digital economy, the industrial iteration speed is extremely fast, and new technologies and new products continuously replace old production modes. The rapid growth of these emerging industries fully conforms to the creative destruction logic. Traditional manufacturing industries that rely on factor input alone have gradually fallen into growth stagnation, while manufacturing industries that carry out continuous technological innovation and industrial upgrading have maintained stable growth vitality, which strongly supports the theoretical system constructed by Aghion and Howitt.
 

4. Practical Constraints and Optimization Paths of Innovation‑Driven Economic Growth

Although the theoretical system of innovation‑driven sustained growth has been complete, most economies still face multiple practical constraints in the transformation process from factor‑driven to innovation‑driven growth. Combining the dual theoretical frameworks of technological innovation preconditions and creative destruction mechanisms, the core constraints of current global innovation growth can be summarized into three categories: insufficient accumulation of social useful knowledge, institutional and cultural resistance to technological innovation, and distorted market competition mechanisms restricting creative destruction.

The first constraint is the imbalance of knowledge accumulation and transformation capacity. Many developing economies have increased investment in scientific research and technological R&D in recent years, but they lack systematic industrial enlightenment and knowledge popularization systems. Most technological innovations stay in laboratory research results and cannot be converted into practical industrial production technologies. The disconnection between scientific research knowledge and industrial application leads to low innovation conversion efficiency, making it impossible to form sustained growth momentum. This verifies Mokyr’s core view that technological progress without social knowledge system support cannot drive long‑term economic growth.

The second constraint is the solidification of traditional industrial interest patterns and the lack of social inclusive innovation atmosphere. In some mature economies, traditional backward industries occupy a large amount of capital, labor and market resources. In order to maintain their market position, traditional industrial interest groups will hinder the promotion of new technologies and new industries, forming obvious resistance to creative destruction. The closed innovation atmosphere and rigid industrial structure make it difficult for emerging innovative enterprises to grow, resulting in the slowdown of overall industrial iteration speed and the stagnation of economic growth.

The third constraint is the imperfect market competition and policy incentive system. Excessive government intervention or insufficient policy support will both restrict the operation of the creative destruction mechanism. Excessive intervention will disrupt the market‑oriented competition mechanism, protect backward production capacity, and inhibit the innovation motivation of enterprises. Insufficient policy support will increase the risk of enterprise technological innovation, reduce the enthusiasm of market subjects for R&D investment, and slow down the speed of industrial technological iteration.

Aiming at the above practical constraints, combining the core theories of the 2025 Nobel Economics Prize research, three targeted optimization paths can be summarized for economies to build innovation‑driven growth systems. First, build a systematic industrial knowledge popularization and transformation system, improve the conversion efficiency from scientific research results to industrial technologies, and lay a knowledge foundation for sustained technological progress. Second, optimize the social innovation atmosphere and institutional mechanism, break the solidification of traditional industrial interests, and improve social tolerance and inclusiveness for new technologies and new industries. Third, formulate precise industrial innovation policies, balance market competition and policy guidance, stimulate the creative destruction vitality of the market, and realize continuous upgrading of industrial structure and sustainable economic growth.
 

5. Industrial Economic Value and Future Development Implications of Innovation Growth Theory

The joint research results of Mokyr, Aghion and Howitt form a complete closed‑loop system of “social preconditions‑technological innovation‑industrial iteration‑sustained growth”, which has revolutionary guiding value for global industrial upgrading, cross‑regional industrial transfer and industrial cluster development. From the perspective of industrial economics, this theoretical system breaks the traditional single‑factor growth analysis logic, realizes the integration of social macro environment, industrial meso iteration and enterprise micro innovation, and provides a new evaluation framework for judging the development potential of industries and economies.

For global industrial cluster development, the innovation‑driven growth theory explains the core reasons for the differentiation of cluster competitiveness. Excellent high‑end industrial clusters are not only concentrated in capital and labor factors, but more importantly, they have formed an open innovation ecosystem with complete knowledge accumulation mechanism and smooth creative destruction iteration. Industrial clusters with closed innovation atmosphere and single industrial structure will eventually lose competitiveness with technological iteration, which provides a core basis for regional industrial cluster optimization and upgrading.

In terms of cross‑regional industrial transfer, the theory also has important guiding significance. Traditional industrial transfer is mostly driven by factor cost differences, with low‑end manufacturing industries transferring to regions with lower labor and land costs. This kind of transfer only realizes the spatial reallocation of factors and cannot drive long‑term regional economic growth. Innovation‑driven industrial transfer takes technological innovation capacity and innovation ecosystem as the core judgment standard, promoting the transfer and agglomeration of high‑end innovative industries, which can effectively drive regional industrial upgrading and sustainable economic development.

In the context of global energy transformation and industrial structural adjustment, the innovation‑driven sustained growth theory puts forward clear development directions for various economies. All economies need to abandon the traditional factor‑dependent growth model, take the construction of innovation ecosystem as the core development goal, optimize social innovation culture and institutional environment, improve technological innovation and industrial iteration capacity, and rely on continuous creative destruction to break growth bottlenecks and realize long‑term stable economic development. This theoretical system will continue to guide the reform of global industrial policies and the upgrading of industrial structures in the future digital economy and new energy industrial era.
 

Reference Block

Source Reference Link: https://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/工作要素法

Link Brief: This method disassembles posts into basic work elements, matches corresponding employee trait requirements, and completes systematic post analysis, providing element‑disassembly logic for industrial innovation factor decomposition in this article.

Content Disclaimer

This article is for general reference only and does not constitute professional R&D guidance, production process advice or quality certification. All material performance data has specific test premises; readers should verify parameters against actual equipment and working conditions.

In‑depth exploration of the internal logic of innovation and industrial evolution helps us better grasp the laws of economic growth and promote high‑quality industrial development.