Neovationism: The IDEA Framework for Equitable, Innovation-Driven Automation

Introduction

Innovation is the primary driver of long-term economic growth. Historical evidence demonstrates that economies prioritizing creativity, knowledge application, and technological progress consistently achieve higher prosperity (Romer, 1990; Lucas, 1988; Schumpeter, 2013). Yet structural barriers — limited access to capital, inequality, and risk-averse institutions — often prevent individuals from realizing transformative ideas. Automation, if deployed without strategy, can displace labor and exacerbate inequality (Autor & Salomons, 2018; Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014).

Neovationism reframes innovation as the central engine of development, integrating equity, creativity-focused education, and strategic automation into a unified system. This theory addresses three critical gaps in traditional models:

  1. Participation Gap: Innovation systems favor a narrow elite, limiting broad-based engagement and reducing aggregate growth potential.

  2. Automation Integration Gap: Automation is often treated as an external factor rather than as a tool to augment human creativity.

  3. Education-Creativity Gap: Education systems emphasize human capital accumulation, not the cultivation of creativity and innovation readiness.

Neovationism proposes a self-reinforcing loop in which automation frees humans for higher-order innovation tasks, education enhances creative capacity, equitable distribution sustains participation, and incentives drive transformative innovation. This creates a continuously evolving system where technological progress and social inclusion mutually reinforce one another.

Literature Foundations

Neovationism builds upon and extends several strands of economic research:

  • Endogenous Growth Theory: Romer (1990), Lucas (1988), and Aghion et al. (1998) emphasize the role of knowledge and human capital in driving long-term growth. Neovationism operationalizes this by explicitly linking automation, equitable participation, and creativity-focused education to innovation output.

  • Innovation Economics: Aghion and Howitt (1997) highlight the role of innovation incentives in economic expansion. Neovationism formalizes these incentives within a systemic framework ensuring inclusivity and equitable opportunity.

  • Automation & Productivity Studies: Autor and Salomons (2018) demonstrate that automation can displace labor but also augment productivity. Strategic automation amplifies innovation while reducing social risk (Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014).

  • Equity and Inclusive Growth: Empirical studies indicate that high inequality constrains access to innovation resources and limits economic potential (Lee, 2023; Piketty, 2014).

  • Creative Education & Human Capital: Lucas (1988) emphasizes skill accumulation; recent studies show creativity-focused education drives innovation capacity (Robinson & Aronica, 2015).

  • Innovation Cycles: Schumpeter (2013) highlights the importance of creative destruction and systemic innovation for sustained economic dynamism.

By synthesizing these research areas, Neovationism provides a coherent, implementable framework that directly addresses limitations in existing models. It offers a structured approach for integrating innovation, equity, education, and automation into sustainable economic growth strategies.

The IDEA Framework

I = Incentivize Innovation

Innovation incentives are foundational. Policies and programs must reward experimentation, intellectual risk-taking, and creative problem-solving. Participation must be equitable, allowing all individuals — regardless of socioeconomic background — to contribute to and benefit from innovation systems (Aghion & Howitt, 1997; Romer, 1990; Schumpeter, 2013).

Illustrative Example: Rwanda could implement grants and incubators for rural innovators; Brazil could scale innovation competitions in universities; Germany could provide risk-tolerant venture tax policies.

D = Distribute Equitably

Equity sustains innovation by ensuring broad participation. Distribution mechanisms — such as progressive taxation of automation gains, reinvestment in education, and universal innovation grants — enable continuous contribution from all socioeconomic groups (Lee, 2023; Piketty, 2014).

Illustrative Example: Nepal can link public research funding to inclusive participation metrics; India can redistribute automation gains via innovation-focused social programs; the USA can encourage inclusive startup ecosystems.

E = Educate for Creativity

Education systems must cultivate creativity, critical thinking, and interdisciplinary problem-solving. Neovationism emphasizes innovation readiness, preparing individuals to generate, evaluate, and implement transformative ideas (Lucas, 1988; Robinson & Aronica, 2015).

Illustrative Example: Malawi can adopt project-based curricula; Vietnam can integrate coding and creative problem-solving in schools; Sweden can incentivize lifelong learning in technology and design thinking.

A = Automate Strategically

Automation should complement human creativity, reducing routine labor and enabling greater innovation output. Strategic deployment aligns productivity gains with human capital, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth and knowledge generation (Autor & Salomons, 2018; Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014).

Illustrative Example: Bangladesh can automate manufacturing to free human capital for high-value innovation; Mexico can introduce AI-assisted agriculture programs; Japan can integrate robotics in service sectors while retraining workers for creative roles.

Conceptual Model

The IDEA pillars interact dynamically to drive growth:

Y = F (I, D, E, A, K, L)

Where:

  • Y = aggregate economic output

  • I, D, E, A = IDEA pillars

  • K = physical capital

  • L = labor engaged in high-value creative tasks

This formulation highlights how the IDEA pillars interact with traditional economic inputs to drive innovation-led, equitable, and sustainable growth.

Policy & Research Implications

Policy Implications

  • Innovation Incentives: Grants, subsidies, and tax policies reward experimental and transformative ideas.

  • Equitable Innovation Programs: Allocate automation gains to underrepresented groups to sustain participation.

  • Education Transformation: Curricula emphasize creativity and problem-solving, measured alongside traditional skills.

  • Automation Strategy: Deploy technology to complement human creativity, paired with retraining for displaced workers.

Research Implications

  • IDEA Index Development: Create measurable indicators for each pillar to track implementation effectiveness.

  • Empirical Validation: Conduct tri-country studies (low-, middle-, high-income) to test theory.

  • Longitudinal Studies: Observe economies adopting Neovationist principles to evaluate growth, equity, and innovation outcomes.

Limitations & Next Steps

  • Implementation Complexity: Adapting Neovationism to diverse economies requires context-specific policy design.

  • Measurement Challenges: Developing robust metrics for creativity, innovation, and automation impact is ongoing.

  • Future Research: Proposed research clusters and three-country triads will empirically validate and refine the framework.

Neovationism is positioned as a living framework, continuously refined through collaboration with scholars, policymakers, and innovators.

Conclusion

Neovationism offers a future-ready economic framework where automation liberates human creativity, innovation becomes inclusive, education fosters ingenuity, and growth is equitably shared. By integrating the IDEA pillars into a cohesive system, economies can achieve sustainable, innovation-driven prosperity.

“Automation liberates, innovation unites, education uplifts, equity sustains.”

References

Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Rebalancing AI. International Monetary Fund.

Aghion, P., Howitt, P., Brant-Collett, M., & García-Peñalosa, C. (1998). Endogenous growth theory. MIT press.

Autor, D., & Salomons, A. (2018). Is automation labor-displacing? Productivity growth, employment, and the labor share (No. w24871). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & company.

Lee, B. (2023). Wealth inequality and endogenous growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 133, 132-148.

Lucas Jr, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of monetary economics, 22(1), 3-42.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: Revolutionizing education from the ground up. Penguin UK.

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71-S102.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. routledge.