Abstract
The growing popularity and increasing impact of the Maker Movement has the potential to modify long-established industrial design, manufacturing and funding processes on a global scale. Characterised by a renewed interest in entrepreneurial activity, Maker communities are becoming commonplace worldwide, shaped by rapid changes in technology and global interconnection. The Maker ethos of tinkering, experimenting, and creating platforms for learning and collaboration, while being crucial for new forms of innovation, raises key questions for EU policy and competiveness. If the EU is to capitalise on this emerging phenomenon and measure itself against both established economies (the US) and emerging economies (Asia and Central America), it must solidify its entrepreneurial advantage: that of the single market.
Introduction
The Maker Movement has been made possible thanks in part to technological advances. One of the most recent examples, 3D printing technology, is actually nothing new. However, it has been the launch of low-cost versions of the printers that has made this technology accessible to Makers, who use it to create plastic objects that can be utilised for diverse purposes, from design and decoration to medical uses (The Economist 2012b). In addition to this, the Internet has also played an important role, making peer-to-peer interaction possible, while also contributing to the creation of a flow of ideas based on an inclusionary rather than exclusionary kind of ‘intellectual capital’, thus enabling Makers to enrich their innovations with other people's knowledge and experiences (Bradley 2014). In what has been termed a knowledge-intensive economy, this process has become crucial in driving innovation, particularly in the context of rapidly paced globalisation and the greater geographic fragmentation of production processes (OECD 2011).
According to Dale Dougherty (2012), the precursor of the movement and founder of Make magazine, the success of the movement has been characterised by the will, inherent in humanity, to engage with objects in a different manner, moving away from being merely a consumer. Dougherty also outlined the role that Maker Faires and Makerspaces play in the exchange of ideas and in the creation of a sense of community, alongside their role in satisfying the demand for affordable access to industrial tools and shared workspaces. This would suggest that the emergence and success of the movement could be interpreted as a reaction against isolation and the lack of creativity that is characteristic of mass production society. In this sort of society consumption is considered an activity that isolates individuals (Baudrillard 2009) and creates a rupture between people and their cultural and social roots (Dougherty 2013). Through the communal spirit created by the movement, Makers have been able to overcome seclusion and create a sense of community (Dougherty 2012) by using the Internet alongside face-to-face interaction in physical places such as hacker spaces and Maker Faires (Brahms and Werner 2013). This is reiterated by the fact that over 195,000 people attended Maker Faire events around the world last year alone (Forbes 2014).
In addition, the movement has been able to create a collective identity by connecting the do-it-yourself culture with the idea of the US citizen's ability to innovate at home and manufacture his creations by himself (Tocchetti 2012). This relates to the feelings of fulfilment and realisation that individuals might have lost as a consequence of ceasing to make and starting to consume (Dougherty 2013; Resnick and Rosenbaum 2013). As a consequence, Makers play, tinker and explore with materials, representing a return to a process that is deeply rooted in human history all over the world (Resnick and Rosenbaum 2013).
The US example and EU application
With respect to creative and collective innovation it seems that the US is currently ahead, with it being argued that a mixture of legal, financial, organisational and social factors could be favouring a specific mindset that is more prone to engage in these types of activities (Ulinj and Brown 2004). As a result, Dougherty (2013) has suggested that the development of the Maker Movement is comparable to the initial stages of creation of the Silicon Valley high-tech industry.
Silicon Valley's success was encouraged and enhanced by the lack of a previous industrial structure, with this condition determining people's propensity to take risks (Cohen and Fields 2000). This behaviour played a crucial part in the promotion, innovation and economic success of the Valley. The development of a network of people tied by the same concerns and motivations made possible the emergence of a non-common type of social capital, articulated around shared interests rather than around a constituted local community (Cohen and Fields 2000). Accompanying this, a key milestone in the success of this area was the involvement of public and private institutions. As high-tech start-ups emerged, financial and legal start-ups focusing on this type of industry were also created, significantly contributing to and consolidating the economy. In addition, university and government collaboration with the region's entrepreneurs ensured the creation of the environment that was required in order for Silicon Valley to become the global leader of the high-tech industry (Cohen and Fields 2000).
In certain respects Makers have been able to emulate the type of social capital that emerged in Silicon Valley, with US public bodies and national agencies understanding the potential of the movement for boosting innovation and helping people, especially the young, to get involved in scientific development. Indeed tinkering is becoming an alternative way of applying science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, with the objective of making children more interested in the sciences through experimentation (Brahms and Werner 2013). The movement also has the prospective benefit of enabling innovation in fields in which big firms are not interested, particularly as these types of company base their research and development investment on expected profits (Ulinj and Brown 2004).
Europe has historically been a region of culture communication and innovation dissemination. However, it seems to have lost track of how to empower the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the average individual. Despite this, it is important to be cautious when thinking of ways to enhance this type of movement in Europe. Trying to replicate Silicon Valley might not be the best way of instilling a passion for innovation in people, particularly as the competitive advantage of Europe lies in its cultural background (Gerosa and Tirapani 2013). It has also been highlighted that the most successful EU start-ups are part of the fashion, music, travel and food industries. Rather than base future innovation solely on the digital industries, as has been the case in the US, Europe needs to value its cultural heritage while simultaneously harmonising its creative industries and forging cooperation between its diverse stakeholders. This is particularly pertinent considering Europe's diverse cultural background and the quality and diversity of the ideas present. Therefore the Maker Movement could reignite and replicate, through the use of Europe's varied background and culture, the boost in entrepreneurial activity witnessed in the 1970s and 1990s that was achieved by companies such as Olivetti, Dyson, Bosch, Philips and Hotpoint, to name but a few.
Cohesion policy and the European single market
While it has been widely noted that the Maker Movement has huge potential for economic development by putting people at the centre of commerce, promoting local and sustainable production, and empowering individuals to create a business of their own, Makers often face considerable difficulties with government regulations (Etsy 2014). While generally this can be seen as a barrier to international trade, with contrasting regulations on customs, duties and consumer protection (Etsy 2014), the single market in Europe offers the potential for an environment where these problems can be avoided.
As has been noted, the creation of a single market has been one of the most fundamental influences on the social and economic development of the EU (LSE Enterprise 2011). Empirical evidence has demonstrated that the introduction of the single market, coupled with higher levels of trade and investment, has increased GDP for the EU12 by 6.7 % (LSE Enterprise 2011). However, despite the progress made, significant regulatory barriers still remain between member states, restricting the competitive advantage that the single market creates in the EU. As a result, if Europe is to unlock its full potential for growth and competition, and take full advantage of developments like the Maker Movement, ‘it needs to focus on the single market for services, as a means of addressing the productivity gap with the US, and realising the untapped potential of its greatest asset’ (Egan 2012).
In response to this, the Europe 2020 strategy and the Cohesion Policy set ambitious targets to ensure that these conditions are met. One of the key focus points is targeting investments for economic growth, with a particular emphasis on enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises by improving the quality and differentiation of their products, services and marketing (European Commission 2014). Accompanying this, the Cohesion Policy aims to ensure that the single market is accessible to all member states, levelling up the capacity of those regions that are starting from a competitive disadvantage (LSE Enterprise 2011). The realisation of these targets would create the perfect environment for developments like the Maker Movement to flourish in Europe.
A new strategic approach: securing Europe's competitive edge
While the effective realisation of the single market is one of the key components of promoting European competiveness, further policy recommendations are also vital for the success of the Maker Movement. Education can play a key role in this, particularly in encouraging students to engage in STEM-related fields. As the ThinkYoung study on skills mismatch in Europe (ThinkYoung and Intel 2014) has identified, highlighting how STEM-related courses and technological developments can benefit society has had a positive effect on increasing interest and participation. This can be further applied to the Maker Movement, by emphasising how it can enable and encourage the active participation of amateur scientists in fields that they are interested in (Deloitte 2013).
An equally fundamental element in securing the environment to make the most of the Maker Movement is to tackle perceptions of entrepreneurship. Using the UK as an example, the 2014 Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index emphasised how attitudes and entrepreneurial aspirations in the UK were hindering performance (LSE 2014). While ranked ninth globally, demonstrating the potential for entrepreneurial growth and development, British people were less likely to choose entrepreneurship as a career path, often because they were unwilling to leave secure full-time employment. As the ThinkYoung study Overcoming the Stigma of Failure, Perceptions of the European Youth (ThinkYoung and CES 2013), demonstrates, this is a recurring theme in Europe, with an increasingly risk-averse attitude towards entrepreneurship and a culture of hostility towards failure taking precedence, which is having a negative effect on growth and distancing Europe from its competitors globally (The Economist 2012a). However, despite this trend, the Maker Movement has a history in Europe and is constantly evolving and adapting, with new Makers emerging. Makerversity, a space located in London's famous Somerset House, is an example of this, where Makers, product designers, builders and glue-fingered entrepreneurs can transform ideas into products or prototypes (Trew 2014). As these kinds of examples of the movement begin to flourish in Europe, so too must the conditions necessary to ensure their success and growth.
Conclusion
If the Maker Movement is to achieve its potential in Europe, Europe itself must embrace its competitive advantage, move away from its risk-averse attitude towards entrepreneurship and embrace its strongest asset: the single market. As the physical process of making has changed, moving away from the dominance of large companies and empowering individuals, so too must the environment change in order to encourage this movement. Policy plays a fundamental role in this process, with the full realisation of the single market and the removal of still-present barriers to free trade in Europe being paramount. As the next 50 years will see radical changes in terms of technology, sustainability, and the global balance of economic and political power, the introduction of relevant policy proposals to encourage European competitiveness and growth is key (Aghion et al. 2013). As a consequence, this means putting a premium on policies and institutions that foster anticipation, alongside systems that celebrate and encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, opportunity and discovery (Aghion et al. 2013). The Europe 2020 goals, the Cohesion Policy and the European single market are key components of this competitiveness and, as a consequence, must be fully realised.
Footnotes