We live in a period of radical change — a turning point in history that comes every generation or two.

Even as we deal with the second-wave impact of the information technology revolution, we are witnessing major innovations in diverse fields such as artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing and genetic engineering. However, technology is not the only area witnessing important shifts.

The rise of China and India, Brexit and the turmoil in American politics all suggest simultaneous changes at multiple levels from the geo-strategic to national politics and local social dynamics.

Such a state of radical uncertainty is always difficult to navigate, as these multiple factors interact in infinite different ways. Thus, these are moments when history could go down multiple paths. So, how should Singapore respond?

Over the past half century, Singapore has climbed the economic ladder from British naval base to shipping and manufacturing hub, then on to become a financial centre and more recently, an entertainment and education cluster.

On this journey, the city-state carefully studied successful models in the rest of the world and flexibly adapted them for its own use. I remember clearly how successful global cities such as London and New York were carefully studied in the early 2000s when Singapore decided to try to turn itself into Asia’s global city. In short, Singapore’s success has historically depended on being a really efficient second mover.

The above strategy, however, now may seem to have reached its logical limit as Singapore has arguably reached the urban frontier.

There may be segments where the city-state can do better but overall it is one of the most advanced cities in the world. So, not surprisingly, there are a growing number of experts who feel that Singapore has no choice but to invest heavily in a number of emerging, untested technologies or be left behind. But, is this the only available strategy? A quick look at history may be instructive.

A history of radical shifts

The first ever international conference of urban planners was held in New York in 1898. The central topic of discussion was horse manure, which was a big issue in those days.

A few years earlier, The Times of London had estimated that, by 1950, every street in the city would be buried 3m deep in manure. None of the experts imagined that horse manure would become irrelevant in less than two decades because of the automobile.

By the 1920s and ‘30s, the biggest urban problems were overcrowded slums and streets were gridlocked by traffic. Every major city in the world suffered from this — southern Manhattan and East London looked no better than the slums that plague today’s developing countries.

The leading experts of the time believed that the solution was to decongest cities. So, after World War II, the United States invested heavily in building suburbs and highways that allowed people to leave the city. The American dream was all about the suburban house, the car in the front drive, and a television and a telephone in the living room.

All this technology and social engineering, however, did not improve the cities. Instead, inner cities across the US collapsed between the 1960s and the 1980s. Detroit, once the most important industrial hub in the world, went into a downward spiral from which it has never recovered. Cities in northern England suffered similar declines.

In the early 1990s, urban centres face yet another technological shift — the Internet and mobile telephony. The considered opinion of the leading urban experts was that these new technologies would end urban agglomeration forever, especially for large cities. Why would anyone live in an expensive crowded city, so the thinking went, when one could work on the ski slopes or on a beach?

Contrary to all expectations, the biggest and most expensive cities never had it so good. Cities such as London and New York went through a boom and the world’s most expensive real estate became even more expensive.

It turned out that post-industrial societies used information technology in ways that favoured elite global cities — a model that Singapore successfully replicated by simultaneously building out its finance, entertainment and education clusters.

Second-mover advantage

The most important lesson of urban history is that so-called experts are poor at judging the long-term implications of structural shifts. While it is important to closely observe emerging trends, one needs to be wary of being swayed by the allure of technological wizardry (and other forms of punditry). What matters in the long run is flexibility to deal with the unexpected.

Singapore is often criticised of being poor at generating its own innovations. Instead it is seen as a very good second mover — an efficient adapter of other people’s innovations. But, one must ask, why is that such a bad strategy in a world of radical uncertainty?

The US can afford to experiment with a number of different models and suffer Detroit-like failures, but Singapore is a city-state that cannot take such a risk. It is far more prudent for it to allow others to test new ideas and then adopt/improve the successful ones. The US invented aviation, not Singapore, but few would disagree that Singapore Airlines and Changi airport are far ahead of their American equivalents.

I am not arguing that Singapore should never invest in cutting edge technologies or urban solutions. There are some areas where Singapore has developed a cluster and innovations will organically emerge. Similarly, the private sector should be allowed to experiment on its own steam. However, for areas requiring heavy investment, there is a case for Singapore to conserve most of its limited resources for the time being.

This may imply that Singapore falls behind for a bit but then, the city knows how to catch up — its ability to catch up is second to none. It is far more dangerous for the city-state to invest heavily in experimental backbone technologies and economic models that may lock it into a dead end. — TODAY