In short

Reviewing Carl Frey's 'How Progress Ends', this essay explains Frey's thesis that progress depends on sequencing decentralised 'exploration' to discover technologies with centralised 'exploitation' to scale them. Historical cases, Britain's Lunar Society, US federalism, Meiji Japan, the USSR and China, illustrate when the balance succeeds or fails. It critiques Frey's 'stagist' split between innovation and old technology as oversimplified, noting that large-scale deployment can itself be innovation.

Carl Frey’s “How Progress Ends” is a big-picture history of why some societies keep innovating and others stall, and this review uses it to think about the US–China technology race.

Frey’s core idea is a sequencing argument: you need decentralised, networked exploration to discover technologies, and centralised coordination to scale them, and the trouble comes when a society gets the order wrong, or gets stuck in one mode. The review walks through his historical case studies, from Britain’s Lunar Society to Meiji Japan to the Soviet Union, and applies the lens to today: a US whose decentralised edge is eroding under lobbying and NIMBYism, and a China that risks recentralising away from the pragmatism that powered its rise.

It’s an admiring but critical read. The sharpest pushback: Frey’s clean split between “innovation” and “old technology” underrates how much real innovation happens in deployment, exactly what DeepSeek showed.

Key takeaways

  • Frey argues progress requires decentralised exploration to invent, then centralised bureaucracy to scale technologies.
  • Historical case studies (Lunar Society, Meiji Japan, Prussia, USSR, China) show when this balance succeeds or stalls.
  • The US risks losing its decentralised advantage to lobbying and NIMBYism; China risks recentralising away from Deng-era pragmatism.
  • China now leads in 57 of 64 critical technologies, raising the stakes of the contest.
  • The essay critiques Frey's 'stagist' innovation-vs-old-technology split, deployment at scale can itself be innovation.

Read the full piece

This is a summary. Read the complete essay, with all the sources and argument, on Substack.

Read on Substack →

Frequently asked questions

What is the thesis of Carl Frey's 'How Progress Ends'?
That sustained progress requires decentralised networks to discover technologies, then centralised bureaucracies to scale them, and progress stalls when this sequence breaks down.
Who is winning the US–China technology race?
Frey argues both face risks: the US's decentralised innovation erodes under lobbying and NIMBYism, while China, already leading in 57 of 64 critical technologies, risks over-recentralisation.
What's the main weakness of Frey's argument?
The essay argues Frey's 'stagist' separation of innovation from old technology oversimplifies: large-scale deployment, as with DeepSeek R1, can itself constitute innovation.

People & ideas in this piece

Carl Benedikt FreyJoel MokyrDavid EdgertonJean-Baptiste FressozJeffrey DingHow Progress EndsThe Shock of the OldBirmingham Lunar SocietyExploration vs exploitationDeepSeek R1

Topics: AI & Geopolitics , The Political Economy of AI