Original article: https://www.indyturk.com/node/772387/
Historical Thresholds and Technological Regimes
The fundamental parameters of economic power undergo radical, cyclical shifts. Since the late 1970s, the exponentially increasing importance of information technologies has made many traditional economic strategies and production models less effective.
In industrial society, the steam engine and electricity played a transformative role. In post-industrial society, that role is increasingly being assumed by computers, robotics, and information technologies. Taken as a whole, they define the post-industrial technological paradigm.
However, the rise of post-industrial technologies does not imply that the traditional industrial sector and industrial modes of production have become obsolete. On the contrary, improving the efficiency and deployment of industrial technologies remains a prerequisite. Advanced economies can no longer secure global competitiveness on the basis of industrial production alone.
With the market launch of the Altair 8800, the first commercially successful personal computer, in 1974, and Apple’s introduction of the Macintosh in 1984, personal computers became accessible to the general public.
The integration of this infrastructure with the internet constituted a decisive shift. Combined with major advances in information technologies, it enabled an economic expansion comparable to that triggered by the steam engine and Fordist production.
In agrarian society, land and raw materials were the primary strategic resources. In industrial society, energy, machinery, and manufacturing came to the forefront. In post-industrial society, however, information has assumed a central role through telecommunications and information technologies.
While 17% of the US workforce was engaged in information-related occupations in 1950, this share reached approximately 60% in the 2010s. The growing importance of theoretical knowledge, along with the use of new technological devices, has accelerated scientific development and thereby boosted labor productivity.
In its structural dynamics, today’s period echoes the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. In the 20th century, countries that fell behind in industrialization and clung to traditional methods suffered severe economic consequences.
Conversely, the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan, which completed this transformation rapidly, became global superpowers in the early 20th century. A similar break is likely to occur in the 21st century through post-industrial technologies.
Given that the pace of adoption of these technologies is much higher than that of industrial technologies, states that fall behind in this race will find it difficult to close the gap in the coming decades.
Post-Industrial Ecosystems: Building the Future
Achieving post‑industrial technological development requires coordinated alignment among cultural, financial, and institutional dynamics. In this respect, Singapore exemplifies the model many states aspire to achieve.
Despite scarce resources and limited manpower, Singapore offers clear evidence that a state focusing on post-industrial technologies—through policies pursued since 1965—can create an economic miracle.
In assessing the spillover effect of these technologies, it is necessary first to consider the symbiotic relationship between financial markets and these technologies.
The development of post-industrial technologies requires significant financial resources and venture capital. Consequently, relying solely on public resources makes it very difficult to achieve global competitiveness. Therefore, states aiming to develop post-industrial technologies must implement a dual policy:
1. The creation of a qualified workforce to develop these technologies through substantial investment in universities, scientific projects, and digital infrastructure.
2. Transforming the state into a global hub for developer teams and venture capital by expanding international educational mobility and fast-tracking technology transfer.
Rethinking Universities: The Economic Weight of Technoparks
Universities and technoparks are among the most important pillars in the development of post-industrial technologies. Professor Sencer Imer, who has conducted significant work in this field, often emphasized in seminars that technoparks would be a driving force behind emerging economies in the twenty‑first century.
He noted that Taiwan, which holds a leading position in global semiconductor manufacturing, derives roughly 20% of its economy indirectly from technoparks, whereas in Turkey this figure remains below 1%. Within this framework, he undertook significant initiatives at the bureaucratic level to increase the funding and resources allocated to technoparks at universities in Turkey, particularly at Hacettepe University. Subsequently, my observations in Southeast Asia were consistent with Prof. Sencer Imer’s assessments.
Countries such as Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Malaysia have clearly adopted long-term strategies to develop these technologies and expand practical applications. To this end, students and public- and private-sector employees receive comprehensive training in artificial intelligence, blockchain, and software, supported by government investment and venture groups. University students are encouraged to develop projects in these fields, participate in internship programs, and specialize in areas that are of critical importance in post-industrial economies.
As a result, finance and IT companies in metropolises like New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong, and London are establishing new hubs in Southeast Asia. They intend to capitalize on local developer talent and regional networks to develop new technologies while committing large sums to local development.
The Connectivity Problem and the Rise of Oracles
At the heart of this transition lies oracle technology, which bridges blockchain networks with off-chain environments by enabling reliable data flows. Universities and technoparks have an essential role in developing these tools and integrating them into institutional structures.
To a large extent, the full realization of a post‑industrial economy may depend on the widespread adoption of smart contracts: self‑executing protocols in which contractual terms are embedded directly in code.
However, a fundamental structural obstacle remains: blockchains are closed, deterministic systems. Although they are excellent at recording internal transactions, they cannot perceive the external world in real time. A blockchain cannot, on its own, know the real-time value of stocks on the Nasdaq, the weather in Germany, or election results in Brazil.
This disconnection between blockchains and the outside world is known in the literature as the “Oracle Problem.” Without interaction with real-world data, the benefits of blockchain technologies remain limited to their own ecosystem, failing to generate the real-economy spillover effects required for post-industrial transformation.
Just as the economic impact of the steam engine required the expansion of railway networks, the integration of post-industrial technologies with the economy likewise requires a robust oracle network.
In the race to solve the Oracle Problem, Chainlink holds an advantage. According to DefiLlama data, it controls approximately two-thirds of the market. This protocol has established a form of hegemony in the oracle ecosystem comparable to Google’s dominance in search engine platforms or SWIFT’s dominance in interbank data traffic.
Oracle technologies and protocols such as Chainlink form the digital infrastructure of the post‑industrial era, functioning as its railways. In the digital age, the authority determining “truth” is no longer solely traditional institutions, but rather the infrastructures that produce and oversee verifiable data flows. Thus, the data verification protocols offered by Chainlink and similar decentralized oracle networks are becoming the “trust protocols” of the post-industrial economy.
As technological change accelerates in the early twenty‑first century, the challenge for states is not merely adopting AI, the metaverse, or Web3, but developing the connective infrastructure that integrates them.
From the Dot-com Bubble to the Present: The Consolidation of the Digital Economy
Adoption of post‑industrial technologies remains uneven at the global level. Persistent opposition recalls both feudal resistance to mechanization during the Industrial Revolution and early dismissals of information technologies in the 1980s.
With the rise of cyber platforms and the expansion of the internet in the 1990s, market sentiment toward information technology companies became overwhelmingly optimistic. During this period, hundreds of new firms emerged in technology hubs such as Silicon Valley.
Many of these entities proved to be little more than “shell companies,” developing no practical applications and offering no operational services. Nonetheless, intense market enthusiasm drove inflated valuations for some of these firms.
During the “Dot-com bubble,” which began in 1995 and peaked in 2000, many companies went bankrupt. The shares of information technology companies suffered major losses in value. For example, during that period, Amazon’s shares declined by 93%, Microsoft’s by 65%, and Intel’s by 84%.
Some analysts, evaluating this process from an anti-technology perspective, argued that the economic weight of information technologies had been exaggerated and that the era of these companies had ended. A similar conservative stance is reflected in the work of some analysts, who argue that artificial intelligence will have only a limited economic impact over the next 20 years.
The Dot-com bubble, by forcing a process of natural selection in financial markets and eliminating platforms without practical utility, laid the groundwork for the rise of giants such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon, which would dominate the 2000s. Since the 2000s, as the economic scale of these monopolies has increased exponentially, information technologies have become a determining element of economic power.
A similar divergence also occurred in innovative applications within the post-industrial sector after the pandemic. Artificial intelligence, the metaverse, Web3, and blockchain platforms, which gained significant popularity after 2020, received billions of dollars in investment.
However, Gresham’s law, based on the principle that “bad money drives out good money,” also became influential in these ecosystems. Scam projects with no utility in either the real economy or cyberspace attracted investors through manipulative social media campaigns, causing substantial harm to the ecosystem. The systematic losses inflicted on investors by scam projects, along with their failure to meet announced roadmap targets, negatively affected public perceptions of post‑industrial technologies.
Resistance to technology arising from the manipulation of structural weaknesses in market conditions and an immature ecosystem presents major risks to future economic growth. States and institutions must prioritize regulations that accelerate this transition, expedite international technology transfer, and create a qualified workforce by ensuring broad segments of the population receive education in this field.
Although we are still in the early stages of the transition to post-industrial technologies, the need for these technologies continues to increase. Projects that add genuine value to the ecosystem and emphasize technological innovation are likely to endure and grow stronger over time.
By contrast, economies that do not prioritize post-industrial technologies face the medium-term risk of losing a large part of their weight in the industrial sector as well. This risk is escalating because post‑industrial companies are leveraging their enormous capital to systematically acquire traditional‑economy firms.
As public services move to online platforms and the traditional banking system imposes substantial costs on users, the spillover of these technologies will clearly increase economic efficiency across a wide range of sectors.
Consequently, states now face a necessity rather than a choice to develop legal and technological frameworks that connect traditional economic sectors with post‑industrial ones.
