The traditional economic model followed what is called a ‘vertical approach’.

This meant that

the occidental economies worked on the basis of close collaboration between unions,
businesses and governments, in order to create large companies with rigid hierarchies that
would operate in a protected national market. Therefore, these companies would be
‘mission-oriented’, meaning that their primary concern was to solve a certain issue and create
some type of tangible change, normally in the form of a finished product with real
applications.

However, this model came crashing at the decade of 1970, with a widespread economic crisis
that produced a new school of thought to replace the failing pattern. This school, called
‘Austrian neoliberalism’, quickly gained followers among politicians from the right, who
thought that the previous model relied too much on state intervention and control. In
consequence, these politicians demanded a return to the basics of capitalism. They argued
that, in their effort to create fair working conditions, socialdemocracy had forgotten that the
state should not be determining how economies worked. Rather, this was the market’s job,
meaning that supply and demand would define the prices of goods.

Perhaps one of the most clear examples of this dynamic is the evolution of NASA and space
industries in general. Previously, as the public organization in all things regarding civil
spaceflight, NASA would keep a tight leash in both development and innovation. They
defined what the problems needing solving were, the ways to do so, and the nature of the
contracts with the private sector. In short, NASA would direct and oversee everything that
fell under their purview, using the private sector as an accessory to their overall strategy.

Yet, when Ronald Reagan came into power, he started to overhaul this model to mirror the
neoliberal approach. Thus, efforts were made to decentralize the commercial space in low
orbit, in order to encourage the private’s sector presence and investment in this zone. As a
result, Reagan led a new approach in US space policy, one where commercialization would
play a bigger part. In consequence, two key moves were made, the construction of the ISS
and the transfer of ‘shuttle operations’ to private contractors. That prompted an emergence of
an increasingly diverse number of actors with a presence in the low orbit zone, most famous
being Elon Musk’s SpaceX station.
The economist Mariana Mazzucato saw that the old economic analysis no longer worked in
the face of this new approach. Therefore, she coined a term that would be key to
understanding how this effort of commercialization was articulated. Since the paradigm has
shifted from a one-way vertical hierarchy to a network of interconnected agents, Mazzucato
created the word ‘innovation ecosystems’, referring to this network of dynamic links between
private actors and public institutions. With this new analytic pattern, Mazzucato wanted to
put the focus on the nature of these relations between the different actors, to see how their
bonds created socio-economic value through both research and innovation.

Thus, Mazzucato believed that NASA’s intentions of switching to a ‘horizontal approach’

fitted that bill perfectly. This meant that NASA was no longer driven to directly create
innovation, but their focus was now on creating the necessary conditions to make such
change possible. In short, that equated to the creation of an ‘economic zone in orbit’, an
‘interaction space’ where public and private actors partnered in order to share the burdens of
innovation.

This shift sprang four new types of commercial relations that reflected the ‘horizontality’ of
the new paradigm. First, Mazzucato identified that two key programs (COTS and CCDev)
were responsible for delegating transport of cargo and crew to private enterprises, meaning
that the private sector had now more control of design and development of those cargo
shuttles. Second, the emergence of ‘commercial brokers’ connected the ISS to a myriad of
new private actors, using the facilities for research. Third, NASA actively promoted
innovation by a system of prize competitions directed towards private enterprises. Finally,
and maybe the most important one, NASA is actively funding high-risk small firms to
explore and develop new markets.

To summarize, NASA has made a conscious effort to delegate control and management to a
myriad of new actors, effectively creating an ecosystem in low orbit. That doesn’t mean that
NASA has stopped spending money, far from it, it only means that such money is used more
to promote innovation via third parties and less to produce their own results. That way, the
public institutions hope that innovation (and the following market growth) is primarily driven
by private enterprises, with the state settling on a more passive role (funding and monitoring
being their competences), thus achieving the neoliberal dream.
However, Mazzucato pointed out three new challenges that arose from the new ecosystem
approach. The first is obvious, concerning a lack of directionality and unity if there is no clear
cut leader in the sector. Moreover, she was worried that the loss of NASA’s influence in the
region would translate into a loss of operational capacity. Lastly, she wondered who would
reap the benefits of this new ecosystem, an issue that is specially acute regarding the
ownership of IP.

In conclusion, our effort regarding the Quantum Ecosystem in Catalonia would be the same
as Mazzucato regarding NASA. Using her theoretical framework, we would like to apply her
method of analysis to our own subject of study. That way, we would not only single out every
actor present in the ecosystem, but we would also determine the nature of their relationships
and point out the flaws and voids in the network.