IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.15757.html

Towards a Theory of Modular Natives: Explaining Superscaling, China's Greatest Innovation Yet

Author

Listed:
  • Bent Flyvbjerg
  • Alexander Budzier
  • Maria Christodoulou

Abstract

First, we present a new theory of "modular natives." A modular native is a basic building block that is born modular, e.g., a solar cell. The theory predicts that using modular natives in building things reduces complexity and improves predictability, resulting in better outcomes and faster scale-up. Second, we test the theory on the largest dataset of its kind. We find, at a high level of statistical significance, that modular natives operate under a fundamentally different risk regime than other project types, with finite and predictable risk, in contrast to non-natives that have infinite and unpredictable risk. The findings help explain why modularity is key to successful building while bespokeness often leads to failure. Third, we relate our findings to economic and geopolitical development, arguing that China understands modular natives and scale-up better than any other geography and that this is key to China's swiftly growing dominance in renewables, batteries, EVs, robots, etc. We argue that China's mastery of modularity and scale-up is a major innovation in its own right, among the greatest and most impactful in human history, falsifying the common notion that China cannot innovate. Business and government outside China ignore these findings at their peril. Finally, we spell out policy and practice implications and identify areas for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Maria Christodoulou, 2026. "Towards a Theory of Modular Natives: Explaining Superscaling, China's Greatest Innovation Yet," Papers 2606.15757, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.15757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.15757
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atif Ansar & Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Daniel Lunn, 2016. "Does infrastructure investment lead to economic growth or economic fragility? Evidence from China," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 32(3), pages 360-390.
    2. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    3. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Bester, Dirk W., 2021. "The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 395-419, October.
    4. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Jong Seok Lee & Mark Keil & Daniel Lunn & Dirk W. Bester, 2022. "The Empirical Reality of IT Project Cost Overruns: Discovering A Power-Law Distribution," Papers 2210.01573, arXiv.org.
    5. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    6. Benoit B. Mandelbrot, 1997. "Fractals and Scaling in Finance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-1-4757-2763-0, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raven, Michael & Blind, Knut, 2017. "The characteristics and impacts of scientific publications in biotechnology research referenced in standards," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-179.
    2. Timothy Simcoe & Jeremy Watson, 2019. "Forking, Fragmentation, and Splintering," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 283-297, December.
    3. Puay Khoon Toh & Eugene Pyun, 2024. "Risky business: How standardization as coordination tool in ecosystems impacts firm‐level uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 649-679, April.
    4. Foucart, Renaud & Li, Qian Cher, 2021. "The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    5. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2021. "Four Ways to Scale Up: Smart, Dumb, Forced, and Fumbled," Papers 2101.11104, arXiv.org.
    6. Thomas H. Douthat & Fahmida Akhter & Rachelle Sanderson & Jerrod Penn, 2023. "Stakeholder Perceptions about Incorporating Externalities and Vulnerability into Benefit–Cost Analysis Tools for Watershed Flood Risk Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Schmück, Kilian & Schückes, Magnus & Gutmann, Tobias & Gassmann, Oliver, 2025. "Less trust, more truth: Implications and design choices for business models and platform ecosystems in the age of Web3," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    8. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Knut Blind & Andre Jungmittag, 2008. "The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: a panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 51-60, February.
    10. Lauren A. Johnston, 2019. "The Belt and Road Initiative: What is in it for China?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 40-58, January.
    11. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    12. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.
    13. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    14. Ehrenhard, Michel & Kijl, Bjorn & Nieuwenhuis, Lambert, 2014. "Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-315.
    15. Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2024. "Contingent payments in procurement interactions: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Andrea Migone & David Chen & Bryan Evans & Alex Howlett & Michael Howlett, 2025. "“Is Lobbying for Losers?”: Corporate Behavior and Canadian Military Procurement Contracting," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 558-582, April.
    17. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    18. Tian Heong Chan & Shi-Ying Lim, 2023. "The Emergence of Novel Product Uses: An Investigation of Exaptations in IKEA Hacks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2870-2892, May.
    19. Ye, Zhen & Zhang, Fangzhu & Coffman, D’Maris & Xia, Senmao & Wang, Zhifeng & Zhu, Zhonghua, 2022. "China’s urban construction investment bond: Contextualising a financial tool for local government," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    20. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.15757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.