This chapter locates Claudia Rankine’s highly celebrated book Citizen in a lineage of African American artists participating in a similar mode of renovation, which is the production of distinctive kinds of poetry based on linking past artistry and heritage to forward-facing experimentation. It challenges how Citizen was treated as exceptional by the press and prize committees that celebrated it when in fact Rankine herself carefully put her poems and essays in conversation with a number of predecessors, including Richard Wright and Zora Neal Hurston, and with such contemporaries as Nikky Finney, Erica Hunt, and Harryette Mullen. It then connects Rankine to the younger writers Morgan Parker and Aurielle Marie, who, like Rankine and visual artist Glenn Ligon, adapted Hurston’s well-known essay "How It Feel to Be Colored Me" to new purposes. Lineage and innovation united with a heritage of renovation make Citizen outstanding and deserving of its accolades but not unique so much as an extension of innovative African American literary practice.

In order to characterize how African American poets enacted a version of the avant-garde, this chapter connects the formation of Black writers’ collectives in the 1980s and 1990s to the original theories of the avant-garde in which artistic dissent was tied to social withdrawal and political dissent. It identifies how the Dark Room Collective of the 1980s and early 1990s and the Black Took Collective of the late 1990s and early twenty-first century used their bohemian withdrawal to cultivate innovative artistic practices that led, paradoxically, to mainstream success. Since that success defies racial disparagement in ways analogous to how the collective withdrawal did, this chapter posits that "success" as an "avant-garde thing," an ambivalent extension of avant-garde dissent.

Examines the impact of digital technologies on higher education, focusing on online instruction, MOOCs, and edtech. Highlights successful examples like MIT’s OpenCourseWare and Arizona State University’s transformation. Emphasizes the need for strong dynamic capabilities to harness technology for strategic renewal.

Explores the rise of campus entrepreneurship, tracing its roots to landmark discoveries like recombinant DNA. Discusses technology transfer, licensing offices, and startups founded by faculty and students. Emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurial activities in enhancing research impact, generating revenue, and fostering regional development.

In this chapter, we lay out the difference between the economics of allocation and creation. We explain how innovation, which is the most important process involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creates resources that the economy uses thereafter. We show that there is no optimal resource creation strategy because innovation generates more potential directions for economic growth than we can possibly identify. This shows that the economic problem of climate policy is not about allocating scarce resources, but rather it is about creating the resources that we need. But the allocation way of thinking is really hindering sensible climate policymaking, and this is potentially why we are making so little progress.

Introduces the dynamic capabilities framework – sensing, seizing, and transforming – as a strategic tool for university leaders. Explains how dynamic capabilities help institutions respond to uncertainty and change, enabling them to identify opportunities, execute initiatives, and transform operations.

Synthesizes the book’s themes, emphasizing dynamic leadership for guiding universities through turbulence. Reiterates the importance of strategic management and dynamic capabilities – sensing, seizing, and transforming – to ensure resilience and relevance. Calls on leaders to embrace change and lead with purpose.

This chapter explains how the economics of innovation works for the transition. We explain how innovation creates resources but also generates upheaval. We narrate how seeking optimal economic performance, in fact, corresponds to reducing the resilience of the economy and promoting instability. We explain a key concept of complexity science: the trade-off between performance and stability in systems that grow over time, like the economy. If we let the economy or the financial sector grow too fast, chances are higher that it will crash. The meaning of this is that we must pace the low-carbon transition carefully, create resilience and give it strict guardrails, so that it stays on track, as we create new resources with low-carbon innovation.

Chapter 3.10 evaluates innovative financing for neglected diseases. Neglected diseases (NDs) account for about a fifth of the global burden of disease and affect over a billion people. They are neglected because the pharmaceutical sector does not consider it profitable to develop treatments for them. This reflects that fact that NDs are most prevalent in low- and middle-income countries with relatively low purchasing potential. Key learning includes that

• Global pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) invests a disproportionate share of innovation, activity and resources in low burden diseases and fosters significant inequities.

• A range of push and pull incentive mechanisms have been developed to delink the cost of research from market profitability and promote innovation in areas of need.

• – Reduce the upfront costs by subsidizing R&D pre-discovery (push incentives) and

• – Offer a reward post-discovery (pull incentives)

• The evidence on the effectiveness and reach of incentive schemes is scant and more needs to be done to understand the relative cost-effectiveness of the different incentive mechanisms and the extent to which they mitigate inequalities in innovation and access to new medicines.

• A global, unified governance framework for needs assessment and resource allocation could usefully

• – Carry out systematic comparison of the relative needs associated with NDs globally

• – Assess the costs and benefits of addressing these

• – Set priorities for the coordinated global allocation of funding and targeted incentive mechanisms, and

• – Consider payment mechanisms that will translate research into market launches.

This chapter considers whether, and under what conditions, private firms can productively combine existing patent assets to support the dissemination and use of green technology. It assesses the unique challenges that face the organizers of private patent commons in the green technology sector. To do so, it first reviews prior efforts to form green patent commons, as well as recent commons proposals that have not yet been implemented. Next, it asks why these efforts have not been successful in achieving their respective goals. Finally, it offers suggestions for future planners seeking to promote the global dissemination and use of patented green technologies through the formation of commons structures.

In this chapter, we discuss five common misunderstandings about sustainability leadership - we speak of myths - that muddle the discourse and stand in the way of understanding and application. As myths to dissect, we consider the idea that sustainability leadership is all about money, that it is about perfect institutions and that expertise is the key. The idea that morality is fundamental and the narrative that prioritizes innovation are dismissed as myths as well. We look at the implications for leadership functions and roles to emerge in those myths, and try to discern, positively, what we can learn from the myths about the realities of sustainability leadership.

International investment law is designed to encourage the movement of capital toward optimally productive uses, thus generating economic gains and fostering development. At the same time, treaty-based protections of foreign investors can restrict host governments’ ability to pass rules that negatively impact on foreign investments even when such rules are for socially desirable goals such as poverty reduction. Applied to the question of new technologies, this framework theoretically leaves access to and utilization of new technologies between the technology-pulling impact of investment protections and the equity-hindering impacts of regulatory measures to reduce poverty in all its forms. Does the practice of international investment law dispute resolution indicate that this tension is resolved in favor of technology investors or in favor of equality-enhancing measures?

This chapter examines the various aspects of the digital divide and the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that contain states’ promises on the relationship to promote access to new technologies as a way of reducing poverty. It then looks at several early investment disputes that have arisen out of new technology investments in order to draw conclusions about whether investment protections help bridge the divide or exacerbate it. The result is more ambiguous than expected.

Experimental legal regimes, notably regulatory sandboxes, seek to promote technological innovation while at the same time ensuring consumer protection against unsafe or unsuitable products and services. But in doing so, they may not always be able to prevent harm to consumers. This chapter explores the relationship between regulatory sandboxes and private law. Given that within such sandboxes the participating firms may benefit from regulatory relief, it considers whether, and, if so, to what extent traditional private law nevertheless remains and should remain applicable to their activities during the experiment. It develops three models of the relationship between regulatory sandboxes and private law – separation, substitution, and complementarity – and considers their key characteristics, manifestations, and implications in the context of European private law. The chapter reveals the tension between, on the one hand, fostering technology-enabled innovation, legal certainty, and uniformity and, on the other hand, realising interpersonal justice and individual fairness while leaving room for diversity. It also assesses each model in terms of its potential to reconcile these competing considerations and draws lessons from this assessment for EU and national legislators and courts.