No two system leaders were identical in their claims to being the most innovative states in their respective zones, eras, and periods of leadership. Nonetheless, three general categories emerge: maritime commercial leadership, a pushing of agrarian boundaries, and sustained industrial economic growth. Those that made breakthroughs in the latter category, of course, redefined the modern world. Frontiers were critically important in all four cases of system leadership (China, the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States), but not exactly in the same way. Major improvements in transportation/communication facilitated economic growth by making interactions more feasible and less expensive, although the importance of trade varied considerably. Expanding populations were a hallmark of all four cases, even if the scale of increase varied. Population growth and urbanization forced agriculture to become more efficient and provided labor for nonagricultural pursuits. Urban demands stimulated regional specialization, technological innovation, and energy intensification, expanding the size of domestic markets and contributing to scalar increases in production. Just how large those scalar increases were depended on the interactions among technological innovation, power-driven machinery, and energy transition. Yet no single change led automatically to technological leadership. While lead status was never gained by default, it helped to have few rivals. As more serious rivals emerged, technological leaderships became harder to maintain.
Strategic landmarks for modernization of industrial enterprises of Russia
