Information and Communication Technologies for Economic and Regional Developments
Hakikur Rahman (Ed.)
London, UK & Hershey, PA, USA, Idea Group Publishing, 2007, xvii+351 pp., US$84.95, ISBN 1599041871 pbk
This book examines the link between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and economic and regional development. The publisher’s description of the book places it very much at the practical, rather than theoretical end, of the spectrum: ‘This book includes … practical implications of diversified development practices … it provides recommendations, success cases and failures of those practices that can be taken into consideration for future project preparation’. Despite this focus on practice, there is no unifying theoretical theme linking the 16 chapters of this edited volume. The book is organized around four sections: learning systems; application of technologies; information and knowledge management; and success stories/case studies. These themes provide the basic logic of the link between ICTs and economic development that is explored in this volume.
The Preface, which is unattributed, provides the best guidance to the aim of the book. It is explained that there are important parameters that need to be taken into account to enable socioeconomic development through ICT. For example: ICTs remain inaccessible for most of the global population; the link between GDP and ICT needs to be settled; education systems need systematic transformation; and the digital divide needs to be bridged. ICT is a tool, that if used effectively, will enable economic development. This is not surprising in that the book has an avowed practical focus. It does indicate, however, that having a practical focus can limit the breadth of issues that could be considered relevant to solving a development problem. Nevertheless, to be practical, explanation needs to be provided as to why ICT is so important for development. The link between ICT and the dynamics of development is made through the concept of information/knowledge management:
Along the way, accumulated resources eradicate poverty; knowledge empowers them and ICT plays a major role in bridging the gap between these two. Knowledge or information could either be enhanced by establishing interactive communications among stakeholders or through improved information dissemination. Knowledge science seems to be a new discipline of science that evolved within and around philosophy, technology and processes to enhance these abilities. Mainly there are two approaches to develop intelligence of social individuals; one is through management science and the other is through information science (p. ix).
At this point (after four pages) readers could be forgiven for being discouraged, thinking that the rest of the book will be a struggle.
The first section of the book, titled ‘Learning Systems’, contains three chapters. The first of these, by Rennie from Simon Fraser University in Canada, explores the complex interaction between ICT and education systems. Telecentres and universities are referred to as examples in this chapter. This is a reflective chapter and highlights the fact that the link between education systems and development may not always be enhanced by the application of ICT. The second chapter in this section is also instructive. Kettunen from Turku Polytechnic in Finland reviews a joint venture between three educational institutions in Finland to strategically plan an ICT Centre. This chapter focuses on the role of the ‘balanced scorecard approach’ to explain the strategic planning that occurred. However, three sentences from the end of the chapter, the author reveals that ‘Unfortunately, the balanced scorecard approach was found only at the very end of the planning period’ (p. 36). This begs the question that while it may be easier to describe what ought to be, it is harder to explain what actually happened. Which will be the more useful for practitioners to learn from? The final chapter in this section, by the book’s editor Rahman, from the Sustainable Development Networking Program in Bangladesh, reviews a number of brief case studies which show the differing roles of ICT‐based learning to promote empowerment.
The second section of the book is titled ‘Applications of Technologies’. There are three chapters in this section. Medina, as US based contributor, explores the role of ICT in conflict prevention and management. The possibility of ICT used as an oppressive system is not given the same acknowledgement as the more liberating aspects here. Three contributors from the University of Jaume in Spain provide an empirical chapter on the link between technological innovation, trade and development. This chapter concludes, not surprisingly, that investing in technological innovation improves the level of competitiveness. Therefore it is good economic policy in developing countries to invest in technological innovation (p. 79). One wonders what policy makers will make of this. The final chapter in this section is by Denison from Monash University in Australia. Denison’s chapter draws on diffusion theory and network analysis applied to a number of case studies to demonstrate that ‘an over‐emphasis on technology and technology‐based services, and their development in isolation from the communities that they are intended to serve, will not lead to successful and sustainable outcomes’ (p. 117). This is a good chapter that gives readers insight into the complex dynamics of development projects.
The third section of the book contains four chapters on the theme of ‘Information and Knowledge Management’. The first chapter, by Schell from New York University, aims to develop a global perspective for knowledge management. The focus here is on the role of English as a global language but after a promising start, the chapter becomes distracted by textual issues relating to English. This undermines the strength of Schell’s more general theme that different languages and cultural barriers present real barriers to information sharing. University of Queensland scholars Rooney, Ferrier, Graham and Jones provide a highly informative chapter on cultural production and the role of intellectual property rights in shaping this. They argue that a systemic approach to technology, institutions and work needs to be adopted if culture is to make an effective contribution to economic development. The third chapter in the section is by University of Tasmania academics Keen, Steer and Turner. The theme of this chapter is the role of meaningful measurement of ICT development projects. Without appropriate indicators, reliable frameworks for future investigation will not be able to be developed. The final chapter in this section is by the editor Rahman who explores the link between ICT and poverty reduction. Rahman notes that despite the huge potential of ICT, there are relatively few examples of sustained community networks built around ICTs (p. 209).
The final section of the book is devoted to ‘Success Stories/Case Studies’. There are six chapters in this section providing case studies from Canada, South Asia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Tanzania and China. While most of the cases relate to conventional ICT projects such as E‐Government and telecommunications, the Canadian case is about knowledge management in rural communities. A chapter by Leppanen from the International Institute of Asian Studies in The Netherlands, reviews the management of new genetic knowledge of ethnic minorities in China. While this chapter highlights the positive aspects of genome studies for the benefit of minorities, such as disease gene mapping, there is much less attention given to the ‘darker’ side of genetic knowledge. Leppanen notes that gene mapping ‘relates to the question that goes into the very essence of the minority debate: what, actually, is a minority to the majority; does the relationship signify weakness of strength?’ (p. 332). For this reviewer, this question would have been more usefully asked at the beginning of this edited collection. It may have provided a more robust focal point for addressing the link between ICTs and development.
Information and Communication Technologies for Economic and Regional Developments is a book that has a wide agenda. It suffers from a not uncommon problem in edited works—a unifying theme is hard to find. In this case, the theme has been hampered by a rather uncritical acceptance of the positive links between ICT and development. Many of the chapters, some more eloquently than others, show that information sharing is a major issue in economic development. While there are some very good contributions to this edited volume, making sense of them has been more difficult. For practitioners, the case studies and reflective chapters will nevertheless provide insights and perhaps suggestions for new policy approaches.
© 2007 Richard Joseph
Bright Satanic Mills Universities, Regional Development and the Knowledge Economy
Alan Harding, Alan Scott, Stephen Laske and Christian Burtscher (Eds)
Aldershot, UK, Ashgate Publishing, 2007, 242 pp., UK£55.00, ISBN 978‐0‐7546‐4585‐6 hbk
The objective in this book was ‘to examine the reality of universities’ relationship to their external environment … and how it impacts upon and/or is conditioned by the changing inner life of higher education institutions’ (pp. 2–3). What ‘factors … influence the way universities perceive the world beyond the campus and organize themselves in order to engage and interact with it’, with a focus ‘on the local and regional scale’ (p. 3). This is an exploration of ‘the transition from the archetypal “ivory towers” … to the “bright satanic mills” of the emerging, global economy’ (p. 3). The spirit of this effort, initiated with the Universities and Regional Development Conference in Innsbruck in 2002, is summed up in ‘a simple hypothesis: universities are to the “information age” what coal mines and steel mills were to the industrial economy’ (p. 3). So we need not be troubled by any doubts about just what Blake had in mind when he penned ‘dark Satanic mills’. The expertise brought to bear is that of a broad social science approach rather than economics—the Bibliography includes Argyris but not Arrow, Bell but not Machlup, Drucker but not Schumpeter, Porter but not Shackle, Florida but not Stiglitz …
Three ‘overarching and inter‐related tendencies’, it is suggested, have ‘combined to transfer demand for what universities provide so as to encourage a sharper focus on “relevance” and more intense engagement with immediate localities and regions: globalization, the “information revolution”, and the “massivication” of higher education’ (pp. 3–4).
The editors provide an Introduction and the following 11 chapters are grouped in two parts: ‘Local and Regional Engagement Strategies: Dilemmas and Options’ and ‘Knowledge Production, Management and the Academic Role’. For this reviewer, the highlights were the masterly overview by Scott and Harding; Chapter 6, Davydd Greenwood, ‘Who are the Real “Problem Owners”? On the Social Embeddedness of Universities’; Chapter 7, Tim May, ‘Regulation, Engagement and Academic Production’; and Chapter 9, Todd Bridgman and Hugh Willmott, ‘Academics in the “Knowledge Economy”: From Expert to Intellectual?’.
The questions raised are important ones but the answers inevitably call for rather more exploration of the economic aspects than is undertaken in this volume.
The old economics of perfect knowledge and general equilibrium are more hindrance than help in tackling the problems of the knowledge economy. Information asymmetry, connectivity and learning have shifted perspectives from equilibria to processes and have made judgements about the economic efficiency of outcomes more difficult. Joseph Stiglitz has gone so far as to assert that standard economic theory has little to say about the efficiency of the knowledge‐based economy.1
Information/knowledge is a peculiar commodity. We are now told it is a digital good and that we should think of a digital good as a recipe. It is not possible here to review relevant developments but it could be helpful to focus on several key matters. Information is a peculiar commodity because it is one only to a limited extent and those limitations have serious consequences.
Ossification in universities is acknowledged briefly in this book and it might be useful to explain that this has been explored in the economics of information where it was labelled ‘organizational obsolescence’ by Kenneth Arrow. It comes about with the combination of uncertainty, indivisibility, and capital intensity involved in information activities and these can lead to rigidity and unresponsiveness to change. This would have been part of ‘stagnation’ in earlier times. The practical point is that universities may well go astray both by casting in their lot with government or by buying too heavily into business enterprise.
Some of the ‘Bright Satanic Mills’ issues are not as new as many seem to think. US President Eisenhower, in his other role as president of Columbia University, believed universities had been the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery. Speaking in 1962, he lamented that a government contract had become a substitute for intellectual curiosity.2 Such comments should remind us that information is structured capital and there are major barriers to its sharing and cooperative use. This matters not only when large organizations are involved; it arises frequently at local levels where an appreciation of local knowledge may prove crucial.3
Perhaps the ossification/obsolescence thoughts are the most disturbing of all. It might prove meaningful to see the pervasive impact of the new information technologies as extending industrialization to intellectual activities. Perhaps those interested in the social as well as more narrowly economic dimensions of these processes of change should read and reflect upon a recent provocative article by Simon Head, ‘They’re micromanaging your every move’.4
Efforts have been made to preserve some parts of the ‘dark Satanic mills’, e.g. the Leeds Industrial Museum. What thought is being given to preserving some elements of our existing universities for posterity? One US suggestion favoured the preservation of a professor’s study. Perhaps the time has come for this matter to be considered seriously while some still harbour memories of Cornford’s ‘silent reasonable world, where the only action is thought, and thought is free from fear’.5
© 2007 Don Lamberton
Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage
Government of Canada, Communications and Marketing Branch, Industry Canada
Ottawa, May 2007, iv+103 pp., free, 1 ISBN 09780662451556
Innovation in a Colder Climate
There probably is not a country where there have been more (Science and Technology) S&T policies designed, delivered and disseminated than in Canada. A count since the science policy heydays of the 1960s would peg this number at close to 20.2 The latest in this serial production of national policy directions was issued by the Canadian Prime Minister on 17 May 2007; titled Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage, the 103‐page document displays well the underlying market‐oriented philosophy of the ruling Conservative minority Government. The new Strategy, issued unusually after the federal government budget of March 2007, signalled its investments in S&T funding, rationalizes the new spending around themes of entrepreneurship, talent and knowledge.
Today, it is fashionable to note that we all inhabit an increasingly complex world of knowledge and discovery. Science and its enterprise have been greatly transformed and its technology handmaiden has significantly impacted on globalization, development, security, climate, innovation, health and the like. States continue to wrestle with the challenge of social and economic upheaval as well as new opportunities brought about in great part by knowledge and technology. Governments of any stripe find it impossible to be against progress, even as they attempt to dampen funding expectations and allay unforeseen social and economic disjuncture.
But clearly the so‐called social contract of science has been severely impacted.3 A knowledgeable public demands more. Today, ruling coalitions and their politicians want results, accountability, new metrics, improved governance and tangible targets. Priority‐setting is now a mainstream policy watch‐word. The research communities have become more politically astute, though they remain decidedly deficient when it comes to dominating the game. Importantly, their expectations have become more circumspect as funding dwindles and demands for measurable outputs grow. New global players have entered the market and centres of innovation are shifting.4 US global leadership in science is being questioned within its own community.5
Meanwhile, Canada continues its progressive efforts to improve its science and technology lot. It has come a long way by most standards and is now leading the G7 in publications produced on a per capita basis, as well as in the proportion of post‐secondary graduates in the workforce. Over $15B had been invested in Canada’s S&T arena in the past 10 years including the creation of experiments such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation to strengthen the public research infrastructures in universities and hospitals; Genome Canada designed to put Canada back on the map in genomics research; 2000 Canada Research Chairs to address brain drain issues and attract leading scholars, as well as various other initiatives to address research scholarships, networks of centres of excellence, emerging technologies and international S&T partnerships. Sustaining this large‐scale investment with more scholars and infrastructure is the new challenge.
The 2007 Strategy (it is variously called a strategic plan, a policy and a multi‐year framework—readers can choose their respective comfort levels) focuses on the entrepreneurial, technological and talent fixes that can address economic competitiveness and social development while recognizing that—by any measure—the private sector in Canada is responsible for the country’s poor historical showing in R&D. In his speech to launch the May Strategy, the Prime Minister echoed the same question about the country’s abysmal industrial R&D performance, as did his Conservative predecessor almost exactly 20 years ago. Whereas Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Waterloo on 17 May 2007 that ‘Private sector investment in research and development has fallen well below that of most of our major international competitors’, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney used an address in Waterloo delivered on 4 March 1987, to reflect on the same concern: ‘Private sector R&D spending in Canada is much lower than most of our major economic competitors. Why is that?’
Indeed, the new Strategy argues for a strong private sector commitment to S&T (a so‐called entrepreneurial advantage). Selected closed‐door consultations with the private sector have taken place across the country to try to channel new ideas on this critical link to the innovation system. It also calls for continued strengthening of Canada’s knowledge base with world‐class excellence as a standard, and adds that talented skilled people are the most critical elements to the strategy.
The Strategy offers some new funding to mostly existing programmes such as those noted above, but it also provides markers for new ways of doing business in an era of diminished funding expectations and increased public accountability. For instance, the 20‐year‐old Networks of Centres of Excellence Programme has now been expanded and morphed to create internationally recognized Centres of Excellence in Commercialization and Research in four priority areas: environmental science and technologies; natural resources and energy; health and related life sciences and technologies; and information and communications technologies.
The new Strategy also makes it clear that any new funding of its granting councils (Canada has three such organizations devoted to the health sciences, natural sciences and engineering, and humanities and social sciences) will be targeted on key priorities such as health sciences, energy, environment, ICT and management, business and finance. In addition, the accountability of the granting councils has been scrutinized to improve the governance of the councils; adopt a more integrated approach to support academic research and improve client service; and ensure that grant application procedures are competitive and promote international excellence.
In order to address a long‐standing debate about obtaining more practical applications and commercial outcomes from public investments in research and new modes of business partnerships with the federal government laboratory infrastructure, the Strategy puts in place an independent expert panel to examine options for transferring non‐regulatory federal laboratories to universities or the private sector. This specific initiative tries once again to crack an old chestnut that has bedevilled Canadian science policy since the 1960s: how to provide effective incentives for public research to move closer to the market. The expert panel was appointed in August and is now busy identifying criteria and advice on transferring federal non‐regulatory laboratories, including a range of different management options. It plans to report to the Treasury Board in the Fall of 2007.
All new governments invariably review their advisory structures and either alter their names and/or consolidate them. The current Conservative minority Government is no exception. Hence the strategy report underscores the need for a new consolidated advisory council for S&T and innovation that replaces three existing advisory councils (even though the impact of these earlier bodies was never publicly evaluated). This new Science, Technology and Innovation Council will provide advice on S&T issues and produce state‐of‐the‐nation reports that benchmark Canada’s S&T performance against international standards of excellence. The National Science Advisor to the Minister responsible for S&T (Canada has no Ministry of Science or Research; science and research are subsumed under the functions of the Ministry of Industry) and the newly formed Council of Canadian Academies will also supply science assessments on key topics. The latter, for example, is undertaking a commissioned policy study for Industry Canada on how the innovation performance of Canadian firms should be assessed (www.scienceadvice.ca).
One could explore the Strategy further but in essence it covers much of what has now become de rigueur in current innovation and science policy circles—i.e. stimulate the role of the private sector as the motor for innovation; have the government act as a catalyst in dealing with regulatory, IP and other issues impeding innovation; ensure incentives for talented creative individuals to operate at global and world class standards with the appropriate infrastructure; and enhance institutional partnerships to leverage knowledge and innovative assets both domestically and internationally.
While Canadian science policy has arguably undergone a remarkable institutional experimentation over the past decade, often providing new knowledge models for other countries to consider such as those of the Canada Research Chairs and Networks of Centres of Excellence, the new Canadian Strategy would appear, perhaps understandably, to be rather conservative in its approach. Likely, science and innovation will face a colder climate. More radical approaches with the full participation of the key stakeholders including the private sector and the provinces, will have to wait for the next in the series of science and innovation policies that has marked the Canadian policy landscape.
© 2007 Paul R. Dufour
Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice
Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom (Eds)
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2007, xiii+353 pp., US$36, ISBN 978‐0‐262‐08357‐7 hbk
This book is a collection of 12 papers, from varying disciplines, which explore different aspects of ‘knowledge commons’. The editors, Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, are both eminently qualified to shape such a project. Hess is the director of the Digital Library of the Commons, a flagship for the ‘knowledge commons’ concept, while Ostrom is the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science at Indiana University. Clearly, the editors are well placed to paint a picture of what the knowledge commons concept offers.
The book grew out of a meeting organised by the editors, which took the form of a ‘Workshop on Scholarly Communication as a Commons’, held in 2004. That meeting brought together a range of scholars from throughout the US. While the book extends beyond ‘scholarly communication as a commons’ to embrace broader knowledge commons issues, scholarly communication is a recurring theme and the audience is assumed to be largely academic. The style of writing varies from dense analysis to more easily read text that is akin to a persuasive rhetorical style. Seeing what relates such diverse contributions to each other and a coherent view of the knowledge commons could be a challenging task—although the distinctly US‐centric focus could help North American readers to feel at home.
It is worth noting, upfront, that the book’s eclectic structure can pose a problem for those who seek to review it. A comment on the minutiae of one particular chapter, which basically stands alone from the rest of the work, could cause the reviewer to fly off at tangents. Sympathetic readers might see the book’s apparent attempt to travel in many directions at the same time as part of its vital force: something that makes it vibrant and relevant. Conversely, sceptics may sense something akin to an extreme fairground ride that throws the body in different directions: potentially exhilarating for the enthusiastic, disturbing to others and terrifying to those who have serious doubts about the ride’s safety.
Fortunately, potential readers who like to look before they part with their money can sneak a preview of what is on offer. The papers presented at the workshop that inspired (but do not constitute) the book are available online at the Digital Library of the Commons (http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/). Perusing this resource may prove to be a useful exercise for those considering purchasing the book.
What’s It All About?
The editors describe a commons as a ‘resource shared by a group of people that is subject to social dilemmas’ (p. 3). Traditional commons research has focused on the joint usage of a natural resource, for example, a field for cattle grazing. This area of research developed the famous ‘tragedy of the commons’ concept, which refers to the depletion that can occur when people ‘free ride’ on a shared commons without contributing to its upkeep. The concept of a knowledge commons is a much newer area of research, distinct in many ways from its conceptual heritage, inspired in large part by the arrival of the Internet. It is still, however, essentially about sharing a common resource—knowledge—and the social dilemmas involved. While a knowledge commons may not suffer from over‐use (indeed the greater the number of knowledge sharing participants the greater the common good), other issues present themselves, for example, the perceived enclosure of the knowledge commons through intellectual property rights, and challenges surrounding its preservation and development.
Divided into three parts, the book moves from ‘Studying the Knowledge Commons’ (Chapters 1–3) to ‘Protecting the Knowledge Commons’ (Chapters 4–6) and concludes with ‘Building New Knowledge Commons’ (Chapters 7–12). While there is some linkage between the chapters, they are largely distinct pieces of work with some mutual referencing. A positive consequence of this arrangement is that, given the range of topics, readers—especially academic readers—are likely to find some chapters that speak to their interests, at least tangentially. Who, after all, is not interested in knowledge? Nevertheless, the book covers contrasting topics and its loosely connected structure (beyond the broad theme of a ‘knowledge commons’) does open it up to the criticism that it ‘says a little about a lot’ as opposed to the more traditional academic approach of ‘saying a lot about a little’.
Either way it is possible, without resolving the issue as to whether an overarching context exists within which to judge the book, to assess whether it meets the goals set for it by the editors. Their discussion of the book’s purpose (p. 3) suggests that it tries to:
- •
‘[provide] an introduction to a new way of looking at knowledge as a shared resource, a complex ecosystem that is a commons’;
- •
‘illustrate the analytical benefits of applying a multitiered approach that burrows deeply into the knowledge commons ecosystem, drawing from several different disciplines’; and
- •
‘explore the puzzles and issues that all forms of knowledge share, particularly in the digital age’.
While the book does indeed provide an accessible introduction to thinking about knowledge as a commons, the extent to which the ecosystem is presented as ‘complex’ is questionable. In what may be considered a virtue by some, fostering the knowledge commons is presented as a reasonably straightforward proposition, which might work—if the relevant audiences accept the optimistic advocacy of the authors. But such optimism can militate against serious criticism. And the depth to which the chapters burrow into the knowledge commons ecosystem is debatable. Hence, it is also debatable whether the analysis reaches a point where it can claim to have dealt with the concept of ‘knowledge’ in a fundamental way, i.e. examined its puzzles and issues, which surely extend beyond the knowledge as commons analogy. For example, the book may have benefited from a serious discussion on how its use of the concept of knowledge differs from that of information.
Studying the Knowledge Commons
The first part of the book comprises three chapters, the first and third of which are authored by the editors. As indicated above, Chapter 1 offers the editors’ overview of commons research and knowledge commons research in particular. In Chapter 2: ‘The Growth of the Commons Paradigm’, David Bollier sets the concept of the commons in context by developing a succinct overview of the way in which it has come to be used.
Chapter 3 concludes the opening section by developing a framework for analysis. In one of the book’s most substantial chapters, the editors reconfigure an established framework that has been used by many commons scholars from a diversity of disciplines. This involves an Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, which is: ‘a diagnostic tool that can be used to investigate any broad subject where humans repeatedly interact with rules and norms that guide their choice of strategies and behaviors’ (p. 41). Using the example of establishing a digital repository within an organisation, the editors adapt this framework to study the knowledge commons. They offer a convincing demonstration of the framework’s applicability to studying the knowledge commons, which is reaffirmed in Chapter 10 when Charles Schweik uses the framework to describe the commons aspects of Free/Open‐Source Software.
Protecting the Knowledge Commons
This section begins with a chapter by Nancy Kranich, which explores how the knowledge commons has been partially enclosed from the public and outlines ways in which this restrictive movement has been countered. Some examples of enclosure include the privatisation and classification of government information, journal mergers, digital‐rights management software and copyright law changes. Kranich describes ways of opposing the enclosure of the knowledge commons through: open access journals, digital repositories, digital libraries, community based preservation efforts, learning and information communities, and innovative licensing of information. The chapter concludes with: a discussion on research libraries and their potential future knowledge commons role, an outline of governing and financing issues that relate to the knowledge commons, and a call for research on the adoption of these efforts to distribute information in new ways.
Chapter 5 is a contribution by James Boyle that examines what greater access to cultural and scholarly work by the non‐academic public might mean for culture, scholarship and science itself. Boyle concludes that the more cultural and scholarly resources that are available, the more open the system, and the more accessible the system, the better. One example cited by Boyle that he claims demonstrates the feasibility of widely available open systems to contribute value to the knowledge commons is the development of the Internet as a credible fact‐checking resource, despite its lack of editorial control. The chapter also includes a critique by Boyle of the copyright system as it stands now, which suggests that its effects extend beyond encouraging the creation of new works, to building an unnecessary system of restrictions.
The last chapter on protecting the knowledge commons is written by Donald Walters. Walters examines a problem likely faced by many readers—the fleeting nature of some knowledge commons resources. For example, he cites a study that found 53% of Internet references within the resources examined were inactive after seven years. Walters also notes the inability of libraries to archive electronic journals that are available on the basis of a contract that only allows for temporary access. Problems that relate to the preservation of the knowledge commons over time are examined by Walters in the specific case of electronic access to journals, and knowledge commons resources more generally.
Building New Knowledge Commons
The final section of the book is the longest and contains six chapters on the theme of building new knowledge commons. The first chapter is by Peter Suber, and is a highlight of this book. Suber advocates, with palpable enthusiasm, the creation of open access (OA) scholarly resources. Ways to make open access to scholarly resources a reality, despite the costs of digitisation, online distribution and peer review are discussed. Other barriers to the success of an open access intellectual commons are also addressed including royalty issues, convincing authors to participate and potential ‘tragedies of the OA commons’.
Chapter 8, by Shubha Ghosh, is a dense US‐centric legal analysis of intellectual property’s role in the knowledge commons. Ghosh specifically examines whether intellectual property is constrictive, facilitating or irrelevant. Ghosh concludes that each view is informative, however a better topic to explore is ‘how intellectual property is an instrument that we can fashion and utilize in designing the information commons’ (p. 225). To this end he provides three guiding principles and elaborates on them using two topical examples: file sharing and ‘experimental use’.
Peter Levine’s examination of knowledge creation through civic engagement forms Chapter 9. Levine contends that the process of public knowledge creation results in skill development that enables effective citizenship, increased social capital and stronger communities. An illustrative example of his work exploring the geographic causes of obesity, with the participation of the local community, is presented. Levine promotes the need for local knowledge generation involving as many people as possible, particularly the young, and suggests a role for universities in making this happen.
The next chapter comprises Charles Schweik’s argument for the relevance of the Free/Open‐Source framework to building a knowledge commons for science. Schweik suggests the Open‐Source framework used to develop software through collaboration can be used for any intellectual property, possibly increasing the speed of knowledge discovery and innovation. In order to achieve this several issues need to be addressed, including: licensing factors, technological infrastructure to support collaboration, and adaptation required to suit the norms of the academy.
Chapter 11 contains an analysis of the changing role of research libraries by Wendy Lougee, particularly the move from archive of information to collaborator and potentially catalyst within communities of interest. Changes in content and publication, disciplines, and libraries are discussed.
The final chapter of the book is James C. Cox and J. Todd Swarthout’s description of the EconPort system, a digital library of microeconomics, available to all those with access to the Internet. EconPort is used as a practical example of issues involved in the creation and maintenance of a knowledge commons.
Is it a Coherent Picture?
While the authors manage to put a huge range of knowledge‐commons paint on the canvas, it is difficult to see the whole as greater than the sum of its parts, and picking on one part of the picture as a basis for saying what is wrong with the book could appear churlish. It would be akin to critiquing one splash or corner of a Jackson Pollock painting. Nevertheless, a collection of authors talking about their own areas of expertise in short chapters hardly seems commensurate with cohesion. In sum, the reader is provided with impressions of issues associated with the knowledge commons. While those impressions could excite some people’s curiosity, many readers may struggle to see something truly significant amid a kaleidoscope of ideas that appear too unstructured and too varied.
© 2007 Daniel Oost
Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America
Giles Slade
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2006, 330 pp., US$27.95, ISBN 0‐674‐02203‐3 hbk
‘What place will history hold for a society addicted to mass consumption?’ Giles Slade’s book purports to ‘give us a detailed and harrowing picture of how, by choosing to support ever‐shorter product lives, we may well be shortening the future of our own way of life’ (dust‐jacket notes). If only this were the case. Instead the book, well researched, but poorly edited and repetitive, is more a mapping out of its author’s ideas and research, than it is even the collection of ‘stories’ that Slade tells us it contains (p. 6). It is long on facts, but short on factual analysis and interpretation. This in itself is curious, as Slade informs his readers at the outset that there is an impressive ‘volume of print (which) Americans have devoted to this topic since 1927’ which ‘demonstrates that obsolescence has become a touchstone of the American consciousness’ (p. 6).
By far, the best chapter ‘Repetitive Consumption’, is also the first. Herein, Slade traces the long relationship between mass production and over‐production. He points out that even before ‘mass production became a universally accepted term in the 1950s, American businessmen worried about over‐production’ (p. 9). Their remedy was not to produce less, but to attempt to sell more. Hence, solutions to the problem of over‐production included over‐stimulation of demand, which Slade traces historically as ‘a wide range of manufacturing strategies, from branding, packaging and creating disposable products to continuously changing the styles of nondisposable products so that they became psychologically obsolete’ (p. 11). He traces the history of branding, from around the 1850s when sewing machine and agricultural machinery manufacturers began to display prominently their company names, ‘as the initial step between establishing a direct relationship between the company and its customers’ (p. 11). Slade goes on to say that while food manufacturers could not ‘screw a metal nameplate onto their products’ what they did do was to ‘advertise their brand by enclosing those products in fancy packaging’ (p. 11). Where biscuits used to be purchased ‘in bulk from an open cracker barrel in a local store’ (p. 12) this soon gave way to a much wider range of packaging, including, for example, National Biscuit’s patented In‐Er‐Seal packaging which kept biscuits fresh by keeping moisture out (p. 12).
The so‐called ‘disposable culture’ began in earnest in America around the middle of the nineteenth century, when for example, developments in paper manufacturing machinery ‘made paper a practical substitute for cloth’ and paper shirt fronts, collars and cuffs became widespread: in 1872 150 million disposable shirt collars and cuffs were produced (p. 13). Paper manufacturers, Slade tells us, ‘encouraged by the repetitive consumption of disposable paper products for both men and women’, went on to develop toilet paper, paper cups, paper towels, paper straws, so that ‘gradually Americans generalize(d) their throwaway habit to other goods’ (p. 24). Americans, he writes, ‘displayed a profound ambivalence concerning thrift and waste’ (p. 24). Thrift, at times ‘taken to ridiculous extremes in American public life’ (p. 25), for example, when the postmaster general Frank H. Hitchcock ‘ordered his clerks to extend the life of their […] pencils by issuing them with a tin ferrule that extended the length and life of a pencil stub’, could also provoke backlash (p. 25). Thus in 1921, the National Prosperity Committee was launched by New York retailers to combat thrift and C. W. Taber could confidently write, ‘hoarding is vulgar, […] fatal to character and a danger to the community and nation’ (p. 26). Paradoxically, as ‘the durability or reliability of mass‐produced goods like automobiles’ was more and more taken for granted, and a corresponding decrease in levels of production might have been anticipated, ‘a new generation of consumers […] now turned their attention to comfort, luxury and prestige in the products they bought’. Producers again had to consider the ways in which, rather than cutting production, demand could be increased. Slade states that this ‘movement against thrift was an essential precursor to psychological or fashion‐based obsolescence’. By the 1920s, ‘the habit of conserving worn goods for reuse was challenged on a variety of fronts, hoarding had become a bad word, and stodgy older values, including durability and thrift were gradually rejected by government officials, engineers, and the general public’ (p. 27).
It is a great pity that the writing and editing in the subsequent eight chapters does not match this illustrious opening chapter. Slade is long in detail and short on discussion and one soon becomes bogged down in the relentless litany of names, dates, and odd pieces of sometimes quite disconnected information that he freely dispenses in the subsequent chapters. ‘The Annual Model Change’ (Chapter 2), on the motor industry; product obsolescence and planned obsolescence in radio manufacturing and in consumer electronics, ‘Radio Radio’ (Chapter 4); silk versus nylon, the housing industry and, somewhat puzzlingly, the atomic bomb (Chapter 5, ‘The War and Postwar Progress’). Slade’s book peters out in Chapter 8, on ‘Cell Phones and E‐Waste’, which limps home with his stated hope that ‘informed customers and responsive manufacturers, (…) will, I believe, see the benefits of genuinely serving their customers’ interests through green design’ (p. 281). But given all that has preceded, it is hard to see how Slade can confidently predict such a volte‐face in both consumer and producer attitudes and action. He highlights, albeit briefly, one of the key problems of recycling with its ‘unexamined positive connotations for most Americans, (is that it) can obscure a host of ills’ (p. 279). He tells us that until recently, ‘e‐waste has moved surreptitiously and illegally from North American stockpiles to countries in the developing world’ where ‘a complex network of cottage industries’ salvages, in ‘a variety of unregulated and unsafe ways’ America’s discarded electronics. Slade seems to have very little evidence to support his view that ‘the overwhelming problem of waste of all kinds will (…) compel American manufacturers to modify industrial practices that feed upon a throwaway ethic’ (p. 281). The rise and rise of consumer culture, the cult of celebrity, the prevalence of advertising and product placement are just a few of the indications that we are still some considerable way from what Slade calls the ‘industrial challenge of the new century’ where ‘planned disassembly and reuse’ (p. 281) will be integral parts of the product life cycle. This book promises much, and it indeed makes a very full, if over‐detailed exploration of the chronology and facts of obsolescence. What would have been infinitely more interesting would have been an exploration, less of the historical and more of the psychological and sociological factors of obsolescence: in brief, why it is that modern society has a psychosis for excess and waste on such vast scales.
© 2007 Suzanne Mieczkowska
International Competitiveness and Technological Change
Marcela Miozzo and Vivien Walsh
New York, Oxford University Press, 2006, xii+360 pp., US\(\)39.95, ISBN 9780199259243 pbk
Marcela Miozzo and Vivien Walsh deal with the role of technological change and innovation. Although economists have long recognized the economic significance of innovation and technological change, they have found these issues hard to handle. Miozzo and Walsh examine a number of key questions concerned with such things as: the way in which institutions in various nations differ in their encouragement or discouragement of innovation; how industrial sectors provide or fail to provide incentives to innovate; the significance of research and development (R&D) spending; the technological capabilities of firms in their encouragement of innovation; the operation of multinationals; and, how international trade negotiations influence national production and innovation systems. The book presents insights into the literature that should help researchers and scholars who share the authors’ interests. Readers are introduced to many facets of contemporary discussion about technological change and innovation in 10 chapters, which are organized in four parts.
Part I is an introduction. It sets the stage for developing ideas used in the rest of the book by discussing the relation between innovation and economic development, drawing on the work of Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Marx, and considering R&D activity as the main source of innovation. The discussion is supported throughout by extensive references to innovation studies, technological changes, competition, and economic development, the views of other authors, and scholars. Essentially, this book is a combination of insights from scholars working on innovation studies and the insights of economists specializing in the study of industrial development and international competition:
While the strength of the contributions from scholars working on innovation from an evolutionary and neo‐Schumpeterian perspective is their focus on the role of technology in industrial development and change, their weakness is how business capabilities and organization fits into the story. For that reason, we complement the insights of innovation scholars working from a neo‐Schumpeterian perspective with the insights from business history, sociology, and economics on the relation between organizational structure and context in the process of innovation. Economic development is regarded here as a structural process that combines business innovation strategy with organizational capabilities to create new economic possibilities (p. 17).
Thus, the book tries to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries with an avowedly transdisciplinary approach.
Miozzo and Walsh argue that mainstream economics, dealing with the competitive strategies and attributes of firms, is deficient when it comes to explaining the occurrence of innovation in an economy and the impact of innovation on economic development and the competitiveness of regions and countries. They support their argument by summarizing the main problems that mainstream economics has in dealing with innovation. According to the authors, mainstream economics is obsessed with equilibrium and the ideology of markets; it regards technology as given and ignores the organization of production. On the other hand, the authors consider the well‐known views of Schumpeter and Marx on capitalism, innovation, and economic development as an alternative approach in explaining the manner in which innovation occurs and its relation with economic development and competitiveness.
Part II comprises Chapters 3–5, which offer an historical perspective on the shifts in international leadership, since the late‐nineteenth century, associated with new technologies and new organizations. The authors illustrate the way in which changes in organizations and technology account for changes in industrial dominance. These span a shift, first from Britain in the late‐nineteenth century to the USA and Germany in the early twentieth century, and then to Japan after the Second World War, before the recent return to the USA. Part II also examines the organizational and technological capabilities behind the rise of the successful East Asian newly industrializing countries. I found Part II well organized and impressively informative in terms of presenting the shifts in industrial dominance, as characterized by changes in the forms of business and production organization in the leading industrial economies. The authors succeed in drawing the reader’s attention to one of their fundamental arguments. Indeed, it is the argument on which this book is based: organizational and technological capabilities are responsible for shifts in industrial leadership.
An understanding of the historical role and characteristics of national systems is very important in order to cope with the problems caused by globalization. Part III examines the concept of innovation systems and their importance as globalization becomes a major theme. The discussion on institutions shows why national innovation systems are important to business firms, educational institutions, public sector research establishments, public policy, financial institutions, legal institutions, trade unions and political organizations, along with ethos, culture and attitudes towards entrepreneurship and risk taking. According to the authors,
the combination of new technology and appropriate institutions can lead to changes in industrial dominance of firms and the industrial leadership of countries. The industrial leadership of Britain in the Industrial Revolution, Germany and the USA at the end of the nineteenth century, and Japan after the Second World War are all examples of this (p. 143).
So, what is the point about new technology and institutions?
Part III includes a comparative perspective on the similarities and differences amongst sectors in the sources, nature, and the impact of innovation. The authors use the case studies based on their own research to explore sectoral patterns of technological change in services, construction, pharmaceuticals, agrofood, and chemicals. These findings suggest with some evidence that countries that do not have effective institutions in these sectors do not perform well in international markets, whereas countries that have tried to specialize in sub‐sectors where they have an appropriate knowledge base and institutional infrastructure have been successful in those sectors.
Part IV poses more questions. How do the changes in trade and the operation of multinationals influence the structure and organization of national production systems? What is the interaction between globalization and qualitative shifts in strategic alliances and networks? What are the reasons for the growth in alliances? What is the implication of globalization for national governments and for innovation? Part IV begins by focusing on the background to changes in international trade negotiations and policy frameworks. It reviews theories about the product cycle, new trade theory, the eclectic paradigm, global commodity chains, the views adopted within economic geography on knowledge creation and international division of labour, and the debates on the globalization of production and innovation. Next, the authors concentrate on the qualitative changes in the forms of organization and management structures of innovating firms since the qualitative changes are much more important than quantitative changes. The increased importance of FDI from the mid‐1980s, increased levels of intrafirm trade within multinationals, and important changes in the structures of the organizations in which innovation takes place are considered as qualitative changes. Finally, Part IV concludes by stating that multinationals are at the center of the process of globalization and the changing division of labour, together with the integration of strategy and management in multinationals. In short, multinationals have important effects on the systems of production and innovation in different countries and regions.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. Miozzo and Walsh write with enthusiasm and in an engaging style. Readers from many backgrounds should enjoy the engaging style of their writing. The book makes insightful contributions to the literature and is a stimulating read. It is original and innovative in its approach and achieves its objectives. Many interesting insights pepper the prose and it is difficult to convey the full flavor of what is on offer. The book’s strength is that readers will be stimulated with many new ideas for research. The weakness is that the book lacks the authors’ own insights.
© 2007 Güldem Gökçek