Time for another installment related to my quest to unravel the deep hidden meanings of the Millennium Declaration (UNMD), the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), globalization, ICTs, etc.. If the UNMD is about globalization, which it largely is, the referenced document concerning ICTs, the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration (ECOSOC2K) is primarily about the knowledge-based economy (KBE). In the following essay I discuss what the knowledge-based economy is and how it relates to globalization, ICTs and development education. This is meant to be read as a continuation of my previous posting about globalization in the context of the UNMD and the MDGs. Click below to read on...
The UN Millennium Declaration (UNMD) doesn't say much about ICTs, other than that they should be available to all. Yet, the ICT4D agenda is largely based on the UNMD and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) derived from the UNMD. Luckily for us, the UNMD does indicate that what is referred to as "the benefits" of ICTs is explained in the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration (ECOSOC2K). Looking at the ECOSOC2K, we find that, according to ECOSOC, the primary justification for promoting ICTs is the emergence of the knowledge-based economy (KBE). The ECOSOC2K does not define the "knowledge-based economy", other than stating that (ECOSOC2K, pg. 2):
"The emerging new economy, characterized by a rapidly increasing reliance of value creation on information and knowledge, still remains concentrated in the developed countries. Unless access to and use of ICT is broadened, the majority of people particularly in the developing countries will not enjoy the benefits of the new knowledge-based economy."
While this doesn't exactly provide us with a useful definition of the concept, it does indicate that ICTs are necessary for the KBE and that this new economy can, and should, be beneficial to all. On the other hand, while at least providing a hint of what a KBE is meant to be, the use of language similar to the UNMD blurs the distinction, if there was one to begin with, between globalization, as discussed in the UNMD, and the KBE. This raises the question whether globalization and the KBE are intended to be understood as one and the same, entirely separate, or inextricably linked?
According to Godin (2006) the current concept of a knowledge-based economy (KBE) can be traced back to the beginning of the OECD's "National Innovation Systems" (NSI) project. The project was launched in the early 1990's to encourage member states to formulate policies that "... maximise performance and well-being in “knowledge-based economies” – economies which are directly based on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information." (OECD, 1996).
Godin (2006) identifies two distinct focuses in NSI related literature:
- Institutional focus - Emphasis is on the importance of formal institutions within member states, as producers of knowledge and innovation, and the regulations that govern those institutions.
- Theoretical focus - Emphasis is on the nature of knowledge and learning as a process that contributes to the flow of information and knowledge.
Godin goes on to claim that the concept of a KBE, as it is currently understood, emerged from the theoretically focused discourse (pg. 18), which was led by B. A. Lundvall, former deputy director of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Instead of focusing on the institutional infrastructure with it's traditional notion of R&D departments as the centers of innovation and knowledge creation, Lundvall heralded the emergence of a "learning society" in which everyone is, by virtue of their inherent capacity for renewing existing knowledge, a potential source of innovation (Lundvall, 1992; Lundvall and Johnson, 1994). Hence, for an economy that seeks to capitalize on innovative ideas, knowledge becomes the primary resource and learning the primary process for generating useable resources. But, Lundvall's notion of a "learning society" (or "learning economy" (Johnson and Lundvall, 2001)), is meant to address more than just the need for innovation in a KBE. The rise of the KBE, as a learning economy, is a reaction to globalization with its increasingly rapid changes in global relations, global markets, and the way we conduct our lives. In Lundvall's conceptualization of the KBE, the way to deal with such rapid change is to prepare individuals for a lifetime of continuous learning. But, in recent literature, the KBE has more commonly been defined in terms of the economic returns that can be expected from existing and new knowledge (Harris, 2001; Godin, 2006). In this discourse, that is increasingly focused on devising means to account for knowledge (like traditional bookkeeping), Lundvall's emphasis on the "learning process" is pushed to the background. The resulting conceptualization of knowledge as a pseudo-tangible resource that can be collected and passed around fuels the blurring of the distinction between globalization and the KBE, because globalization is often associated with the transfer of knowledge and culture.
The notion of the KBE presented in the ECOSOC2K leans more toward Lundvall's "theoretical" conceptualization. Section 14. (pg. 4) includes a lengthy list of recommendations for national programs intended to promote development with the aid of ICTs in the context of the KBE. These recommendations can be characterized in terms of four general processes related to the shift toward thinking in terms of knowledge products:
- Production - generate knowledge and use it.
- Acquisition - access to information that reflects various perspectives.
- Absorption - learning from others.
- Dissemination - teaching others.
All of these clearly relate to the theoretical conceptualization of the KBE, emphasizing learning and information/knowledge sharing and use. Nevertheless, the ECOSOC2K states these in terms of both human resource development, i.e. the theoretical aspect, and institutions and networks, i.e. the institutional aspect. Potential conflict between these two aspects is avoided by presenting the institutional aspect as a means of providing "a conducive environment for the rapid diffusion, development and use of information technology" (pg. 4) whereas "Investment in education, including basic and digital literacy, remains the fundamental way of developing human capacity and should be at the heart of any national, regional and international information technology strategy." (pg. 3). So, clearly, the institutional aspect of the KBE is seen as an infrastructural issue meant to be addressed in a manner that will facilitate and promote the theoretical notion of a "learning economy".
Previously, I posed a question about the nature of the relationship between globalization and the KBE. The current conceptualization of globalization owes a lot to the spread of neo-liberal policies that have influenced institutional and organizational regulations, giving rise to the creation of a supraterritorial space in which these entities function. The institutional view of the KBE equates it with the regulatory mechanisms that make globalization possible. Hence, if we accept the institutional view of the KBE the distinction between the two is very unclear. On the other hand, if we take the theoretical view of the KBE, as a market based on "knowledge products", i.e. products based on the knowledge of individuals, the two are quite distinct and not even necessarily connected. We can easily imagine such a KBE without the global supraterritorial space, ex. as increased mobility of knowledgeable workers within a traditional territorial space. A concrete example would be the proliferation of information technology consultants. This is a profession that has seen a dramatic increase in numbers over the past few decades. Nevertheless, in the case of software-based problem-solvers (i.e. that do not work with hardware or create software), they do not necessarily market any specific tangible products or skills. Their business may be entirely based on what they know and their work may have little or nothing to do with globalization (as long as we allow ourselves to disregard the business concerns of their clients).
The views of the relationship between globalization and the KBE as the one and the same or as entirely distinct are not likely to produce any helpful long-term development benefits. Both fail to address what we actually see happening in the world as a result of what these concepts claim to describe, i.e. the increasingly rapid rate of change on a global scale. Thomas Friedman (2004)documents several examples of currently ongoing changes in his book, The World is Flat. Perhaps the most dramatic of these are the changes taking place as a result of the rise of the ICT-based service-sector in India. "Services" in this context basically applies to any process that can be facilitated through the transfer of information, including support services, accounting, industrial design, software programming, etc.. This market is largely based on the outsourcing of knowledge intensive services from countries geographically located far from India. The results of the changes that this entails are not obvious to everyone (especially consumers of these services), but within specific professions they are painfully obvious. Since certain knowledge intensive and specific services can now be obtained very cheaply from far away from where they are actually needed, professionals within the locales from where these services were traditionally obtained have had to redefine the nature of their business. This has meant that individuals have had to re-educate themselves just to be able to make effective use of their previous knowledge and stay relevant within their fields. And, as the traditional service providers continue to expand their knowledge, so do the outsourcees, creating a global flow of knowledge needs and development.
This then brings us back to Lundvall's theoretical conceptualization of the KBE as a learning economy. The notion of the KBE as a learning economy captures the needs associated with the increased global dispersion of services and production processes. Because these are increasingly subject to rapid change, individuals need to be able to educate and re-educate themselves constantly based on developments that may be going on anywhere in the world. Furthermore, to be able to adequately evaluate their changing knowledge needs, they need to be able to stay abreast of local and distant developments. Hence, the KBE emerges not as a result of the marketability of specific "knowledge products", but the marketability of the ability to adapt and change through continuous learning. What ties the KBE to globalization is that both are based on and rely on ICTs (Thurow, 2000; Harris, 2001). Without ICTs, global supraterritoriality, i.e. the space in which transactions increasingly take place, would be hindered by the need to deal with traditional territorial concerns, such as transportation, monetary exchange, regulatory issues, etc.. In the context of the KBE, ICTs are necessary to access, generate and share knowledge and information needed to enter and maintain relevance within the global supraterritoriality. The ECOSOC2K clearly makes these connections between ICTs, continuous learning and the KBE. But, it also recognizes the difficulties faced by many developing regions of the world, primarily the lack of infrastructure needed to implement ICTs in a useful manner. The UNMD, on the other hand, integrates the ECOSOC2K concerns about the KBE into a broader agenda concerned with globalization. Together these form the type of whole consistent with Lundvall's conceptualization of the KBE as a learning economy for maximizing the potential benefits of globalization.
The ECOSOC2K is crucial to defining and understanding the ICT4D agenda in the context of the UNMD and the MDGs. Because ECOSOC2K relates the goals of ICTs in development work to the KBE understood primarily as a "learning economy", learning becomes an inherent overarching concept throughout the ICT4D agenda. The concept of lifelong learning, in the sense of the "Delors Report" (The UNESCO Delors Report: Learning: The Treasure Within), i.e. "lifelong, lifewide and lifedeep", is central to the view of the KBE, as an open and democratic environment where knowledge is generated, shared and utilized, that is presented in ECOSOC2K. Therefore, when considering the impact of ICT4D initiatives, we should also consider their potential to foster learning environments consistent with the concept of lifelong learning. This would include the ability to critically analyze and utilize existing information for personal and institutional benefit, and the ability and self-confidence to generate and share existing and new knowledge in a global marketplace of ideas.
Posted by thay0012 at July 8, 2006 12:05 PM | TrackBack