[GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)

Wed Mar 26 14:29:46 EDT 2008

Yes, but we should take a step back. If we analyze the arguments of  
scientists, engineers, lawyers and policymakers, we find that the  
performance (performativity theory takes this up in great detail) is  
what matters--even when it comes to scientific laws. Historians have  
done yeoman's work on this issue. (Shapin, S. and S. Schaffer (1985).  
Leviathan and the Air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life.  
Princeton, Princeton University Press. and Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust  
in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life.  
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press are definitely worth reading).

Indeed, Roger's choice of the word 'exercise' in his initial email  
suggests indeed that this a type of intellectual calisthenics to  
prepare us for the performance--a performance that governments,  
engineers, and scientists have been running for hundreds of years.  
Modernity for some, others still think of it as enlightenment. The  
performance is straightforward? No, you have to lean the explicit and  
implicit rules--the "mountains of information" Roger points too we  
need to consider for this exercise. Can't just go and perform after  
reading--the etiquette is critical too in a community.

I'd like to know more about the politics of the methodologies and  
their audiences--or, to go back to an earlier message in more detail-- 
just what the purpose of the 'exercise' is from a thoroughly argued  
and grounded perspective on cost/benefit analysis. We can 'imagine'  
what the performance is about--why we perform and the political issues  
are key.

Francis

On 26 Mar 2008, at 11:49, Uhlir, Paul wrote:

> This is a good discussion and I especially appreciate the book chapter
> on the value of info.
>
> A couple of observations on what has been said thus far:
>
> Yola raises important distinctions, which can be characterized further
> as belonging to the legal and scientific/engineering methods of
> presenting arguments. There are some lawyer/scientists (or  
> engineers) in
> this group, but generally the worldview and practices of these two  
> types
> of professions are not easily bridged. On the one hand, the sci/eng  
> will
> seek to provide rigorous fact-based analysis, including all the
> limitations of the method and the uncertainties in the results (I know
> there are differences between sci/eng and even within different sci
> disciplines, but I am making a broad characterization here that I
> believe is correct). On the other hand, a lawyer will cherry-pick the
> facts, emphasizing the favorable ones, minimizing the unfavorable, and
> always attacking the opponent's position in favor of the one the  
> lawyer
> is paid to uphold. The lawyer will seek to make the strongest possible
> argument to deliver a winning position in a rhetorical contest,
> frequently hiding the uncertainties or counteracting facts. The two
> methods are thus frequently incompatible and used very differently for
> different purposes. Many policymakers are lawyers or at least think  
> like
> them and are swayed by legal arguments that can also convince their
> constituents. To the extent that the sci/eng results have significant
> uncertainties (and many do), the sci/eng will undermine the
> effectiveness of his/her own argument in favor of methodological  
> rigor.
> Lawyers and policymakers try to dismiss the (inconvenient) empirical
> facts and create their own version of reality (consider, e.g., the  
> Bush
> administration's policies on climate change).
>
> With regard to methodologies, one of the outcomes of the CODATA-OECD
> workshop last month was that my office would develop a research agenda
> (focused on US implementation, but that could be adopted in many other
> countries/contexts) for improving the understanding of the economic  
> and
> social effects of networked information. I expect to begin on this
> within a year and it will take some time, but hopefully will add some
> further rigor to such assessments, stimulate more work in this area,  
> and
> generally support more empirically grounded policymaking in this very
> large and important area. Some preliminary topics that we would want  
> to
> address are:
>
> Network effects
> Network externalities (both positive and negative)
> Role and effects of automated online knowledge extraction and reuse
> Value of individual users/reusers (vs. corp reusers)
> Methodologies for understanding social values (most are focused on
> economic value)
> Characterizing the pros and cons of different methodologies and their
> application to research on networked info
> Identification of research directions and possible pilot projects
> Promotion of the involvement by young researchers
>
> I would welcome comments or suggestions for additional research  
> topics.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
> [mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Roger Longhorn
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:51 AM
> To: Walter de Vries
> Cc: SDI-legal-econ
> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
>
> Walter de Vries wrote:
>> Hi Vlado /Roger / Yola,
>>
>> I would certainly be interested in contributing. My estimate is that
> the
>> two reports are very alike and are based on similar methodologies
>> (largely survey / questionnaire based). It might however not be bad  
>> to
>> be a bit critical towards these methodologies and these numerical
>> "value" figures (just read James Scott : seeing like a state).
>>
> Walter, the problem I found with the OXERA report, similar to a very
> large study by PIRA International on the value (economic and  
> investment)
>
> of Public Sector Information, with a significant GI component - was  
> that
>
> there was too little detail in either of these reports to fully
> understand the methodology - and assumptions.
>> I would think that in a chain economy - with use and re-use - many
>> figures are counted more than once, and as a result are not so
> reliable.
>>
> Too true - and also true for all forms of 'information' - which can be
> used, used and used again, without being consumed. The classic problem
> in trying to treat information like most other goods. So is each
> use/re-use adding value to the economy? Many will say, "Yes, of  
> course"
> - but where do you draw the line between the 'value' of property
> boundary - or more importantly, a very large (national?) collection of
> property boundaries - as an information object versus the multiple,
> value-generating purposes for which that the property boundary(ies)  
> can
> be used?
>> More importantly, we may also ask whether these are at all useful to
>> public managers and politicians.
> Sadly, most high-level decision makers - those who control budgets,
> especially - are exactly the ones who *want* 'numeric figures' -  
> which I
>
> contend have little value in themselves, since they will always be  
> based
>
> on, or derived from, numerous assumptions such as those touched on
> above. Hence the need to re-educate decision makers / politicians in
> new, more constructive ways to look at 'value of information'? But
> surely, much of this must have already been faced one way or another  
> in
> developing the many grandiose e-Government strategies that abound
> globally - and which are very expensive to implement.
>> The interesting dilemma from a public
>> economic perspective is the question how much public funds should
>> encourage investments by the private sector in GI and SDI.
> Economically,
>> the public sector has two types of instruments to encourage private
>> sectors: either coercive measures, such as regulation and through the
>> use of public (public information providing) institutions; or
>> non-coercive measures, including sponsoring, easing
>> participation/access, reduction of investment barriers and partial
>> investments. The economic difficulty in choosing any type of measures
> is
>> twofold: the first type of measures creates by definition  
>> transactions
>> costs for the private sector (in making sure how to apply the
>> regulations and their interactions with the institutions) and
>> enforcements costs for the public sector (in making sure the
> regulations
>> are implemented correctly), and as a result this is by definition
>> inefficient. The second type of measures is more efficient (economic
>> theory assumes the occurrence of investments in the public  
>> information
>> good provision of private sector if it is sufficiently attractive
> based
>> on all information necessary for making investment decisions), but  
>> the
>> public outcome of the measure is less predictable (meaning: the  
>> degree
>> to which the public information remains a public good is less known).
>>
>> Resuming, the value is not in the money, but in the extent to which  
>> it
>> is of value / importance to people, or to the quality of life. Maybe
>> this would be a good start for a qualitative (!) research exercise.
>>
> Exactly the problem/question - as first posed! What is the value of  
> GI?
> I attach a pre-publication version of Chapter 2 which looks at this
> issue from a book that Prof. Mike Blakemore and I produced recently  
> for
> CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Excuse typos, etc. as this was an early
> version. Also, it is not intended as a deeply researched treatise on  
> all
>
> the measures of 'value' for information - since numerous excellent  
> texts
>
> already exist on that subject (references can be found at the end of  
> the
>
> Chapter).
>> Please count me in.
>>
> Excellent. Since Vlado offered first, I suggest that he coordinate
> contributions? And if we continue to copy these to the list, everyone
> can participate if they wish to.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Roger
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
>> [mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Roger  
>> Longhorn
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:28 PM
>> To: Vlado Cetl
>> Cc: SDI-legal-econ
>> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
>>
>> Great, Vlado!
>>
>> Anyone else wish to join Vlado on this interesting work?
>>
>> I attach the 1999 OXERA report just in case some of you don't have  
>> it.
>>
>> Remember, we are not looking at another 'value of GIS' investigation
>> here - of which there are more than a few already existing - but
> rather
>> the trickier question of 'value of GI/spatial information' to an
> economy
>> and then the value of the SDI that is alleged to be needed in order  
>> to
>> make that spatial information most useful to the most users. The  
>> issue
>> is a serious one because, until you agree on 'value' it is quite
>> difficult - if not impossible - to conduct a meaningful Cost-Benefit
>> Analysis, in my opinion - and direct experience - using virtually any
> of
>> the many 'CBA' methodologies that exist.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> Vlado Cetl wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Roger,
>>>
>>> It is a very good idea to make it and I think it could be a very
>>> interesting research. I will give it a try (but time is always a
> limit
>>>
>>
>>
>>> factor ...)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> PhD Vlado Cetl
>>> Faculty of Geodesy
>>> Institute of Applied Geodesy
>>> Chair of Spatial Information Management Kaciceva 26, HR-10000  
>>> Zagreb,
>
>>> Croatia Tel. ++385 1 4639 191 Fax. ++385 1 4828 081
>>> Web: www.geof.hr
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Longhorn"
> <ral at alum.mit.edu>
>>> To: "SDI-legal-econ" <legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org>
>>> Cc: "Kate Lance" <lancekt at aya.yale.edu>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:38 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It might be an interesting exercise for some enterprising  
>>>> academic -
>
>>>> or academics - from within the Working Group to do a comparative
>>>> analysis of the methodologies, assumptions and findings between  
>>>> what
>
>>>> are now two in-depth studies into the 'value of spatial
>>>> information/GI' to a national economy - i.e. the OXERA study of  
>>>> 1999
>
>>>> which Ordnance Survey GB quotes repeatedly - which stated that
>>>> national mapping underpinned 100 billion GBP of the British economy
> -
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> and this new study. Perhaps with a side analysis of the PIRA
>>>> International study of 2000 into the economic and investment value
> of
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> public sector GI to the European economy and information market.
>>>>
>>>> Any takers?
>>>>
>>>> Roger Longhorn
>>>> co-Chair GSDI Legal & Socioeconomic W.G.
>>>>
>>>> Kate Lance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.crcsi.com.au/pages/news.aspx? 
>>>>> NewsArticleID=433&Display=1
>>>>>
> <http://www.crcsi.com.au/pages/news.aspx?NewsArticleID=433&Display=1
>>>>>
>>>>> Value of spatial information (2008)
>>>>> According to a new study on the economic impact of spatial
>>>>> information released by Australia's Spatial Information Council
>>>>> (ANZLIC), the spatial information industry is a major contributor
> to
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> the national economy generating revenue of A$1.37 billion in the
>>>>> 2006/07 financial year. This is a contribution of between $6.4 and
>>>>> $12.6 billion to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  The study also
>>>>> estimated that inefficient access to data reduces the direct
>>>>> productivity of some sectors by between five and 15 per cent.
>>>>> The complete study is available for download at
>>>>> http://www.crcsi.com.au/UPLOADS/PUBLICATIONS/PUBLICATION_324.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Legal-Econ mailing list
>>>>> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
>>>>> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Legal-Econ mailing list
>>>> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
>>>> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
>>>>
>>>> __________ NOD32 2973 (20080326) Information __________
>>>>
>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Legal-Econ mailing list
> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gsdi.org/pipermail/legal-econ/attachments/20080326/454b1241/attachment-0001.html 