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

Wed Mar 26 14:39:12 EDT 2008

Paul,  

the art of rhetoric is mobilized not only in the field of law but also
in many other fields, such as economics, policy sciences and public
administration.  See for example McCloskey (1985) on an analysis of the
rhetorical aspects of argument in modern economics, Lindblom and Cohen
(1979) on persuasive processes in the policy sciences and Hood and
Jackson (1991) on the link between public administration argument and
persuasion. The proposition is that the impact of argument is a function
of its credibility, not necessarily of its truth.  

Rhetorical arguments may be true or false, but when the persuade they
serve as a shared frame of reference that enable individuals, groups and
organizations (=us) to deal with contradictions that can never be fully
resolved. They are ubiquitous, usually rest on soft data (selectively
drawn examples) and soft logic (use of persuasive example), they 'win'
over competing ideas by persuasion in communicative processes rather
than by hard factual evidence, and often are contradictory and unstable
(susceptible to new styles, fashions and fads).  But if they win they
may act to integrate behavior in a sensible way, being a source of
inspiration that experts, politicians and other participants in
geospatial development can use to enact social reality. And this is
fine!

I think that instead of looking at the truth or falsity of an argument
(e.g. that spatial information increases the GDP or something like that)
we should treat the argument as an object of study in itself using tools
of rhetorical analysis to understand how come argument X persuades in
circumstances Y.  We should also look at the historical evolution of
such arguments and how they have been 'domesticated' as they travelled
from place to place and across time especially from the North to the
South.  

To your invitation for additional research topics: 

I think that we should try to understand three 'worlds' in our research:
(i) the real world of practice (how exactly do policy makers use
information in the real world? which technological/administrative/policy
design produces which performance (based on whatever performance
criterion) in given circumstances in the real world?, etc), (ii) the
world of spatial information rhetoric and how it enables the enaction of
social reality in given circumstances in the real world and (iii) the
world of theories from different disciplines that can explain the other
two worlds.

Roger might say, that the answer to these questions at the end may be 42
:-)

Regards
Yola 

-----Original Message-----
From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
[mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:49 PM
To: ral at alum.mit.edu; Walter de Vries
Cc: SDI-legal-econ
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)

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