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

Francis Harvey francis.harvey at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 18:12:30 EDT 2008 

Hello,
To pick up on Yola's conclusion: but 42 what?

Indeed, Sal Restivo has published work on rhetorics in accounting (way  
before Enron too) that I would also add to Yola's stimulating list of  
readings.

I might add as well that there's room for the social deconstruction of  
cost-benefit analysis. Deconstruction is something engineers are  
specialized in, but rarely share with the rest of us.

Francis

On 26 Mar 2008, at 13:39, Yola Georgiadou wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Legal-Econ mailing list
> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ

More information about the Legal-Econ mailing list