[GSDI Legal Econ] Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue 20

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

I am really enjoying this discussion thread and was wondering if you could
prove urls to some of the studies that have been mentioned in particular
the:

*PIRA International study of 2000
and the CODATA-OECD workshop results.

I am posting the links to those here 0 datalibre.ca

Cheers
Tracey
*



On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM, <legal-econ-request at lists.gsdi.org> wrote:

> Send Legal-Econ mailing list submissions to
>        legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        legal-econ-request at lists.gsdi.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        legal-econ-owner at lists.gsdi.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Legal-Econ digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Value of spatial information (2008) (Yola Georgiadou)
>   2. Re: Value of spatial information (2008) (Francis Harvey)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:39:12 +0100
> From: "Yola Georgiadou" <georgiadou at itc.nl>
> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
> To: "Uhlir, Paul" <PUhlir at nas.edu>, <ral at alum.mit.edu>, "Walter de
>        Vries" <devries at itc.nl>
> Cc: SDI-legal-econ <legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org>
> Message-ID: <5AF149DBB6DFE24AA3F4F53201E539AD01D90415 at itcnt24.itc.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:12:30 -0500
> From: Francis Harvey <francis.harvey at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
> To: "Yola Georgiadou" <georgiadou at itc.nl>
> Cc: SDI-legal-econ <legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org>, "Uhlir, Paul"
>        <PUhlir at nas.edu>
> Message-ID: <CF7976E7-AF3F-4E22-9461-BDBBCB5C5937 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Legal-Econ mailing list
> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
>
>
> End of Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue 20
> ******************************************
>



-- 
Tracey P. Lauriault
Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre
Dept. of Geography and Environmental Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa (ON) Canada
tlauriau at gmail.com
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gsdi.org/pipermail/legal-econ/attachments/20080326/cf6cab39/attachment-0001.html