[GSDI Legal Econ] Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue 20
Uhlir, Paul
PUhlir at nas.edu
Thu Mar 27 14:09:11 EDT 2008
Dear colleagues,
Here is the URL for the agenda and presentation slides from the US
CODATA - OECD workshop:
http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_34223_40046832_1_1_1_1,00
.html
<http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_34223_40046832_1_1_1_1,0
0.html>
The summary report from the meeting will be published on an OA basis by
this fall, as will a journal article that surveys the literature. I will
let the people on this list know when these publications are available.
Cheers,
Paul
________________________________
From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
[mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Yola Georgiadou
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:22 AM
To: Tracey P. Lauriault; legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue 20
I am also very interested in the CODATA-OECD workshop results.
Regards
Yola
________________________________
From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
[mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Tracey P.
Lauriault
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:44 PM
To: legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue
20
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/20080327/ca79a5d1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Legal-Econ
mailing list