Knowledge as a Public Good - Essay Example

?Knowledge as a Public Good This paper discusses the extent to which knowledge can be regarded as a public good. Arguments supporting as well as challenging this view are discussed in the following sections. Some of the implications and challenges of creating a knowledge economy based on knowledge as a public good are identified. Comparing Knowledge and Public Goods Suber (2009) describes some of the important arguments that describe knowledge as a public good. Two characteristics of knowledge have led many scholars to argue for its being regarded as a public good instead of a private asset. These include non-rivalry and non-excludability. Suber (2009) describes that knowledge is non-rivalrous in the sense that its sharing among several people does not deplete its stock. This characteristic of knowledge is shared by other public goods such as air and sunshine. The second feature of knowledge is non-excludabilty. Once knowledge has been created, it is extremely difficult or impossible to limit people from accessing it as long as they have the resources and mental capacity to access it. At the same time, Suber (2009) also distinguishes between knowledge and its forms of expression. According to his argument, knowledge is a public good while its expression in the form of books and journal articles is not. Anderson (2006) argues that knowledge should be considered primarily as a “public good” while its position as a private asset should be secondary. This reflects the diverse opinions that regard knowledge as an economic asset as well as a social good. Anderson (2006) describes four different views of knowledge along a continuum of private and public good. He describes that in the United Kingdom, knowledge is first regarded as a private asset and then as a public good. He argues that the perception should be reversed and British society should view knowledge first as a public good and then as a private asset. He goes further to claim that such an approach would not compromise the business interests. In fact, it would allow business and public interests to flourish at the same time. If knowledge is to be treated as a public good, then legislation should focus on revisiting lengthy copyright periods and accommodate fair use in information sharing. Haskel (n.a.) discusses the importance of knowledge as a public good from a European perspective. He argues that in making knowledge a public good, states should not seek to act monopolistically themselves. While the state should check inefficiencies such as under-provision of knowledge, it should not seek to subsidize knowledge that is not being withheld by such barriers. At the same time, the state should avoid creating inefficiencies that might be created if it retains sole control over the dissemination of knowledge. Competition and the private sector should be given space to operate as long as inefficiencies are not created. Haskel (n.a.) also argues that public sector involvement in knowledge creation encourage the private sector rather than discouraging it. The tax credits awarded to companies investing in R&D can be allocated more efficiently if investment in areas such as design, marketing, and training are also considered. Stiglitz (1999) views knowledge not only as a public good, but as a global public good that should be accessible to all people who can benefit from it. Particularly, in the domain of science and technology, the knowledge is less likely to be geographically-dependent; hence, it has global applications and should be available globally. Stiglitz (1999) discusses some of the constraints that limit the global accessibility of knowledge. Recognizing corporate interests in protecting essential knowledge such as product formulations or technology design, Stiglitz (1999) proposes that the state can invest in research so that economic efficiencies can be achieved. Stiglitz (1999) criticizes the use of patents and other means of enabling firms to recoup their research and development costs. These act as taxes for the consumer and create economic inefficiency because the price is always more than the marginal cost. Such “static distortions” can be avoided if knowledge is regarded as a public good. Henry (2006) also subscribes to the view of knowledge as a global public good. However, he additionally argues that at times knowledge has to be treated as a “club good (p. 137)” in order to motivate people to invest in it. He also explains that knowledge can be produced as a public good because its use by one person does not diminish its capacity to be used by another. While knowledge may be non-rivalrous in this sense, Henry (2006) argues that rivalry sets in at a later stage when people attempt to use knowledge to produce inventions and discoveries. The challenge to treating knowledge as a purely public good arises from the fact that for the producers or creators of knowledge, the satisfaction of contributing to the public good is not sufficient motivation. Hence, for a certain time, knowledge needs to be treated as a private good to offer financial incentives for inventors and researchers. Challenges to Perceiving Knowledge as a Pure Public Good A 2008 United Nations report on the role of public goods in economic development also explains the complexity in classifying knowledge as a public good. The report describes knowledge as “only partially non-rival and non-excludable (p. 83).” This is because the developer of knowledge demands a means of ensuring that consumers who do not pay for using the knowledge are unable to use it. Other factors that distinguish knowledge from conventional public goods such as clean air are that it can be duplicated any number of times at very little marginal cost. Furthermore, there is little effectiveness in leasing knowledge to the user because the knowledge does not return to the producer after the lease term expires. The factor of non-excludability also requires attention. If government regulation is not effective at controlling access to information, producers of knowledge may be motivated to invest in areas where knowledge can be protected by institutional means or by using technology. Morrissey, te Velde and Hewitt (2002, p. 37) classify international public goods into three categories: those that yield direct utility, those that reduce risks, and those that enhance society’s capacity to improve quality of life and economic development. They place knowledge in the third category. The explanation they provide is that knowledge increases society’s capacity to produce other public as well as private goods. Thus, instead of the goods that are produced by knowledge, knowledge itself is the factor that enhances productive capacity of a society. Knowledge is both a national as well as an international public good. Morrissey, te Velde and Hewitt (2002) also argue that knowledge can reinforce the other two categories of goods, such as by enabling products to be created that create utility and reduce risks to society. Knowledge, while available to all, can only be used when complementary public goods such as education are available. According to Kenway et al. (2006, p. 56), knowledge is a “mixed good” because it has features of both public as well as private goods. They describe the issue of knowledge as a public good from a European perspective. According to a 2002 European Commission statement, knowledge comprises a separate category of six main types of public goods. This implies that knowledge brings benefits that can be shared by society and every person is entitled to knowledge as a public good. Simultaneously, the European Commission also recognizes knowledge as a private good, which represents the social and economic interests of governments. In arguing the public policy role in knowledge creation, Kenway et al. (2006) further state that investment in knowledge should ultimately increase the capacity of society to “both produce and exploit knowledge in a market situation (p. 57).” This justifies the efforts at excluding non-paying consumers of knowledge in the knowledge economy. Chou and Sylla (2011) hold a completely different perspective with regard to knowledge as a global public good. According to their view, dealing with the free rider problem is more important than making knowledge accessible to members of the global community. While they recognize that knowledge possesses the properties of non-rivalry and non-excludability, they also recognize that these properties can compromise the interests of those engaged in the production and development of knowledge-based products. Their analysis is based on the game theory whereby they conclude that it is essential for all players, i.e. countries participate equally in the protection of intellectual property rights with regard to knowledge. When this has been achieved, the costs and benefits of such implementation will be shared equally by all countries and the sharing of knowledge will be more efficient. This view highlights the growing interdependence of countries in a global economy where the cooperation of all participants is vital for successful initiatives. Knowledge as a public good has a number of implications for economic and social development (Global Economic Symposium, 2013). In this regard, scholars argue that more knowledge should be put into the public domain so that a large number of people can benefit from it. Restrictions on knowledge such as imposing rights on accessing or reading it run counter to the development needs of third-world countries. On the contrary, the article argues that knowledge diffusion should be facilitated between developed and developing countries so that the knowledge gap that prevents developing countries from making economic progress can be bridged. There is a distinction between codified and tacit knowledge (Global Economic Symposium, 2013) which poses some unique challenges to accessing knowledge that is context-specific and not embodied in material form. Treating knowledge as a public good can encourage the development of channels for the efficient sharing of various forms of knowledge, thus increasing the pace of economic development. Implications of Knowledge as a Public Good According to King (2006, p. 494), the conception of knowledge as a public good has implications for managing knowledge management systems. King’s (2006) idea of a public good highlights the fact that people are entitled to use knowledge regardless of their share in developing it. Thus, this explanation highlights the free-rider problem and the possibility of inefficiencies created due to undersupply. People who contribute to the development of shared knowledge databases evaluate the effort on the basis of the benefits and the costs of time and effort required for sharing personally held knowledge. Despite high costs at times, individuals can be motivated to share knowledge by appealing to their self-esteem needs and validation of knowledge by others. However, as the research by Henry (2006) shows, this is not always sufficient motivation for researchers and inventors to make knowledge public. In their discussion of knowledge as a public good, D’Aspremont, Bhattacharya and Gerard-Varet (1998) explain that research and development joint ventures between private organizations can create challenges to the efficient transmission and use of knowledge. The efforts to use private knowledge to create marketable products are based on profit motives rather than social benefit. There are also challenges in finding the best partner or “the most knowledgeable” partner if knowledge is held privately. This reflects the importance of knowledge as a public good not only for its own sake, but also to create efficiencies in how it is used to create new products and services. The views of D’Aspremont, Bhattacharya and Gerard-Varet (1998) can also be used to argue that the role of the government is important to maintain efficiency in the distribution of knowledge. If knowledge is perceived as a public good, then it has to be made accessible to the public equally. Nilsen (2007) argues that in order to create a healthy and fair knowledge economy, knowledge should be managed in an Open Access environment. Knowledge economies depend on knowledge as the key resource for their development. When knowledge is withheld or made inaccessible to certain segments of society, it leads to stratification and the creation of a “ghetto culture” within the knowledge economy. In order to foster research and innovation in society, there is an urgent need to implement the Open Access (OA) platform so that all people in the community have access to information. Nilsen (2007) also stresses the need for collaboration between research leaders and the funding organizations to create the OA culture. Research publications should be made available on open access platforms so that they may be viewed by anyone who can use the information to create innovation. Delong and Whitehead (2011) employ living theory to build a case for sharing of knowledge as a public good. They argue that modern technology and teaching methods are making implicit or tacit knowledge more explicit and accessible to learners. In this scenario, it is imperative to create an enabling environment that allows knowledge to be transmitted from the educators to the learners. This environment is conducive to building a learning process that contributes to the creation of a global economy. The authors recommend that cultures of enquiry should be created so that people can seek and access knowledge without restrictions. As the knowledge held by educators and researchers is shared with students in the classroom through multimedia and various other means, knowledge communities are gradually built up. These communities should be integrated into national as well as global communities to ensure that knowledge can be disseminated without restrictions. Dehez and Tellone (2013) discuss the challenges faced by firms when they collaborate on research that requires them to share resources that only one of them possesses. The authors describe knowledge as a good that is non-rivalrous but excludable. The means used to enforce such excludability include patents and copyrights. Thus, it becomes necessary that each firm be compensated for the knowledge that they contribute to the collaborative research. References Anderson, N., 2006. UK report: Knowledge should be public good first, private right second. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Chou, B. P., and Sylla, C., 2011. The provision of global public goods: a game-theoretic comparison of international environment and knowledge. International Journal of Networking & Virtual Organisations, 8(3), pp. 254-263. D'Aspremont, C., Bhattacharya, S., and Gerard-Varet, L., 1998. Knowledge as a public good: efficient sharing and incentives for development effort. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 30(4), pp. 389-404. Dehez, P., and Tellone, D., 2013. Data Games: Sharing Public Goods with Exclusion. Journal of Public Economic Theory. 15(4), pp. 654-673. Delong, J., and Whitehead, J., 2011. Transforming Educational Knowledge through Making Explicit the Embodied Knowledge of Educators for the Public Good. [Online Submission] Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association . Available from EBSCO Business Source Primer. . Global Economic Symposium, 2013. Proposal-Universal Access to Knowledge as a Global Public Good. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Haskel, J.,n.a. Scientific knowledge as a public good and the role of public policy. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Henry, C., 2006. Knowledge as a global public good: Production conditions and preconditions. In Touffut, J. P. (ed.). Advancing Public Goods. Edward Elgar Publishing. Kenway, J., Bullen, E., Fahey, J., and Robb, S., 2006. Haunting the Knowledge Economy. Routledge Publishing. King, W. R., 2006. Knowledge Sharing. In Schwartz, D. G. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management. Idea Group Inc. Morrissey, O., te Velde, D. W., and Hewitt, A., 2002. In Ferroni, M. A., and Mody, A. (eds.). International Public Goods: Incentives, Measurement, and Financing. World Bank Publications. Nilsen, R., 2007. Research knowledge in a global perspective, a public good or part of a knowledge apartheid. IATUL Annual Conference Proceedings, 17, pp. 1-21. Stiglitz, J. E., 1999. Knowledge as a Global Public Good. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Suber, P., 2009. Knowledge as a Public Good. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 October 2013]. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2008. Public Goods for Economic Development. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Read More