[governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not

[michael gurstein]

To shift the argument a bit from the current interesting but now rather
repititious issues... 

One of the basic understandings of the Philosophy/Sociology of Science is
that we all tend to reduce our understanding of new phenomena down to a mode
which is intelligible within our existing framework of
understanding/knowledge.  When it is no longer possible to do this then a
new framework (paradigm) comes haltingly forward that allows us to explain
those phenomena that remain inexplicable--incommensurable--with the attempts
at imposing the existing framework and a new frammework/paradigm of
understanding is born and very soon becomes the new orthodoxy and in turn
becomes "that of which it is impossible to consider an alternative".

I think these somewhat simple "truths" are reflected quite well in the
current discussion.

One of the core elements of these conceptual frameworks are the various
systems of standards/definitions/measurements that allow us to order and
"manage" our processes of knowing and thus our actions in the world.

As examples, Paul's system of national legal frameworks is one such
paradigm, McTim's system of IETF formulated and prescribed standards is
another.

In the economics (and thus to a considerable degree the policy) world one of
the basic frameworks is the SNA--the System of National Accounts which
presents a means for a consolidated measurement at the national level (and
thus comparative at the global level) of "all significant economic
activity".

As we all know, much of current economic policy nationally (and globally)
(within the competitive market/neo-liberal policy environment) is founded
on/driven by these measures as outputted as GDP/GNP etc.

Various waves of civil society interventions have subjected these
measurement procedures/strategies to what might be called "paradigmatic"
critiques--the consumer's movement critiqued the exclusive focus on
production (and the absence of measurements concerned with
consumption/consuming); the environmental movement critiqued on the basis of
the absence of measures reflecting the lifecycle costs of goods and
including impacts on the environment from resource depletion and
contributions to environmental degradation and change); the women's movement
critiqued on the basis of a failure to include measures reflecting women's
contribution to domestic work; ;  and as well there have been a number of
critiques/alternatives proposed along the lines of the GPI--General
Performance Index, and the recently widely noted "Happiness Index"--these
latter being presented as more meaningful and significant from a
"sustainablity" policy perspective.

(As well, the SNA has a very strong bias away from the measurement of
"social capital" related activities (and towards the measurement of
production of physical goods). In many respects this area is perhaps the
most damaging from the perspective of Less Developed Countries and the poor
and marginalized in Developed countries since it tends to privilege (and
give emphasis to) the production of consumer goods (and public policies
supportive of this production) over for example, public investments in
social capital related activities such as education, health and social
support.)

I'm wondering in this context whether there are areas of issues concerning
measurement and indices specifically associated with the Internet that would
be of particular interest to civil society that might (or might not) be of
interest from the perspective of a "critique" of the SNA and broad measures
such as the the GDP--parallel to the critiques related to the measurement of
"women's work" and "environmental costing" for example.

The obvious measurement(s) are of course related to the "digital divide" --
those who have access and (I would add) the capability of using the Internet
and those who do not. But I'm also thinking that there may be an additional
set of arguments that quite significantly link back to the earlier critiques
and those have to do with the linkage of the Internet with social capital.

Thus, it might be possible (and reasonable) to argue that the enhancement of
social capital (internetworking, communication at a distance, speeding up of
communications etc.etc.) while not unique to the Internet is so much
accelerated and intensified by the Internet that "quantity" becomes
"quality" that is, the Internet adds so much to these elements of social
capital (and is so much a product of previous investments in social capital)
that:
    1. it would be impossible realistically to "measure" the economic impact
of the Internet without including measurements of the intensification of
social capital--social capital is of the very "essence" of the impact
(social, economic, cultural) of the Internet that one is trying to measure
("the Internet changes everything" effect). The Internet fundamentally
changes the nature of economic (and of course other) relations and
activities and the intensification of social capital being of the very
essence of the Internet means that this intensification of social capital
must similarly be accounted for in one's measurements associated with the
SNA.

    2. the Internet through its intensification of social capital is
transformative (and not simply summative) of the overall economy, economic
relations, transactions, production, distribution and consumption; such that
it is impossible to describe let alone measure the various components of the
SNA without including various of the Internet (and thus social capital)
related impacts in any assessment and thus measurement of each of these
components (the "Walmart effect"). Thus, for example, a company such as
Walmart would not be possible without the affordances provided by
telecommunications/the Internet and hence any measurement including Walmart
as a component needs to include measures reflecting this relationship.

The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I think, is
that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the Internet, and links
the Internet with the production of social capital which in turn becomes
something of a backdoor way of arguing that investment in ICT should be as
much focused on education, health, and social support as it is on bits and
bytes--hardware and software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but
also something which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks
managing current economic policies.

Comments, critiques, suggestions with respect to the above are gratefully
welcomed.

(Incidentally, I'll be in Paris Sept. 12-19, exceptionally with some time to
spare so if anyone is in Paris at the time and interested in a meet-up to
discuss this or IGC or CS or other issues I would be delighted.

Best,

Mike

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t