Why a knowledge economy wants to keep some people in the dark

From slavery through religion and on to notions of gender equality, it takes time to convince a society to change its mind. As I write, distant winds out over the ocean are fetching up a new wave of change that will crash on society's shore in the coming decades.

The change is to do with how we view human knowledge - as private asset, or public resource. There are two drivers of this change: on the one hand, the unstoppable spread of digital technologies that allow the free sharing of information and knowledge; and on the other, the growing reliance of developed economies such as the UK on these so-called "intangible assets". The battle for influence over our changing perception of knowledge in the face of these challenges is being fought on the terrain of intellectual property rights (IPRs).

Public Innovation concludes nine months of research by the Institute for Public Policy Research into this process. According to the book's authors, William Davies and Kay Withers, "within the next few years, the only barriers preventing UK citizens from accessing any type of information or content will be legal and political . . . rather than the result of technological scarcity". Davies and Withers weigh up the potential legal and political barriers, and in so doing present a significant challenge to the Labour government.

The conundrum is this: can a knowledge economy - the type of economy this government hopes to nurture - exist when knowledge is not scarce? IPRs create the scarce environment often necessary to provide an incentive to creators of knowledge goods, from scientists to rock stars. But they can also lock away knowledge from the wider public. In short, must we brick up our libraries to protect our bank balances?

The answer lies somewhere in between. In hunting for a balance, Davies and Withers call on four dimensions of the public interest: the economic incentive to create (the novelist getting paid to write novels); the economic value of knowledge in the public domain (pooling ideas to create business); the civic value of the public domain (access to learning materials); and the fate of preservation and heritage (access to cultural heritage).

They conclude that, for the best public outcome, where best public outcome resolutely includes the maintenance of economic prosperity within the UK, knowledge must be treated as a public resource first, and a private asset second. The problem is that this might be the opposite of current UK policy.

But we shall see. The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, announced by the Treasury last year, is likely to report this month. With any luck, it will signal an attempt at the "difficult reorientation" the IPPR believes is necessary to keep governments on the right track. If it does not, those of a democratic bent may start to feel a little queasy riding out this sea change.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website