----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Rojdestvenski" <igor.rojdestvenski@plantphys.umu.se>
To: "Igor Matutinovic" <igor.matutinovic@gfk.hr>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
> Dear Igor and others,
>
> Just a quick remark regarding "smth"-based economies. In my
opinion, as
> any self-organizing system, the economy exists at the flow of energy and
> entropy. It consumes energy of the flow, so the flow
"downstream" becomes
> less energetic. It "dumps" entropy", so the flow
downstream becomes more
> entropic.
>
> In the resource based economy the flow is that of the resource. Natural
> resource (oil, gas), as in Russian Federation and in the Middle East.
> Human resource flow (as in China, India). Financial (US, Europe, Japan).
> To a degree, knowledge is also flow, so to speak of knowledge based
> economy we should imagine an economy that produces and exports mostly
> knowledge. For the knowledge production to become a flow sufficient to
> sustain a self-organizing economy, initial financial flows and human
> resource flows should work in accord for some time. In this respect, the
> Western World started producing knowledge in sufficient amounts after it
> has accumulated enough financial resource to purchase brains from other
> regions. I have read somewhere that in the US most of the technological
> advances and inventions are made by immigrants. Therefore the country may
> become a knwoledge-based economy if it has enough money to buy good and
> educated brains and if it aims at such development.
>
> The big problem and the big danger in the knowledge based economy is
that,
> unlike other resources, knowledge has much less inertia. The conversion
> from oil to other energy sources will happen eventually, but it will take
> dozens of years. The principal industrial processes (steel production,
> energy production, shipbuilding, etc) also change but at quite a slow
> pace. On the other hands, knowledge paradigms may change virtually
> overnight, as to change them there is no need in moving
"material" things,
> applying force and using energy. That is why knowledge-based society may
> cease to be one virtually overnight, missing the "right" turn
at the
> development path. The dotcom crisis of recent is a good example.
>
> Igor Rojdestvenski
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Igor Matutinovic" <igor.matutinovic@gfk.hr>
> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet@leydesdorff.net>;
"'Robert Ulanowicz'"
> <ulan@cbl.umces.edu>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
>
>
>> Dear Loet
>>
>> I see your point in resource vs. knowledge based economy and I am
aware
>> that
>> you researched extensively in this area. We are probably looking from
>> quite
>> a different perspectives on these issues. From mine perspective, the
>> important questions is how socioeconomic systems evolve in one
direction
>> or
>> the other (resource vs. knowledge) and how this evolution impacts on
the
>> environment. For example, how and why Western societies moved from
the
>> "resource" based to the "knowledge" based
economies. Or what makes India
>> to
>> extend in the of "M" compared to the "N"
direction? The matrix itself
>> cannot
>> say nothing about the impact on environment of different combinations
>> MxN,
>> which is my primary concern in this discussion. As an example, let's
>> extend
>> the New York-Calcutta dichotomy at the respective national levels. As
you
>> see from the table, the US, which has knowledge-based infrastructure
>> substantially more developed than India, has its respective
ecological
>> impact world-wide 13 times higher (as measured by Ecological
Footprint)
>> and
>> it consumes 15 times more energy per capita. At the same time, the
>> energy
>> efficiency of their economies measured by the GDP per unit of energy
use
>> is
>> nearly the same - in fact US lags a bit behind India. Few people
would
>> agree, except perhaps neoclassical economists, that this situation
points
>> in
>> the US being more sustainable than India. In fact many ecological
>> economist
>> would argue the other way around.
>>
>> 2004
>> EF
>>
>> (ha)
>> GDP per unit of energy use (PPP$/kg oil equiv)
>> energy use p.c.
>>
>> (kg oil equiv)
>>
>> US
>> 9,57
>> 4,0
>> 7,996
>>
>> India
>> 0,76
>> 4,4
>> 515
>>
>>
>> (Source: World Bank 2004. The Little Green Data Book. Washington
D.C.:
>> The
>> World Bank.; Ecological footprint:
>> http://redefiningprogress.org/footprint/)
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't believe that strictly formal or strictly physical
(thermodynamic)
>> approaches can answer plausibly questions related to sustainability
of
>> developed and developing economies. The problems and alternative
>> solutions
>> are embedded in a wider cultural context of individual societies,
>> therefore
>> I insist on the relvance of worldviews. The Western worldview triad
>> (rationality, materialism and working ethic) can be derived from
economic
>> history of Western Europe without resorting to Max Weber and the
>> Protestant
>> ethic but this issue is out of the main scope of the discussion
theme.
>> The
>> main point of the role of Weltanschauung (which elements are often
find
>> in
>> the definitions of culture) can be rephrased as following: collective
>> behavior is streamlined by institutions and institutions are
contingent
>> on a
>> particular culture. One cannot change arbitrarily the first without
first
>> changing the latter. And if the prevailing behavioral patterns
related to
>> production and especially to consumption do not change substantially
in
>> Western societies than I don believe that any increase in the
knowledge
>> component of economy may compensate it. I think that Stan put all
this
>> very
>> clearly "All exist in the material world, and ALL are resource
based!
>> Definitions of "knowledge-based economy" that I found from
OECD and UNCE
>> give the impression that this constraint has been somehow
circumvented.
>>
>> That is all from my side for the moment. I will be out of the office
for
>> the
>> rest of the week and Bob will post our joint reply to Pedro.
>>
>> Thank you for your comments and insights!
>>
>> Igor
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet@leydesdorff.net>
>> To: "'Igor Matutinovic'"
<igor.matutinovic@gfk.hr>; "'Robert Ulanowicz'"
>> <ulan@cbl.umces.edu>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:50 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Fis] Economic Networks
>>
>>
>> Dear Igor and colleagues,
>>
>> I don't buy your definitions of "Weltanschauung" as being
necessarily
>> homogenized under a dominant one which can be simplified as
>> "materialism",
>> "rationality" and "Protestant ethic". I think
that we have moved in
>> sociology beyond these Weberian definitions. However, I agree that
the
>> other
>> issue is more interesting for the discussion on this list. (Perhaps,
the
>> two
>> problems cannot so easily be separated, but let us assume that for a
>> moment.)
>>
>> The transition from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based
economy
>> is
>> not to be placed at the middle of the 20th century as your email
>> suggested,
>> since this has been a post-Coldwar development. The first documents
using
>> the words "knowledge-based economy" in OECD circles are
from 1996 (on the
>> basis of drafts from 1994). Thus, we are talking about a current
>> transition.
>> For example, this transition was central to the Lisbon agreements of
the
>> EU
>> summit of 2000.
>>
>> What is the difference? Let me take a simple example. Compare two
>> megacities
>> like Calcutta and New York. Both have of the order of 10^7
inhabitants.
>> New
>> York is much more resource-intensive (in terms of using energy, etc.)
>> than
>> Calcutta, but few of us would consider Calcutta as more sustainable
than
>> New
>> York. For example, in New York the streets are reasonably maintained
and
>> clean, and one lives with much less risk of infections, etc.
>>
>> What makes the difference between Calcutta and New York? I would say
a
>> knowledge-based infrastructure like first a sewage system, but then
also
>> a
>> telephone system, a subway system, etc. In short, a whole set of
>> communication networks in New York which does not exist in Calcutta.
The
>> system is better sustainable because a set of coordination mechanisms
is
>> in
>> place which proliferates on top of "hardware".
>>
>> Let us formalize this notion of communication systems which are added
to
>> the
>> people. As noted above, the N of both systems is of the order of
10^7.
>> The
>> communication systems can be considered as an M. Thus a matrix N x M
is
>> shaped. In the case of Calcutta N dominates this matrix and therefore
the
>> system is "natural". As M expands, it can take over the
dynamics. The
>> supporting capacity of the system (the maximum entropy) is N x M. The
>> extension of M to (M + 1) enlarges the matrix with N (= 10^)
>> possibilities.
>> The extension of M is knowledge-based, while the extension of N is
>> resource-based.
>>
>> Please, note that this has nothing to do with "materialsm",
"realism" or
>> "a
>> Protestant work ethic" as you wished to suggest.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Loet
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Loet Leydesdorff
>> Honory Chair of the City of Lausanne (March - July)
>> Universit� de Lausanne, School of Economics (HEC),
>> BFSH 1, 1015 Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland
>> Tel.:+41-21-6923469
>>
>> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
>> Tel.: +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-20-525 3681
>> [email protected];
http://www.leydesdorff.net
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Igor Matutinovic [mailto:igor.matutinovic@gfk.hr]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:00 AM
>>> To: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Robert Ulanowicz';
fis@listas.unizar.es
>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
>>>
>>> Dear Loet
>>>
>>> Thank you for your remarks! Our definition of
"worldview" is
>>> basically equal to the term Weltanschauung, and differs only
>>> in that it explicitly introduces objective knowledge as its
>>> constitutive part - a distinction that is methodologically
>>> appropriate for analysis of Western societies. We do
>>> acknowledge the existence of mutually competing worldviews,
>>> but there is always a dominant one that streamlines
>>> collective behavior. We can, for example, condense the
>>> prevailing (Western) worldview around three basic
>>> dimensions: materialism, rationality and hard-wired working
>>> ethic (details are presented in Matutinovic, forthcoming in
>>> International Journal of Sustainable Development and World
>>> Ecology). This may be put also in different terms
>>> (dimensions), but any such combination of values and beliefs
>>> must be internally coherent and it must logically link to the
>>> extant institutional framework. The very existence of
>>> alternative worldviews in modernity, which "disturb one
>>> another and thus provide another source of change", as you
>>> mention it, provides one of the pillars of societal
>>> adaptability. We wished to emphasize that the pace of
>>> adaptive institutional change is unpredictable, and
>>> therefore, Western civilization runs the risk of a major
>>> environmental crisis (see for example latest reports on the
>>> state of global ecosystems: Mooney, H., Cropper, A., and
>>> Reid, W. (2005).
>>> Confronting the human dilemma: How can ecosystems provide
>>> sustainable services to benefit society? Nature, Vol.
>>> 434:7033, 561-562.; Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.
>>> A., Folke, C., and Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic Shifts In
>>> Ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591-596.).
>>>
>>> Concerning the knowledge-based economy and its impact on
>>> environment, I have a question: if we, for example, label the
>>> first fifty years of the 20th century as belonging to the
>>> resource-based economy and the subsequent period as a
>>> transition to the knowledge-based economy, than I can see no
>>> improvement at all. On the contrary, as our technology
>>> becomes more advanced and our communication possibilities
>>> widen and become more sophisticated our impact on environment
>>> increases. This can be seen on the example of IT industry
>>> which epitomizes the "New" economy: computer
manufacturing
>>> uses about 1000 toxic materials, including heavy metals, and
>>> its product life cycle is extremely short resulting in
>>> enormous waste disposal and leaching of toxics into
>>> environment. Following is the quote form E. Williams,
>>> Environ. Sci. Technol., 38 (22), 6166 -6174, 2004:
>>> "The total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a
>>> desktop computer with 17-in. CRT monitor are estimated at
>>> 6400 megajoules (MJ) and 260 kg, respectively. This indicates
>>> that computer manufacturing is energy
>>> intensive: the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is
>>> 11, an order of magnitude larger than the factor of 1-2 for
>>> many other manufactured goods.
>>> This high energy intensity of manufacturing, combined with
>>> rapid turnover in computers, results in an annual life cycle
>>> energy burden that is surprisingly high: about 2600 MJ per
>>> year, 1.3 times that of a refrigerator.
>>> In contrast with many home appliances, life cycle energy use
>>> of a computer is dominated by production (81%) as opposed to
>>> operation (19%)."
>>> Besides IT, our increased ability to apply efficiently
>>> knowledge to manufacturing resulted in a myriad of new
>>> consumer products, cheap and attractive for use, which mass
>>> production, consumption, and short life cycles overburden the
>>> environment and degrade ecosystems around the earth.
>>> In the meantime, the "resource based" part of our
economic
>>> activities did not diminish materially, except for their
>>> share in GDP. Concerning Western energy intensive
>>> agriculture, it is so inextricably tied to oil reserves (both
>>> in terms of energy and in terms of chemical ingredients for
>>> mineral fertilizers and pesticides) and I have not been able
>>> to learn so far about an alternative, plausible solution for
>>> the post-petroleum era.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you may have an idea how to relate economic networks
>>> (as Bob and myself briefly addressed them), your vision of
>>> the knowledge-based economy, and the constraints arising from
>>> the dominant Western worldview. This may be an interesting
>>> direction for further discussion...
>>>
>>> The best
>>> Igor
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Loet Leydesdorff"
<loet@leydesdorff.net>
>>> To: "'Robert Ulanowicz'"
<ulan@cbl.umces.edu>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:49 AM
>>> Subject: RE: [Fis] Economic Networks
>>>
>>>
>>> > Dear Igor and Bob,
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for your interesting opening to the discussion.
>>> > While reading it, I had the impression that the
"worldview"
>>> is too much
>>> > conceptualized as a single and closed system like a Kuhnian
>>> paradigm.
>>> > Since
>>> > the 16th century worldviews are in flux and internally
>>> > differentiated/differentiating. The economic system of the
>>> market, for
>>> > example, is mapped cognitively in a discourse other than
>>> the discourse of
>>> > physics or the discourse of power. The different worldviews
>>> (codifications
>>> > of the communication) disturb one another and thus can
>>> provide another
>>> > source of change.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps, your own statement can be considered as one such
>>> worldview,
>>> > namely
>>> > one of ecosystems theory. In this view the resources are
finite and
>>> > therefore exhaustible. Information resources, however, are
>>> not finite. In
>>> > a
>>> > knowledge-based economy (unlike a resource-based economy)
>>> other dynamics
>>> > for
>>> > the expansion may feed new loops into the system. For
>>> example, Holland is
>>> > one of the largest producers of tomatos while tomatos can
>>> not be bred in
>>> > Holland naturally (because of the lack of sunshine). The
>>> production of
>>> > these
>>> > tomatos is completely knowledge-based. Indeed, this is
>>> energy-costly, but
>>> > energy is only finite at the level of the universe (and not
>>> at the level
>>> > of
>>> > the earth).
>>> >
>>> > Thus, one can entertain very different worldviews. The
>>> interfaces among
>>> > them
>>> > can be considered as sources of innovation, for example,
when market
>>> > perspectives and research perspectives can be interfaced.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps, you can easily integrate this into your model?
>>> >
>>> > With kind regards,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Loet
>>> >
>>> > ________________________________
>>> >
>>> > Loet Leydesdorff
>>> > Universit� de Lausanne, School of Economics (HEC);
>>> > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fis mailing list
>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue May 3 21:49:10 2005
