----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Rojdestvenski" <igor.rojdestvenski@plantphys.umu.se>
To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet@leydesdorff.net>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
> Dear Loet,
>
> Please allow me to argue further. Some of the cities in Saudi Arabia and
> UAE are very well equipped with the mentioned technological advances.
> However it is difficult to refer to Saudi Arabia as a knowledge based
> economy. They have these things simply because they want them and can
> afford them, not because these things make their economy (which is
> predominantly oil-based) more efficient. Similarly, in Russian Federation
> (in my native city of St.Petersburg) the infrastructure has improved
> drastically over the past several years -- precisely along with wealth
> accumulation. It (and IT, excuse my pun) helps local businesses allright,
> but overwhelming majority of those just digest either oil money directly
> or feed on the financial excrements of those who do (like selling
> computers to oil companies or doing catering services to companies
selling
> computers to oil companies).
> I would also argue that the old USSR was to a degree a knowledge-based
> economy (space industry, weapons production, etc), but did not have
enough
> cash to maintain the infrastructure. Just one example. The universities
> and colleges in St.Petersburg alone were producing about 1000 M.Sc in
> Physics every year, and similar numbers in Math, Philosophy, etc. As to
> M.Eng, their number could be counted in tens of thousands (there were 44
> universities in St.Petersburg). Moscow was far bigger than that with its
> 85 universities. Needless to say that in the planned economy all these
> people were employed, giving probably the highest proportion of educated
> people in economy in the world. Did it help the USSR to win the economic
> part of the Cold War?
> The question of where did the initial wealth come from is also a bit
> ambiguous. Several years ago Britain was selling parts of its golden
> reserve, some 200 mln pounds I guess. These were ...... spanish dublons
> acquired in the times of Sir Francis Drake who was one of the most
> successful "wealth importers" in British history. I am pretty
sure that
> there is quite a bit of Calcutta gold in the British treasury. Sweden
> prospered for quite a while spending the wealth miraculously acquired
> during WWII. At the same time a good proportion of the German
> panzerdivisions was made of Swedish steel or steel made from iron ore
from
> Kiruna. Now the resource is spent and a very knowledge based economy of
> Sweden is in major difficulties. Germany also managed to recover only
> through substantial financial aid from the world community. These facts
> are not accusations -- history happened as it happened, but they might
> form some basis against the concept of sustainability of knowledge-based
> economy. I would also argue that scientists (especially liberal) in any
> society, as in the fUSSR, as in modern Western civilization are
> subconsciously prone to theories that prove "good values" of
their
> societies.
> But in my opinion (not very qualified, I admit), what in this
> discussion we call "knowledge based" economies are not such,
because
> knowledge is not the ultimate flow that shares its energy and negentropy
> with the society but a system of tools to extract energy and negentropy
> from the ultimate flow which is, in the case of the Western world, the
> finance.
> Let us first, for the sake of argument, define what we consider a
> purely knowledge-based economy. Suppose there is a country, A, which has
a
> natural resource(oil, gas, iron ore, etc). To process this resource this
> country needs " know-how" and money. Suppose there is another
country, B,
> which has financial capacity to invest. Still not enough, the know-how is
> missing. Suppose there is the third country, C, which has neither finance
> nor natural resource - just the know-how. Then A+B+C may form a viable
> consortium to process the natural resources.In this consortium C is a
pure
> "knowledge-based" economy.
> If this frame of thought is adopted, many interesting questions may
> arise. For example,
> 1) If B buys knowledge from C, does that make B knowledge-based
> economy?
> 2) If YES then does natural resource bought from A make B a resource
> based economy?
> 3) How knowledge is differen and how is it similar to natural resource
> and financial resource?
> 4) Is knowledge a sustainable resource? On one hand, yes, as the
> know-how may be applied many times. On the other hand, no, because each
> know-how is eventually "broken into" and the knowledge gradient
> dissapears.
> 5) Is any sustainability based on advantage or on competitive
> advantage, i.e. is sustainability possible in the system of equal
> partners, or some gradients are needed?
>
> Sorry for such a long and exhaustive post. Maybe in my ignorance
> (Igorance!) I am oversimplifying things on one hand and being commonplace
> on the other.
>
> Igor Rojdestvenski
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet@leydesdorff.net>
> To: "'Igor Rojdestvenski'"
<igor.rojdestvenski@plantphys.umu.se>;
> <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 8:39 AM
> Subject: RE: [Fis] Economic Networks
>
>
> Dear Igor,
>
>> Question 1: Is it not true that the first paragraph here
>> explains the second? NYC simply can afford the goodies listed
>> in p2, and Calcutta can not?
>
> Yes, the knowledge-based economy is based on a period of wealth
> accumulation
> in the resource-based economy. At least, this has been the historical
> order.
> Once the transition is underway, it may spread at the global level
because
> of a different diffusion dynamics. For example, more recently a city like
> Bangkok or also many Chinese cities are taking part in the transition.
>
> One should not change the order of cause and effects in the model. The
> economic question is, in my opinion: what generates wealth? If wealth
were
> generated in Calcutta, one could afford to have a technological
> infrastructure.
>
>> Question 2: Then if you give Calcutta the same amount of CASH
>> (not knowledge, but CASH), it will soon have all the same
>> things as NYC?
>
> NO: cash does not bring accumulation.
>
>> If YES then what you call Knowledge Based Economy is simply
>> Wealth Based Economy. If NO we are back to protestant ethics
>> thing against the Indian ethics.
>>
>> My opinion: The sewage system and other goodies AS SUCH are
>> not the measure of sustainability. They become a measure of
>> sustainability ONLY to a degree in which they affect the
>> efficiency of the local economic, business processes, when
>> they simply help locals make money in some ways.
>
> I am afraid that these mechanisms are locally often beyond control.
Giving
> people cash may help them in the short run, but not in the long run. The
> quality of the (knowledge-based) plan of what to do with the cash, is
> crucial.
>
> I hope that this is answering your questions.
>
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri May 6 09:15:28 2005
