Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Number/Numéro 14 A Model for More Activist Government in a Knowledge Society (1)
It is widely believed that a ubiquitous, well-stocked and personable Internet will, necessarily and almost automatically, lead to a society of information-adept people who are both comfortable and functional in a knowledge society. I call this the "Internet myth." I set out to debunk this myth, and to show that something else--namely the right public attitude and enlightened government action--must happen to bring about this outcome. I will use two props in building my case. They are two other longstanding and durable myths. First, the "Gutenberg myth," which states that Gutenberg's printing press--a technology--was almost exclusively responsible for the widespread literacy in contemporary Western society. Secondly, the "Hippocrates myth," that singles out advances in medical knowledge, techniques and apparatus for credit in the remarkable jump in the state of public health in the 19th and 20th centuries. As I attempt to debunk these myths, I show that it was actually (1) enlightened public attitudes and (2) government action that were the ultimate causes for widespread literacy and the remarkable levels of public health we now enjoy. I subsequently show that the same causes will drive "knowledge literacy" in the information society, and make the case for an activist government in the Information Age. Finally, I propose an agenda and approach for an activist information and knowledge government rooted in the ideas (not the implementations) embodied in the Canada Health Act and Medicare.
The Gutenberg Myth When Gutenberg first printed his bibles in the mid-fourteen hundreds, their use by the common folk was firmly barred both by cost and by illiteracy. Indeed, bibles were simply too expensive for the average person, and, anyway, at the end of the 15th century well over 90% of the European population was illiterate. So what should be credited with the spectacular rise in literacy between the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 20th? Did Gutenberg's miraculous invention achieve that? Many believe that to be the case. They are wrong. Let's examine the numbers. First, let's look at the output from Gutenberg's contraption. From 1455 to 1500 the number of printing presses in Europe went from zero to a spectacularly ubiquitous presence in some two hundred and forty-five cities, from Stockholm to Palermo. Their output reflected similarly explosive dynamics. Indeed, while in 1455 there were no printed texts in Europe, by 1500 the situation had changed dramatically: twenty million books in 35,000 editions were in circulation, one book for every five members of the population. And output continued to grow; between 1500 and 1600 some 150 to 200 million texts were produced. Historians point out that no innovation in history had heretofore spread so far, so fast. But was the literacy generated by these enormous outputs similarly spectacular? That, it appears, was not the case. If you examine literacy estimates in Europe between 1500 and 1900, you see that by 1650 (that's two centuries after the first bibles) illiteracy stood at 80%, had fallen to about 70% by 1700 and neared 50% as the nineteenth century approached. That is not exactly a steep curve (at least relatively speaking) despite remarkable increases in the number, availability and affordability of printed texts. In fact, chances are literacy would have got stuck at around 50% had it not been for at least two remarkable social developments: (1) the idea of equality among people; and (2) state-supported public elementary education. Indeed, the numbers indicate that literacy actually exploded not alongside the printing presses (literacy rates merely "bubbled upward" as output and affordability of printed texts grew impressively), but in the wake of some remarkable changes in both the idea and the social reality that people are equal within a human community. These changes, sparked by the spirit embodied in Jefferson's famous words, "all men are created equal," initiated significant social actions, the most remarkable of which was universal state-sponsored elementary public education. As universal, government-supported public education became reality in country after country throughout Western Europe from the middle of the nineteenth century onward, the decline in illiteracy was dramatic. From 1800, when close to half the population of Western Europe was illiterate, the illiteracy figure declined to below 10% by the end of the same century, while population numbers also grew substantially. Now that is spectacular!
The Hippocrates Myth
The other durable myth has to do with the role and impact
of medical advances in the remarkable levels of public health we enjoy
today. I chose to call it the "Hippocrates myth" from the Greek
father of medicine (circa 460 to circa 377 BC), traditionally (but
incorrectly, it seems) credited with the Hippocratic oath sworn by
graduate physicians.
Until the 18th century, about the only thing the medical
profession could offer was, as someone put it, "a good bedside
manner." Beginning in the 19th century, however, knowledge of
anatomy, the ability to diagnose, medicines, and the tools of the trade
(medical apparatus) took great leaps forward. Yet this progress was
stubbornly accompanied by--and could do little against--the devastating
effects of rampant epidemics. London's population, for example, was
ravaged by cholera in 1831, typhus in 1837, and cholera again in 1848.
70,000 people died in 1848, galvanizing the authorities into passing the
Public Health Act and the Nuisances Removal and Disease Prevention Act.
The new laws gave the government new compulsory and salutary powers in an
emergency to effect street cleansing, house disinfection, or removal of an
infected person to an isolation hospital (with or without consent.)
The new public health laws brought the government into the
private medical life of the individual. They also generated a strong
propaganda offensive encouraging better personal and domestic hygiene,
actions by employers to clean up the workplace and install showers, and
increased levels of physical education in schools.
The formation of government-sponsored statistical
committees--another state innovation--led to increased collection, use,
and dissemination of all manner of statistical information, including
population demographics and disease statistics. (In fact the word
statistics echoes this use of numbers by the state.) The state's
concern for public health also led to publication of widely accessible and
greatly useful public health information, such as the Handbook for
U.S. Public Health, first published in 1915, and devoted largely to
contagious diseases. So, thanks in part to 19th-century cholera
epidemics, the government took control of public health, with spectacular
results in terms of increased levels of public health and decreased
mortality rates.
Debunking the Myths
So, was it Gutenberg's contraption, or enlightened social
attitudes and government action that ultimately brought about the dramatic
decline in illiteracy? And, was it the advance in medical science and
medical apparatus, or salutary action by governments to change public
attitudes that ultimately brought about the current state of public health
in the Western world?
I strongly contend that in both cases it was the
reinforcing interplay between changing social attitudes and purposeful
government action that did it. Let's see:
Both Gutenberg's miraculous invention and the astounding
advances in medicine were only ingredients--albeit extraordinarily
important ones--that made mass literacy and high levels of public health
possible. But the printing press and scientific medicine were neither the
ultimate cause, nor the initial spark in those remarkable outcomes. What
ultimately made both mass public literacy and mass public health possible
were the reinforcing interplay between (1) enlightened social attitudes
and (2) determined government action. Printing and medical knowledge and
technology only brought them closer to the realm of the possible.
In popular (and perhaps political) perception, the
Gutenberg and the Hippocrates myths have now morphed into the Internet
myth, which suggests that the Internet will deliver us the same sort of
social and political mass awareness, cognition and participation that the
printing press and the advances in medicine created for literacy and
public health respectively.
As I pointed out earlier, the belief in the Internet's
powers of deliverance is just as illusory as its earlier mythological
cousins (Gutenberg and Hippocrates). While historians now tell us that no
innovation in history has heretofore spread so far, so fast as the
Internet, I contend that, absent enlightened social attitudes and
government action, the Internet will no more lead to mass knowledge
literacy than the printing presses or medical science advances in and of
themselves led to mass literacy and mass public health earlier.
The Message for Governments
Do these stories hold a message for governments in the age
of the Internet?
The important message from the stories of expanding
literacy and the rise of public health is that it takes enlightened social
attitudes and enlightened and determined government action to do
virtually anything of any lasting social consequence. In this context,
governments can hardly afford to stand on the sidelines expecting that the
Internet will bring widespread information society literacy to the
citizenry. The Internet--like earlier printing technologies and medical
science and apparatus--cannot substitute for enlightened social attitudes
and determined government action. Rather, the Internet will make
government action more achievable and faster to produce reliable
results.
If the idea of a "hands-off government" is a
fallacy, what sort of enlightened action should the government take to
bring about the sort of knowledge ability, mass awareness and
participatory democracy that the information society requires from its
citizens?
State-supported public elementary education and
state-sponsored public health in the nineteenth century were needed to
create the functional literacy and quality of civic life that industrial
civil society and an expanded conception of social equality
required.
I contend that contemporary society requires another
essential state-supported social implement: an activist
knowledge/information government that views public information and certain
public knowledge as a universal public entitlement.
As in the cases of public elementary education and public
health services, activist governments and not private sector surrogates
must play the catalyst role in the establishment and delivery of this
public entitlement. The result should be a uniquely Canadian model which
borrows Europe's concern for culture and societal issues (but without its
stifling bureaucratic structures) and the US openness and concern for
democracy (but without its frontier society approaches to the digital
world.)
Two Pillars for an Activist Public
Information and Knowledge Government
An activist role for government concerning public
information and knowledge can be based on two pillars:
I will first deal with the major reassertion of government
responsibility in extracting social benefit from public information and
certain public knowledge.
A Major Reassertion of Government's Responsibility
for Public Information and Knowledge
This major reassertion is itself based on two legs:
The government is a trustee with fiduciary
responsibilities. According to John Locke's Second Treatise on
Government, a trust conception of government is based on the
fiduciary responsibility of the trustee to preserve and enhance the assets
of the trust, keeping always in mind the good of the beneficiary. (Trusts
are generally set up because there is an asset to be managed for the
benefit of others.) As Locke argues, the actions of the trustee are
"to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety and public good
of the people."
According to various authors, the general duties of
trustees are to:
It is easy to see how these duties can be extended to
cover the relationship between government and public information. In so
doing, the overriding objective should be to preserve and enhance the
lives of citizens. How? And, what is citizenship, or at least what are
the components of citizenship that should be singled out for preservation
and enhancement?
Citizenship (an extension of personhood, really) means, at
least according to Locke, being self-governing in two senses: (1)
regulating one's own conduct (freedom to act and make choices); and (2)
choosing one's own government.
From the perspective of personhood as ability to
self-govern, "a person is vulnerable to the degree that he/she
cannot be self-legislating and follow his/her own plans and purposes.
Children are vulnerable because they are only on their way to
self-governance--lacking often the self-discipline and the means to pursue
their goals. The sick are vulnerable to the degree that their sickness
impairs the achievement of these objectives." And, I might add, those information- or knowledge-deprived
are vulnerable to the extent that their information deprivation robs them
of the opportunity to become productive and consequential
members of society (at least as productive and consequential as they
reasonably aspire to), able to discharge their citizenship obligations and
prosecute their interests in a knowledge society.
The trust conception assumes a number of related
responsibilities. Thus, aside from the obligations of the trustee listed
earlier, there are a number of related obligations of the "government
as trustee," which also belong in the trust conception. They include,
at least for the purpose of information and knowledge trusteeship:
It is by now apparent that the trust conception of
government with respect to public information and knowledge is compatible
with the general view that government provides stewardship of public
information as a public asset. In fact, the trust conception also helps
deal with some of the current tensions in the way governments manage
public information. For example, the trust conception in its totality,
and in particular the requirement that the trustee "enforce claims on
behalf of the trust," provides a basis for the responsible exercise
of the Crown copyright. Thus the trustee conception does not reject Crown
copyright, but presumes its responsible exercise as an asset of "the
people," for the exclusive benefit of "the people". (As an
aside, perhaps the crafters of the current round of amendments to the
Copyright Act may wish to consider changing the name of Crown copyright to
something like Public or People copyright. This may eliminate current
confusion as to who the beneficiary of exercising copyright rights over
public information should be. Crown copyright was never meant to
imply that the beneficiary of the trust is the Crown; indeed, the Crown's
role is one of (1) administrator and (2) guarantor, all on behalf and for
the benefit of the governed, i.e., the people.
The trust conception of government is the first leg in a
major reassertion of government responsibility over public information. I
now turn to the second leg: a proactive role in making certain private
knowledge public.
Making Certain Private Knowledge
Public
"To accommodate society's interest in expanding
knowledge as rapidly as possible, certain classes of knowledge ought to be
in the public domain and freely available to everyone". (4)
In the Harvard Business Review article cited
above, Lester C. Thurow points out that there are many reasons for keeping
knowledge in, or bringing it into, the public domain. For
instance:
Similarly, the argument can be made that certain
information and knowledge would produce social benefits exceeding their
private costs if placed in the public domain. Thurow's solution lies in
the establishment of some public agency " armed with funds and the
power of eminent domain." This agency could, as Thurow puts it,
"decide to buy knowledge for the public's use when it seemed
warranted. If the seller would not agree to sell at a reasonable price,
adjudication principles very similar to those used in eminent domain
land-acquisition proceedings could be used." (5)
How would such an agency function to make more information
and knowledge available in Canada?
A Public Knowledge Foundation could be established as a
public policy instrument (and as a policy alternative to a confiscatory
regime which some have advocated for publicly-beneficial knowledge and
information). The Foundation would have both funds and power of eminent
domain, and could force a sale of information or knowledge at a price
determined through adjudication.
This discussion concludes the presentation of the first
pillar in moving government to assume an activist role, namely a major
reassertion of the government's responsibility in respect of public
information and certain public knowledge. I will now explore the second
pillar, a new public information and knowledge delivery model.
A Canadian Universal Public Knowledge Delivery
Model
The second pillar of a more activist government with
respect to public information and knowledge consists of a model for
providing access to and delivery of public information and knowledge. I
want to propose a most Canadian model here, a model whose inspiration is
the Canada Health Act. Why the Canada Health Act?
In a broader scheme of things, the citizen's "right
to be informed" inherent in an expanded conception of the role of
government in respect of public information and knowledge, and the right
to "physical and mental well-being" of the citizenry underlying
Canadian health policy are complementary elements of the same citizenship
continuum.
"The primary objective of Canadian health care
policy," reads the Canada Health Act, "is to protect, promote
and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and
to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or
other barriers."
Not unreasonably, a key objective underlying an expanded
role of government in public information and knowledge might be captured
in a Canada Public Information and Knowledge Act. Such a compact might
start with a statement that could read something like: "The primary
objective of the government's information policy is to protect, promote
and facilitate the informed participation and contribution of Canadians to
governance in an open, cooperative and participatory information society.
"
The choice of the Canada Health Act as an inspiration for
a model involving the delivery of public information and knowledge in an
information society may strike a reader as ill advised: after all, the
Medicare system that the Health Act begot is in some trouble. On the other
hand, I contend that it is not the idea of Medicare that is in
trouble, it is only its current implementation. So, what I want to
borrow is not the implementation per se, but the idea and its
underlying social underpinnings.
Let me call this Health Care-inspired system Knowledge
Care. It is a concept with twin roots: it evokes Medicare's essential
raison d'être and the fundamental public policy objectives of
the Canada Health Act (actualized to the needs of a knowledge society).
Thus, Knowledge Care's rationale is that the informational and knowledge
health of Canadians is fundamental to governance in and the functioning of
an effective democracy underpinning a successful information society.
Arguably, Medicare was an implement of the Industrial Age,
where physical and mental well being and strength helped supply the strong
arms and practical minds of an expanding manufacturing and services
sector. Similarly, Knowledge Care is an implement of the Information Age,
where the ability to acquire, use and apply information and knowledge is
the single most important source of comparative advantage,
competitiveness, productivity and, ultimately, wealth.
What exactly is Knowledge Care?
Knowledge Care would comprise at least the following:
I will attempt in the following paragraphs to develop a
charter for Knowledge Care. I emphasize that the charter is based on
Canada's Health Act. The reader whose views on the health of the Medicare
system are less than charitable should take the Charter for what it is: a
statement of principles, not an endorsement for its mechanics or specific
implementation choices.
A Charter for Knowledge Care
Informed citizen participation is a key aim of
government's information policy
Through its information policy the government aims to
protect, promote, and facilitate the informed participation and
contribution of Canadians to governance in an open, cooperative and
participatory information society.
A universal public information service has a key
role to play in furthering citizen participation
A key instrument in the delivery of this policy is a
Universal Public Knowledge System (Knowledge Care) which provides a
reasonable level of universal access to government information and public
knowledge on equitable and uniform terms.
In the spirit of its roots, Knowledge Care is a system
whose "hospitals" are the public libraries and its
"clinics" the depository libraries, government offices, Canada
Business Service Centres and kiosks and other Internet and private sector
delivery points, and whose practitioners are ATI coordinators, librarians,
government, and private sector personnel.
Key Principles for a universal public information
service
Knowledge Care as a Universal Public Knowledge System is
based on three essential principles:
Operating Charter for a universal public knowledge
service
Patterned after the general provisions of the Canada
Health Act, Knowledge Care's Operating Charter is rooted in the five
principles of Medicare (Accessibility, Include other levels of government,
Comprehensiveness, Universality, and Public administration):
ACCESSIBILITY: A Universal Public Knowledge System:
INCLUDE OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT: A Universal Public
Knowledge System:
COMPREHENSIVENESS: A Universal Public Knowledge System
must include all public interest information and related services provided
by designated public institutions, and, where appropriate, additional
public interest information/knowledge and services rendered by other
institutions, public or private. The system encourages proactive release
of public interest information and knowledge and voluntary release of
public information that avoids unnecessary recourse to the Access to
InformationAct.
UNIVERSALITY: A Universal Public Information System must
entitle all Canadian residents to access federal government information
and certain other public knowledge on uniform terms and conditions.
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A Universal Public Knowledge
System:
Conclusions
An information and knowledge government is necessarily an
activist government. A society's success in the Information Age, Knowledge
Society, or whatever name you choose for the era now unfolding, will
benefit greatly from an activist government. In particular, from a
government ready to promote new social attitudes and willing to take
proactive action in ensuring that the citizenry can access and use
effectively public information and knowledge.
The following points support this contention:
I conclude this paper with the hope that in the years to
come--a critical period for how Canadian society shapes itself for success
in the Knowledge Age--we are able to engage the right people in the right
sort of public debate in Canada. In particular, the kind of debate that
lets us ask the right questions and allows us to bring to the fore the
ideas and the wisdom to make the right choices.
Speaking of choices, it is only natural that as we venture
forth we should encounter a lot of forks in our road. (The more the
better, I hope, for forkless roads are utterly and hopelessly devoid of
precious learning opportunities.) Do I have any advice on how to
negotiate those forks? Well, I do. Modestly, however, I think it
appropriate to step aside at this late juncture in favor of that paragon
of uncommon sense, Yogi Berra. "When you get to a fork in a
road," he counseled us, "take it!"
Well, what are we waiting for?
Notes
[1] May be cited as/On peut citer comme
suit:
Peter Brandon. "The Internet Myth: A Model for More
Activist Government in a Knowledge Society,"
Government Information in
Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada No. 14.
[http://www.usask.ca/library/gic/14/brandon.html] and Editor and Publisher, [3] Peter G. Brown, Restoring the
Public Trust (Boston: Beacon Press), 1994. [4] Lester C. Thurow, "Needed: A New
System of Intellectual Property Rights," Harvard Business
Review (September-October 1997). [5] Thurow, Harvard Business
Review.
|