Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Number/Numéro 14


The Internet Myth:
A Model for More Activist Government in a Knowledge Society
(1)

Peter Brandon (2)


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:

  • Gutenberg's contraption and related technologies (like mass production of cheap wood pulp paper, the rolling press, the Linotype) only contributed to making the undertaking of state-sponsored public education easier, faster, more doable and ultimately more successful. In this case, social attitudes provided a welcoming context for determined government action. Positive feedback (or "increasing returns," if you will) ensued, aided by a supportive public and improving technology.

  • The rapid advances in medical knowledge, diagnosing techniques, medicines and medical apparatus contributed to increase the individual's quality of life and chances of survival. However, as any population statistician will tell you, there is a tremendous qualitative gap between the concepts of individual health and population health. Closing this gap required thorough and sustained changes in public attitudes. Determined government action in this case helped shape public attitudes. In turn, these attitudes, combined with further government action and statistical and medical advances, led to accelerating increases in the levels of public health (at least in the Western world).

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:

  1. A major reassertion of the government's responsibility with respect to public information and certain public knowledge.

  2. A delivery model whose principles (but not necessarily mechanics) are inspired by the Canada Health Act and Medicare.

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 trust conception of government--a conception which views the role of government with respect to public information and knowledge as a trustee of an essential national public asset; and

  • Making certain private knowledge public--an affirmation of the government's responsibility to make certain private information public in furtherance of the public interest in increasing social value derived from information.
The Trust Conception of Government

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:

  1. act out of loyalty in the best interest of the beneficiary, not those of the trustee, and, in the process, to preserve and enhance the value of the asset entrusted;

  2. not delegate the (entire) administration of the trust;

  3. provide the beneficiaries with information concerning the trust;

  4. enforce claims on behalf of the trust; and

  5. make the trust property productive.

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." (3)

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:

  1. an obligation toward the vulnerable;

  2. an assumption that citizenship carries not just rights, but also obligations;

  3. an obligation to manage the asset entrusted effectively and parsimoniously, yet productively. (By productively I mean a fixation with maximizing the public [societal] value of the information and knowledge.)

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:

  • society's interest in educating the young may justify placing educational technologies in the public domain; or

  • in an egalitarian democracy, it may be appropriate for lifesaving technologies to be generally available to everyone, not just the rich.

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:

  • Knowledge Care would be a universal national information and knowledge access system directed at the general public who use public information and knowledge for (primarily) non-commercial needs;

  • Knowledge Care would not be, strictly speaking, a safety net; this would imply an afterthought or after-the-fact attempt to redress an inequity;

  • Knowledge Care would not cover access to all information. Just as certain medical procedures (e.g., elective plastic surgery) are excluded from Medicare coverage, so will certain information access services;

  • Knowledge Care would create a continuum of public interest information and knowledge access and dissemination space, bounded by proactive "duty to inform" at one end, and by "prompted" release of information through the Access to Information Act--the last resort--at the other end of the spectrum;

  • Knowledge Care would also encompass information locators/inventories (such as InfoSource, institutional holdings inventories, and government-wide locators), government-wide metadata repositories and related mediation capabilities (such as Enquiries Canada and Reference Canada) which facilitate the identification, location and requesting of the appropriate information by the public and other institutions.

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:

  1. Government information and certain other knowledge of public interest should be generated, acquired, preserved, and administered as a national public asset, for which government has trustee responsibilities. (This effectively cements the two legs of the first pillar discussed earlier.)

  2. Government shall help the public gain an appropriate level of access to this national public asset.

  3. Public information and knowledge essential for citizens being able to function in an information society will be readily accessible to all without unreasonable barriers of cost, time, format, or rules of secrecy.

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:

  • must provide for access to public interest federal government information and certain other public knowledge on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly, reasonable access to government information by Canadian residents wherever they may reside;

  • must provide a government-wide reference or locator system to serve as the focal point for access to all federal government information and certain other public knowledge;

  • must provide access to such information and knowledge using advanced information access, communications and management technologies, while lowering the barriers to public access through such technologies; however, the information must be rendered in a format useable by the recipient (e.g., a printed copy);

  • must provide for reasonable access points and access intermediaries which increase accessibility and provide appropriate mediation assistance where necessary;

  • must provide for reasonable compensation to providers and intermediaries involved in the authorized delivery of public interest government information and knowledge to Canadian residents;

  • must use the most efficient combination of public and private resources to ensure accessibility on uniform terms and conditions.

INCLUDE OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT: A Universal Public Knowledge System:

  • can be delivered using the resources and infrastructures available at the federal and other levels, including provincial, regional, and municipal which can opt in;

  • must provide for appropriate arrangements and incentives that recognize the desirability of delivering access and dissemination services to Canadians using common delivery points and infrastructures.

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:

  • must be operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the federal government;

  • must designate the Information Commissioner as the ombudsman for the System;

  • must designate the Privacy Commissioner as the guardian of privacy rights of Canadians.

 

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:

  1. No technology--not even the Internet--will bring about desirable social outcomes on its own. The Internet will not, by itself, beget an informed population and participatory democracy any more than Gutenberg's printing press can be credited with creating mass literacy, or than advances in medical science and apparatus can be held solely responsible for the current state of public health.

  2. What ultimately brings about an "informed participation society" are (1) enlightened social attitudes and (2) corresponding government action. Just as expanding ideas of human equality led to government-supported public education and government-sponsored health services, we need to work to ensure that current social attitudes reach the sort of critical mass that push governments to act. That governments can stand by and let the Internet (or whatever else may come along) work its magic is as much a fallacy as the idea that markets do not need any intervention, and least of all from government.

  3. Government action in moving toward a knowledge society should manifest itself through an activist role in making sure the public can access and use government information and certain public knowledge. This renewed activist posture should make itself felt through two sets of actions.

  4. First, a strong reassertion of the government's responsibility in public information and certain public knowledge. This can be carried out through the affirmation of a trustee role of government towards public information and knowledge and, as an extension of this role, the establishment of a social instrument to make certain private information and knowledge public, in furtherance of the public interest.

  5. Second, the creation of a universal public knowledge service patterned after the Canada Health Act--a remarkable and enduring social compact, the spirit of which has survived unscathed its implementation difficulties. The Act and its fundamental principles are a reasonable inspirational platform for a universal public knowledge service. I have not attempted to propose ways to operationalize this service--I leave this to someone braver than me.

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]
Back to text.

[2]

Peter Brandon
Senior Consultant and Partner,
Sysnovators Ltd.,
Ottawa, Canada
Telephone (613) 746-5150
Fax (613) 746-9757
Internet pbrandon@fox.nstn.ca

and

Editor and Publisher,
Electronic Information Partnerships
An information policy newsletter published by a group of Canadian information professionals

Back to text.

[3] Peter G. Brown, Restoring the Public Trust (Boston: Beacon Press), 1994.
Back to text.

[4] Lester C. Thurow, "Needed: A New System of Intellectual Property Rights," Harvard Business Review (September-October 1997).
Back to text.

[5] Thurow, Harvard Business Review.
Back to text.


... [HOME PAGE / PAGE D'ACCUEIL] ...