|
|
|
Capacity building for geo-information provision: A public goods perspective
1. Introduction
In Sandler’s (1998) words “technology has provided humankind with the means to
monitor the earth and its atmosphere in novel ways: remote sensing satellites have
identified holes in the stratospheric ozone layer; atmospheric observatories atop Mauna
Loa on the Island of Hawaii record the accumulation of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide
and other pollutants. With these technologies, we have become cognizant of goods (and
bads) of a global and regional nature”.
The emergence into our consciousness of transnational and global bads – e.g. spread of
infectious diseases, degradation of the global environment, loss of biodiversity, global
financial volatility- has fueled the debate of how to reform the traditional, countryfocused
system of international development cooperation that has evolved over the past
50 years. Several researchers view many of today’s global crises as caused by
underprovision of international public goods, or oversupply of global bads. They now
argue for a correction of the underprovision through new international governance
institutions and new mechanisms for the supply and financing of regional and global
public goods. See Kanbur et al (1999), Kaul et al (1999), Ferroni (2000, 2001, 2002),
Kaul (2001), Sandler (1998, 2001), Besley and Ghatak (2001), Stiglitz (1999a, b).
The wealth of recent research on (global) public goods provision does not start from
scratch. It builds on the well-established traditional concept of a (national) public good,
first mentioned by David Hume, and later introduced into economic theory by Paul
Samuelson in the 50s1. However, recent global public goods research not only redefines
the public goods concept in more relevant, global and practical terms. It also provides
new insights for policy formulation related to the provision, ownership and financing
strategies of regional and global public goods as well as a new lens through which to
view the urgency for institutional, organizational and individual capacity building in the
developing world. See e.g. GEF-UNDP (2000) for a global assessment of capacity
building needs in biodiversity, climate change and land degradation at the institutional,
organizational and individual level.
What are the authors’ interests in these issues? First, our institute (ITC) aims to operate as
a node in an international knowledge network in Geo-information Science and Earth
Observation. These knowledge fields are broadly recognized as essential in finding
solutions for application domains of regional and global nature, such as (transboundary)
water management, food security & biodiversity preservation, for disaster preparedness
and for understanding of global change. Second, ITC is active in knowledge exchange
aimed primarily at capacity building and institutional development for and in less
developed countries (ITC, 2001). Hence, it is important to explore how recent
1 Quoted from Garrett (1992): “The public goods justification for the state, so impressive to economists
and political scientists, goes roughly like this. While a market may allow self-interested individuals to
create and allocate many goods optimally, there exist a class of goods –collective or public goods- that are
not produced adequately in a market system. These collective goods are goods that all individuals want but
whose production it is often not individually rational for people voluntarily to do their part to secure a
collectively rational outcome. The state can step in and force us all to contribute toward the production of
these goods, and we can all thereby be made better off”
|
|
|