|
|
|
Capacity building for geo-information provision: A public goods perspective
several researchers in the international development scene. See e.g. Kaul et al (1999),
Kaul and Ryu (2001), Kaul (2001a,b), Stalgren (2000), Ferroni (2000). They argue that
the “tectonic shifts that have affected in the recent past what is public and private force us
to question the core dimensions in the standard definition of the public good”. These
recent critiques can be summarized as follows:
- The lines between “public” and “private” are blurred and constantly changing.
“Public” and “private” are not anymore fixed but time-variable properties of goods.
Although some researchers suggest to abandon the public-private distinction
altogether, others argue forcefully that a good’s properties should be made explicit-
even though they may be of a temporary nature – because they determine the
provision strategy for the good and affect actors’ decisions to reveal their preference
and level of demand. They assert that the good’s “publicness” is a social construct.
And that the public or private nature of a good is not a given but a matter of policy
choice.
- The role of non-state actors in the provision of public goods is increasing, locally and
globally. The state is not the only policy response to public goods provision. Civil
society and private business can be active promoters and shapers of public goods.
However it is recognized that although civil society and business can press for change
in norms and adopt voluntary standards, only national governments can translate
these demands into binding law and make agreements stick.
- Publicness in consumption does not mean positive utility for all. People enter market
arrangements voluntarily. But in the case of a public good they may not have an
avenue for criticism or an exit opportunity. They may be compelled to consume the
public good (or bad). Therefore, it is important to ascertain whether a good’s
publicness in form goes hand in hand with publicness in substance.
Kaul (2001a) proposes therefore an expanded definition2 for public goods that
characterizes them in terms of their:
- publicness in consumption or inclusiveness3: Inclusiveness has three origins: (i)
deliberate public policy to place or to keep the good’s benefits in the public domain,
(ii) non-excludability of the goods benefits due to economic and technical reasons,
and (iii) inadvertent existence of the good (or bad) in the public domain.
- publicness in provision: based on a fully participatory decision making and design.
All key actors should have a fair opportunity to help shape the good in question,
monitor its production, assess its impact and recommend, if necessary adjustments in
its design.
- publicness in the distribution of benefits
2 We shall refer to this definition as Kaul’s definition. Inge Kaul is the Director of the UNDP’s Office of
Development Studies, New York.
3 Kaul (2001) argues that defining public goods through the broader criterion of inclusivess changes the
concept from a passive, residual category (non-marketable) into an active, policy guided one.
|
|
|