b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 1 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

1 Chapter 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ‘Knowledge Society’ 11 12 as Academic Concept and Stage 13 14 of Development — A Conceptual 15 16 and Historical Review 17 18 Anna-Katharina Hornidge 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 1. Introduction 25 In the past twenty to thirty years, visionary terms which have been 26 incorporated into public speeches, academic writings, and day-to-day 27 journalism such as ‘knowledge society’, ‘information society’ and 28 ‘knowledge-based economy’2 announced a future in which social and 29 economic development is increasingly based on knowledge. While 30 31 32 1 This book chapter is largely based on Hornidge (2007). 33 2 For reasons of terminological clarity, this paper subsumes the wide range of terms including ‘knowledge society’, ‘information society’, ‘knowledge-based economy’ 34 under the term ‘knowledge society’. The remaining terms are merely addressed in 35 the sections specifically devoted to them. 36

1 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 2 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

2 A.-K. Hornidge

1 the concepts ‘knowledge society’ and ‘information society’ were 2 mainly developed by academics from Japan, the USA and Europe, the 3 concept ‘knowledge-based economy’ was proposed somewhat later 4 by international organizations such as the OECD.3 From there — 5 although far from complete — all three concepts entered the national 6 politics of many countries which aimed at the active creation of better 7 futures. Governments worldwide adopted the general idea of knowl- 8 edge society as well as the manifold terminology originating from the 9 scientific community. However, the theoretical concepts and defini- 10 tions of knowledge society supporting this vision were hardly taken 11 into account. Diagram 1 illustrates the overall focus and line of argu- 12 ment of this chapter: the conceptual and actual construction of 13 knowledge society. While the creation of the concepts was mainly 14 driven by the international scientific community, the construction of 15 knowledge societies as stages of development has been pushed by 16 national governments as well as (although not forming the focus of 17 this chapter) actors from the private sector, the media and civil society 18 groups. In redrawing this process of conceptual and actual construction, 19 I follow Berger and Luckmann’s approach of the social construction 20 21 22 3 The following scholars can be mentioned: Machlup (1962); Umesao (1963); Lane 23 (1966); Drucker (1969, 1993a, 1993b); Touraine (1969); Bell (1973, 1987); Porat 24 (1976); Nora and Minc (1979); Böhme and Stehr (1986); Kreibich (1986); Castells 25 (1989, 1996, 1997, 1998); Gibbons et al. (1994); Stehr (1994); and Willke (1998). 26 They were later scrutinised and their concepts of knowledge society developed fur- 27 ther by Kumar (1978); Gershuny (1978); Collins (1981); Lyon (1988, 1996); 28 Dordick and Wang (1993); Stehr (1994, 1999, 2001a, 2001b); Webster (1995); Willke (1998, 1999); Maasen (1999); Dunning (2000); Evers (2000, 2002a, 2002b, 29 2003, 2005); Evers et al. (2000); Hofmann (2001); Steinbicker (2001); David and 30 Foray (2002); Lloyd and Payne (2002); Evers and Menkhoff (2003); Mattelart 31 (2003); Evers and Gerke (2005); Knoblauch (2004, 2005); Kübler (2005); Tänzler, 32 Knoblauch and Soeffner (2006) and Hornidge (2007) to name a few. 33 Few scholars i.e., Lyon (1988, 1996); Webster (1995); Lloyd/Payne (2002); 34 Mattelart (2003); Evers (2003); Knoblauch (2004, 2005); Tänzler, Knoblauch and Soeffner (2006); Kübler (2005); Evers and Hornidge (2007) and Hornidge (2007) 35 point to the aspect of knowledge societies being constructed by social actors. The 36 remaining scholars implicitly subscribe to the notion of knowledge societies emerg- ing due to technological, economic and social developments taking place. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 3 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 3

1 VISION OF A SELF-EMERGING KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY 2 Terminology, Idea of self- Reference to self-emergence Legitimation emerging knowledge society of knowledge society for future action 3 SOCIETY 4 SCIENTIFIC STATE ECONOMY 5 COMMUNITY Construction of knowledge societies as stages of Construction of social & economic development 6 theoretical concepts Defined process-related ∗ Inf. Soc., KS, KBE Influenced by country-specific structural realities CIVIL 7 Defined categorically and definitions of knowledge SOCIETY Vast terminology Terminology vague but definitions of knowledge 8 societies in programmes very precise 9 MEDIA 10 11 12 COUNTRY-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE SOCIETIES 13 14 Diagram 1: The construction of knowledge society by the scientific community 15 and state politics 16 *Inf. Soc. = Information Society; KS = Knowledge Society; KBE = Knowledge-based Economy. 17 Source: Hornidge (2007:4). 18 19 of reality and understand ‘knowledge society’ as it is defined by the 20 social actors creating it (1984:16). 21 In the later half of the 20th century, multiple theoretical concepts 22 of knowledge society were developed primarily by the scientific com- 23 munities of Japan, USA and Europe as mentioned above. While the 24 academic concepts were quite well defined, this new, manifold termi- 25 nology lacked a clear distinction and was often used interchangeably. 26 The terminological vagueness — combined with the picture of a self- 27 emerging knowledge society that should be monitored, assessed and 28 analysed — contributed to the construction of a vision of a self-emerging 29 knowledge society (Hornidge, 2007). This vision describes a stage of 30 development as future form of social and economic reality based on 31 the increasing relevance of knowledge and information to social and 32 economic development. Accordingly, knowledge society was often seen 33 as a product of technological developments in the information and 34 communication sector as well as economic developments in the service 35 and knowledge intensive sectors. Governments of many countries 36 embarked on the creation of knowledge societies as stages of national b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 4 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

4 A.-K. Hornidge

1 development and legitimised their actions by referring to the perceived 2 necessity to guide, guard and monitor ongoing technological develop- 3 ments. The vision of a self-emerging knowledge society therefore acted 4 as basis for legitimising government programs and activities towards 5 the realisation of the envisioned future stage of development. 6 In the following, I will review the creation of knowledge society as 7 theoretical idea and concept, followed by an outline of its adoption by 8 US-American, Japanese, European and eventually Singaporean politics. 9 It is the aim to show that knowledge society as theoretical concept and 10 political vision was constructed and instrumentalised by actors world- 11 wide. As such we are looking at a global hype with local consequences. 12 Methodologically this paper is based on (a) a review and discus- 13 sion of primary and secondary conceptual literature on the notion of 14 ‘knowledge society’ and (b) a review and qualitative assessment of 15 US-American, Japanese, European and Singaporean state programs 16 and initiatives towards ‘knowledge society’. 17 18 2. ‘Knowledge Society’ — The Conceptual Development 19 20 Overall, the theoretical construction of the concepts of knowledge 21 society can be structured into a primary4 and a secondary phase,5 22 23 4 Here, theorists such as Umesao (1963); Nora/Minc (1979) and Castells (1989, 1996, 24 1997, 1998) can be named as contributors to the concept of a technology determined 25 society, often called ‘information society’. Lane (1966); Bell (1973, 1987); Touraine 26 (1969); Kreibich (1986); Böhme/Stehr (1986); Willke (1998) and Gibbons et al. 27 (1994) worked on a concept of a knowledge-driven society, generally labeled ‘knowledge society’, while Machlup (1962); Porat (1976) and Drucker (1969, 1993a, 1993b) can 28 be listed together with international organisations such as OECD (1996a, b) and APEC 29 (1998, 2000) as theorists constructing the concept of a ‘knowledge-based economy’. 30 5 Contributors to this secondary phase of construction include Kumar (1978); 31 Gershuny (1978); Collins (1981); Lyon (1988, 1996); Dordick/Wang (1993); 32 Stehr (1994, 1999, 2001a, 2001b); Webster (1995); Willke (1998, 1999); Maasen 33 (1999); Dunning (2000); Evers (2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005); Evers et al. (2000); Hofmann (2001); Steinbicker (2001); David/Foray (2002); Lloyd/Payne 34 (2002); Evers/Menkhoff (2003); Mattelart (2003); Evers/Gerke (2005); 35 Knoblauch (2004, 2005); Kübler (2005); Tänzler/Knoblauch/Soeffner (2006) and 36 Evers/Hornidge (2007). b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 5 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 5

as argued in detail by Hornidge (2007). During the primary phase 1 and inspired by developments in the information and communica- 2 tion technology sector, especially the internet,6 several scientists 3 developed the idea of knowledge, information, as well as informa- 4 tion and communication technologies becoming increasingly 5 important for economic and social development and leading to a 6 new stage of development, following the industrial society. The 7 secondary phase of construction is characterised by the further 8 development of the conceptual ideas, increasing their empirical 9 base, depth and the theorising of these empirical data. While the 10 conceptual ideas leading to the concepts ‘knowledge society’ and 11 ‘information society’ were mainly developed in the 1960s to 12 1980s, the conceptual basis of the ‘knowledge-based economy’ 13 was formed mainly in the 1990s. 14 15 16 2.1 Phase I: Ideas, Terms, Concepts 17 The concept of knowledge and its importance to society is not new. 18 While, for instance, the philosopher Plato (428–347 BC) rated 19 intelligence as the most important quality of a political leader, the 20 philosopher and economist Mill argued, in 1863, that intellectual 21 and moral education even surpasses industry and wealth in its 22 effects on societal development (Mill, 1974). But if one wants to 23 identify a founder of the notion of ‘knowledge society’, it should be 24 the American sociologist Robert E. Lane. In 1966, Lane developed, 25 based on his works on the US-American society, the concept of a 26 ‘knowledgeable society’, assuming that knowledge, mainly referring 27 to scientific, philosophical and cultural knowledge, replaces 28 industrial organisation and production as the major source of 29 30 31 32 6 On the development of the internet, see J.L. King and K.L. Kraemer (1995). 33 Information Infrastructure, National Policy, and Global Competitiveness, Information Infrastructure and Policy, March. Until today, the internet forms the 34 technological backbone of the ‘knowledge society’ by enabling simultaneous knowl- 35 edge sharing which facilitates accelerated knowledge production. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 6 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

6 A.-K. Hornidge

1 productivity. Lane stated as “a first approximation to a definition”, 2 that “the knowledgeable society is one in which, more than in other 3 societies, its members: (a) inquire into the basis of their beliefs 4 about man, nature, and society; (b) are guided (perhaps uncon- 5 sciously) by objective standards of veridical truth, and, at the upper 6 levels of education, follow scientific rules of evidence and inference 7 in inquiry; (c) devote considerable resources to this inquiry and 8 thus have a large store of knowledge; (d) collect, organise, and 9 interpret their knowledge in a constant effort to extract further 10 meaning from it for the purposes at hand; (e) employ this knowl- 11 edge to illuminate (and perhaps modify) their values and goals as 12 well as to advance them”. Lane described further: “Just as the ‘dem- 13 ocratic society’ has a foundation in governmental and interpersonal 14 relations and the ‘affluent society’ a foundation in economics, so 15 the knowledgeable society has its roots in epistemology and the 16 logic of inquiry” (1966:650). The common criticism towards the 17 concept of the ‘knowledgeable society’, that knowledge is present 18 and always has been present in all types of human society, Lane 19 answered by mentioning that the elements of knowledge creation, 20 consumption and furthering are present in some degree in every 21 society; but “in the knowledgeable society they are present to the 22 greatest degree” (1966:650). 23 In 1973, the American sociologist Daniel Bell then popularised 24 the concept with his book “The Coming of Post-Industrial 25 Society”. Bell focused on the transformation from industrial to 26 post-industrial society in which theoretical knowledge as axial prin- 27 ciple forms the central, economic growth enhancing power. He 28 stated; “the post-industrial society, it is clear, is a knowledge 29 society” (1973:212) and identified two indicators for its ‘emer- 30 gence’: (a) “the sources of innovation are increasingly derivative 31 from research and development (...)”, and (b) “the weight of the 32 society — measured by a larger proportion of Gross National 33 Product and a larger share of employment — is increasingly in 34 the knowledge field” (1973:212). Parting the society into eco- 35 nomic sectors, he argued that the post-industrial sector is vastly 36 developing and changing due to telecommunication and computer b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 7 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 7

technology.7 The technological determinism, supported by Bell 1 from the 1980s onwards, can also be found in the literature on the 2 concept ‘information society’. Today, four decades later, universities 3 and research institutions are nevertheless far from being the central, 4 axial institutions guiding societal development that Bell envisioned. 5 Instead, several authors state that the university and research sector 6 have long lost their dominant position (Evers, 2000; Knorr-Cetina, 7 1999; Willke, 1999; Heidenreich, 2003).8 Despite this and further 8 criticism9 Bell’s work on the emergence and rise of post-industrial 9 society remains to be the first detailed study on the change-enhancing 10 aspect of increasing knowledge production and dissemination in 11 society. As described by Bell, “the post-industrial society (…) is 12 primarily a change in the character of social structure — in a dimen- 13 sion, not the total configuration of society. It is an ‘ideal type’, a 14 construct, put together by the social analyst, of diverse changes in 15 the society which, when assembled, becomes more or less coherent 16 when contrasted with other conceptual constructs” (1987:73). 17 In Europe before the 1980s, only few European scientists took 18 part in the discussion. An exception is the French sociologist Alain 19 Touraine (1969). He published his thoughts on an evolving ‘societé 20 postindustrielle’ in opposition to Bell’s thesis and discussed the possi- 21 bly arising conflict between knowledge ‘have’ and knowledge 22 ‘have-nots’ as potential carrier of societal innovation and change. 23 24 25 7 In order to define the term ‘post-industrial society’, Bell identifies five components 26 (1973:14): 27 1. Economic sector: the change from a goods-producing to a service economy; 2. Occupational distribution: the pre-eminence of the professional and technical 28 class; 29 3. Axial principle: the centrality of theoretical knowledge as the source of innova- 30 tion and policy formulation for society; 31 4. Future orientation: the control of technology and technological assessment; 32 5. Decision-making: the creation of a new ‘intellectual technology’. 33 8 Bell’s reference to the increasing research budget of the United States in the 1960s and 70s (the time of writing) does not take into account their decrease from the 34 1980s onwards (Steinbicker, 2001:72). 35 9 For details, see Hornidge (2007:33–35). 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 8 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

8 A.-K. Hornidge

1 The term ‘information society’ goes back to the Japanese econo- 2 mist Tadao Umesao, who in 1963 published his analogy between 3 evolution and the three economic sectors of society. He argued that 4 the agricultural sector can be regarded as an organism simply digest- 5 ing the production of material goods, while he regarded the 6 production of intellectual goods as analogous to organisms using 7 their nerve systems for planning their actions and controlling their 8 environment. This analogy between evolution and the three eco- 9 nomic sectors led Umesao to his argument that society, once it 10 reaches the highest level of societal development, concentrates on the 11 production of intellectual goods (Umesao, 1963). The development 12 of ‘joho shakai’ (‘information society’) became the aim of industrial 13 development and since then has shaped the economic and research 14 politics of Japan (Dordick and Wang, 1993:37). Eleven years later in 15 Europe, Simon Nora and Alain Minc published a report on 16 the “informatisation of French society” (Nora and Minc, 1979). The 17 authors took a clearly technological approach and argued that the 18 development of ICTs would act as an economic growth enhancing 19 factor leading to first, a new sector of production specialised on the 20 required hard and software, second, a technology driven productivity 21 push in all industrial sectors and third, a diffusion of ICTs in all sec- 22 tors of society and materialisation as central factor in the social 23 infrastructure of nations worldwide. Hence, an ‘information society’, 24 a society based on ICTs would arise. The process leading to this new 25 state of society was labelled ‘informatisation’. The combination of 26 telecommunications and automatic data processing that was seen as 27 the main drivers of this development was named “télématique” 28 (Minc, 1987:134). Similar to the thoughts of Umesao in Japan, the 29 report heavily shaped the politics of France in the field of ICT devel- 30 opment (Nora and Minc, 1979:7). 31 Critically inspired by McLuhan’s idea of the global village 32 (1962),10 Manuel Castells in 1989 published his thoughts on 33 34 35 10 McLuhan assumed that ICTs would decrease the role of distances and hence 36 leading to a restructuring of spatial orders with a decreasing importance of cities. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 9 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 9

the transformation of spatial orders due to ICTs as manifesta- 1 tions of interaction between the restructuring of capitalism as a 2 social system and informationalism as a new form of socio-technical 3 organisation, with the informational city in its centre. (Castells, 1989, 4 2004; Castells and Laserna, 1989). In his trilogy “The Information 5 Age” (Castells, 1996, 1997, 1998), Castells drew the picture of an 6 ‘informational capitalism’, first (1996) outlining the informational 7 society as revolution of the information technology, the global infor- 8 mational economy, the network cooperation, the transformation 9 from labour and occupational structure and the evolution of a culture 10 of virtuality with its final culmination in the network society; second 11 (1997) discussing new social movements that oppose the instrumen- 12 tal and universal order of the networks; and third (1998) assembling 13 analyses of the collapse of socialism and the second world, the down- 14 fall of the fourth world (referring to development countries as well as 15 to peripheries in the metropoles), the rise of the tiger states in the 16 Asia-Pacific-Rim, as well as the unification process of Europe. In the 17 first volume, Castells developed his concept of an ‘informational soci- 18 ety’. Most central to his approach is the distinction between the 19 capitalist mode of production and the informational mode of devel- 20 opment. While the former is a way of organising a social system, the 21 later is presented as a means of generating a given level of production. 22 According to Castells, different societies operate with different modes 23 of development, such as today ICTs announce “the rise of a new 24 technological paradigm, which heralds a new mode of development” 25 (1989:12). Parallel to Bell, Castells views the changes in techniques 26 of production and development — due to ICTs — as well as the 27 increasing importance of information and knowledge as central, but 28 analytically independent axes of societal change. Thus, Castells regards 29 the ICT revolution as main driver to all major structural transforma- 30 tions (Webster, 1995:196). He reasoned that networks form the new 31 social morphology of society and the expansion of the network logic 32 changes the functions and results of production processes, experi- 33 ences, power and culture (1996:528). As an example, Castells 34 identified the international financial flows as densest, most flexible 35 and efficient global network, which — based on knowledge and 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 10 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

10 A.-K. Hornidge

1 information that continuously flow via ICTs around the globe — 2 basically cannot be controlled by national or democratic institutions 3 (1996:530). 4 Besides these academic works, popular scientists like Toffler 5 (1970, 1980, 1990), Naisbitt (1982), Vester (1968), Buchholz 6 (1970) and Jungk (1973) contributed to the conceptual develop- 7 ment of a mainly technologically-determined ‘information society’ as 8 well as at the time to the conceptual blurredness and lack of clear-cut 9 definitions. As such, the terms and concepts left the academic field 10 and entered political and popular culture, where they nourished the 11 hopes and dreams towards a better future as discussed in the second 12 half of this chapter. 13 So while the notion ‘knowledge society’ underlines the increased 14 role of different types of knowledge for overall societal development, 15 ‘information society’ regards ICTs as central to a new form of societal 16 and economic development. In addition to this, the term ‘knowledge- 17 based economy’ emphasises the increased role of knowledge, 18 information and data to economic prosperity, an aspect basically already 19 acknowledged by Adam Smith in 1776 by stating: “man educated at the 20 expense of much labour and time (…) may be compared to one of those 21 expensive machines” (Smith, 1910 quoted in Machlup, 1962:5). Two- 22 hundred years later (1962), the US-American economist Fritz Machlup 23 took up this thought and argued that a fourth economic sector can be 24 added to the traditional three, namely agriculture, industry, services. He 25 labelled this fourth sector the ‘knowledge industry’. For the empirical 26 analysis of it, he combined two approaches: (a) the industry approach 27 and (b) the occupational approach (1962:44–50). In both approaches, 28 he ascribed an economic value to industrial sectors and occupational 29 groups and calculated their contribution to the US-American GNP.11 30 Due to a proportionate contribution of the fourth sector, Machlup 31 32 11 33 The industry approach groups information goods and services that are not produced by information workers under the fourth sector. As an example, Machlup mentions 34 the process of paper manufacturing. Within this fourth sector he distinguishes five 35 industry groups (split into fifty sub-branches): (a) education (e.g., schools, libraries, 36 and universities); (b) media of communication (e.g., radio and television, advertising); b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 11 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 11

argued that a ‘knowledge economy’ is emerging. Machlup’s statistical 1 approach to grasping the ‘knowledge economy’ was later developed fur- 2 ther by Marc Porat (1976), who calculated the contribution of 3 ‘information workers’ and the ‘information economy’ to the overall 4 GNP of the USA. His approach was nevertheless criticised for overlaps 5 in his defining categorisation of occupations as ‘information workers’. 6 While he for example, counted judges and rent collectors as ‘informa- 7 tion workers’, doctors were not. Today, Porat’s calculations are mainly 8 conjoined with Machlup’s founding work. Despite existing criticism, 9 Machlup’s and Porat’s calculations contributed to an easy-to-grasp and 10 purely economy-oriented definition of ‘knowledge society’. It later 11 contributed to the fact that the terms ‘information society’ and ‘knowl- 12 edge-based economy’, much less ‘knowledge society’, heavily entered 13 the political sphere. 14 Parallel to Machlup and Porat’s work, the US-American economist 15 Peter F. Drucker (1969) was convinced that knowledge “has become 16 the foundation of the modern economy” as we have shifted from an 17 ‘economy of goods’ to a ‘knowledge economy’ (1969:249, 247). For 18 his analysis, he distinguished the “age of continuity” between 1913 19 and the late 1960s and the “age of discontinuity” after 1960. He 20 argued that the main technical inventions took place in the years from 21 1913 to the beginning of World War I in the industrialising countries, 22 while in the subsequent 50 years, economic development took place, 23 but no change in structure. This changed with the age of discontinuity 24 after 1960, which brought about fundamental changes in the areas of 25 26 27 (c) information machines (e.g., computer equipment, musical instruments); (d) infor- mation services (e.g., law, insurance, and medicine); as well as (e) other information 28 activities (e.g., research and development, and non-profit activities). In the occupa- 29 tional approach, all occupations concerned with the production and use of knowledge 30 and information are listed. Yet, the disadvantage of the occupational approach is 31 according to Machlup, that firstly, a connection between using information and knowl- 32 edge at the work place and the production of information goods does not necessarily 33 exist. Secondly, the occupational approach disrespects qualitative differences in the use of information/knowledge. He therefore concluded: “We conclude that both industry 34 analyses and occupation analyses are needed in order to find out about the past devel- 35 opment and present role of knowledge-production” (1962:48). 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 12 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

12 A.-K. Hornidge

1 technology, economy, political structure and society. He holds four 2 factors responsible for the emergence of the age of discontinuity: (a) 3 the development of information and data configuration technologies; 4 (b) the internationalization of the economy; (c) an individualization 5 that leads to a neutralization of the main social and political organisa- 6 tions; as well as (d) the emergence of a ‘knowledge society’ in which 7 knowledge becomes the central element. Drucker (1969:60) pointed 8 to the development of ICTs which embody a new economic reality. 9 Similarly to Bell, Drucker addressed the knowledge-based character of 10 these technologies as a central aspect of knowledge society. Yet, for 11 Drucker, this new economic sector is directed to a new expansive eco- 12 nomic phase in which the state merely creates the legal and 13 infrastructural frame, which then is filled by the industry itself. For Bell, 14 in opposition to Drucker, these new industries point to an increasing 15 dependence of economic growth from state organised basic R&D. 16 Hence, the same focus (on ICTs as new industrial sector) was inter- 17 preted by Drucker and Bell very differently (Steinbicker, 2001:23).12 18 Similarly to Machlup, Drucker pointed to the growth of the ‘knowl- 19 edge industries’13 and described the development of knowledge, its 20 21 12 In the economic sphere, Drucker predicted the development of a world economy 22 that is characterised by increasing global integration, disregarding national borders. 23 As an institution, guarding the production and distribution of goods worldwide, 24 Drucker (1969:103–107) suggested a multinational world corporation, not national 25 governments. Looking at the micro-level of economy, he emphasised the increasing 26 importance of the ‘knowledge worker’ in these ‘knowledge industries’. In the politi- 27 cal sphere, Drucker developed a theory of organisation which stated that the modern society is increasingly structured by specialised organisations that concentrate on cer- 28 tain social and political aspects in society. The interweaving of organisations with 29 autonomous orientation created a new pluralistic order in society, according to 30 Drucker (1969:219–223), which in turn witnessed the state loosing its central role. 31 Drucker saw the state as increasingly dysfunctional and argued that a reorganisation 32 of the state and its roles is required. In the social sphere, he clearly saw a ‘knowledge 33 society’ arising. He argued, that “the central wealth-creating activities will be neither the allocation of capital to productive uses, nor ‘labour’... Value is now created by 34 ‘productivity’ and ‘innovation’, both applications of knowledge to work” (1994:8). 35 13 He defined ‘knowledge industries’ as industries, producing ideas and information 36 rather than goods and services. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 13 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 13

character and importance in economy and society from knowledge of 1 salvation (Erlösungswissen) in 1700 to the linkage of technology and 2 science as well as the application of knowledge in industrial processes 3 and finally the application of knowledge in knowledge production 4 today. He concluded that the increase in formal education after 5 World War II (an increase in ‘knowledge workers’) as well as the char- 6 acter change of knowledge are the main driving forces for the 7 emergence of a ‘knowledge economy’.14 8 The above outline illustrates that the members of the scientific 9 community who originally developed the multiple concepts of 10 ‘knowledge society’ defined those categorically, meaning by dividing 11 the assessed changes in society and economy into certain categories. 12 The concepts as well as the terminology labelling the differing con- 13 cepts are both manifold in character, used interchangeably and with 14 textual overlaps. While the definitions of the varying knowledge 15 society concepts are rather distinct, the interchangeably used and 16 manifold terminology blurs the understanding of the notion of a 17 knowledge society. Common to most academic works outlined 18 above is nevertheless the belief that some kind of knowledge society 19 is emerging due to the technological developments in the informa- 20 tion and communication industries, the growth of the service sector 21 and the increasing knowledge-intensity of industrial products. But 22 before discussing how the notions of ‘knowledge society’, ‘infor- 23 mation society’ or ‘knowledge-based economy’ entered national 24 politics, I shall outline the secondary phase of developing the theo- 25 retical concepts further. 26 27 28 2.2 Phase II: Concepts, theories & recommendations 29 towards their realisation 30 The primary phase of constructing the theoretical concepts ‘knowl- 31 edge society’, ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge-based economy’ 32 was followed by a secondary phase. Here, scholars built on the 33 34 14 In his later works (Drucker, 1993b, 1994), Drucker developed the above outlined 35 hypothesis further. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 14 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

14 A.-K. Hornidge

1 above outlined works and attempted to specify the analyses of the 2 social and economic changes, the developed concepts and the intro- 3 duced terminology in order to offer a comprehensive picture of the 4 assessed changes. During this secondary phase, the primary theories 5 on the concepts continued to act as main reference theories which 6 were scrutinised and theorised further. Common to most of these 7 concepts has been the belief that the stage of societal development 8 which they describe emerges as a result of the rapid technological 9 developments in the information and communication sector, the 10 growth of the service sector and the high profit margin of knowl- 11 edge intensive goods. Hence, that the stage of development here 12 named knowledge society is self-emerging.15 This section will 13 briefly discuss scholars contributing to the secondary phase. A more 14 detailed outline of their works is, for reasons of limited space, 15 provided in Hornidge (2007) only. 16 In 1986, Stehr and Böhme in “The Knowledge Society” aimed to 17 contribute to a new approach towards formulating “a theory of soci- 18 ety which captures the dynamics of science, technology and society” 19 (Böhme and Stehr, 1986:7). They agreed with the assertion of theo- 20 rists such as Bell that knowledge arises as an ‘axial principle’ in highly 21 developed societies. Yet, they criticised mainly three aspects: (a) a 22 missing sociology of knowledge in the existing theories on knowl- 23 edge societies defining its core element — knowledge (1986:16); 24 (b) the usage of the term ‘post-industrial society’ rather than ‘knowl- 25 edge society’ (Stehr, 1994:12); and (c) the internalism of the new 26 sociology of science, neglecting the impacts of scientific knowledge 27 on societal development (Böhme and Stehr, 1986:4). They stressed 28 the importance of scientific knowledge and concluded that “contem- 29 porary society may be described as ‘knowledge society’ based on 30 the penetration of all its spheres of life by scientific knowledge” 31 32 33 15 Only few scholars such as Lyon (1988, 1996); Webster (1995); Lloyd/Payne 34 (2002); Mattelart (2003); Knoblauch (2004, 2005); Tänzler/Knoblauch/Soeffner 35 (2006); Kübler (2005); (Hornidge, 2007) point to the aspect of knowledge societies 36 being constructed by social actors. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 15 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 15

(1986:8).16 In 1994, Stehr (1994:9) defined knowledge as the capac- 1 ity for social action, which — according to him — emphasises the 2 aspect of value added due to knowledge (1994:95). 3 In 1998, the sociologist Helmut Willke underlined the inde- 4 pendent production of new knowledge in all functional areas of 5 society as defining aspect of ‘knowledge society’. He saw this in 6 differentiated and highly technological societies of the West, where 7 the structures and processes of the material and symbolic reproduc- 8 tion of society are penetrated by knowledge-based operations up to 9 a degree that the importance of information processing, symbolic 10 analysis and expert systems decreases compared to other factors of 11 reproduction (1998:162). While Stehr and Böhme heavily empha- 12 sised the importance of scientific knowledge for the emergence of a 13 ‘knowledge society’, Willke, as well as Michael Gibbons et al. 14 argued that science and academic centres loose its former monopoly- 15 status. According to Willke and Gibbons et al., every sector of society, 16 including the cultural, judiciary, economic and health systems, 17 reproduces itself by producing its own knowledge independently 18 19 20

16 It advances as follows (1986:8): 21 1. penetration of most spheres of social action by scientific knowledge (‘scientifi- 22 cation’); 23 2. replacement of forms of knowledge by scientific knowledge (e.g., profession- 24 alisation). The role of experts and consultants is further discussed by Stehr in 25 1992 (Stehr/Ericson, 1992); 26 3. emergence of science as an immediately productive force; 27 4. differentiation of forms of political action (e.g., science and educational policy); 5. development of a new sector of production (the production of knowledge); 28 6. change of power structures (technocracy debate); 29 7. emergence of intellectuals as a new social class. 30 In 1994, Stehr completed this list by replacing point 7 with point 8 and 31 adding point 9 and 10 (1994:10/11): 32 8. emergence of knowledge as the basis for social inequality and social solidarity; 33 9. trend to base authority and expertise; 10. shift in the nature of societal conflict from struggles about the allocation of 34 income and divisions in property relations to claims and conflicts about gener- 35 alised human needs. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 16 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

16 A.-K. Hornidge

1 (Willke, 1998; Gibbons et al., 1994). This varying emphasis on the 2 production of scientific knowledge stated the main disagreement 3 between Stehr as well as Willke and Gibbons et al. It determined 4 the further development of two divergent concepts of ‘knowledge 5 society’. 6 Analysing the production of this knowledge, Gibbons et al. stated 7 that the increasing diversification and specialisation of the localities of 8 knowledge production results in new forms of production. The 9 scholars developed a 2-mode-concept: Mode 1 is the traditional way 10 of producing knowledge, characterised by its homogeneity and 11 disciplinary focus. Research problems are solved within academic insti- 12 tutions that are hierarchically organised. Mode 2 is the new form of 13 producing knowledge, characterised as reflexive, multi- and trans- 14 disciplinary and therefore dynamic and heterogeneous. Mode 2 15 knowledge is produced in a multiplicity of different organisations and 16 institutions and is carried out in a context of application. It is gener- 17 ally a very problem-oriented form of knowledge production. In their 18 work, Gibbons et al. prognosticated that Mode 1 is slowly replaced 19 by or integrated into Mode 2. This results in a socially distributed 20 knowledge production system which enables most members of 21 society to take part in knowledge production as well as in the con- 22 sumption of new knowledge (Gibbons, et al., 1994:1–16). Evers 23 took up this thought and argued that a triple helix of science- 24 industry-university has emerged producing knowledge polycentrically 25 with a multitude of ‘epistemic cultures’ and ‘milieus of knowledge 26 construction’ (Evers, 2000, 2005). In the words of Knorr-Cetina: “A 27 knowledge society is not simply a society of more experts, more tech- 28 nological gadgets, and more specialist interpretations. It is a society 29 permeated with knowledge cultures, the whole set of structures and 30 mechanisms that serve knowledge and unfold with its articulation” 31 (Knorr-Cetina, 1999:7–8). 32 The role of national governments in influencing the definitions of 33 ‘knowledge society’ according to their perspective of future, not cur- 34 rent society, was critically questioned by Knoblauch (2004:360–361). 35 For him the discourse surrounding ‘knowledge society’ in the politi- 36 cal sphere represents the aim to construct different types of social b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 17 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 17

reality rather than assessing it.17 Kübler in 2005 underlined that 1 ‘knowledge society’ is merely a myth constructed by academics, 2 politicians and the media. 3 Similarly to the notion of ‘knowledge society’, ‘information soci- 4 ety’ was developed further.18 In 1995, Webster assessed several 5 theoretical perspectives on ‘knowledge’ or ‘information society’ by 6 identifying two groups: (a) those who proclaim the emergence of a 7 new type of society (e.g., Bell, Castells, Baudrillard etc.); and (b) those 8 who emphasise continuities (e.g., Schiller, Harvey, Giddens, Habermas, 9 Garnham etc.) and aimed “to shake at least some of the presumptions 10 of those who subscribe to the notion of the arrival of a novel ‘infor- 11 mation society’” (1995:4). He criticised the strong emphasis on 12 technological development as prime vehicle of social change and cau- 13 tioned that the assumption of a new form of society arising caused 14 scholars to merely seek phenomena that might characterise the new 15 order. The analysis follows the idea rather than the observation of 16 social phenomena of change the analysis. 17 In 2001, Steinbicker critically assessed the works of Drucker, Bell 18 and Castells. He identified a structural common ground: (a) the new 19 means of productivity that are expressed in the organisational struc- 20 ture, work processes and changes in the academic system, as well as in 21 the relationship between scientific community, state and economy; 22 and (b) the transformation of labour and work relations. For Drucker, 23 24 25 17 In 2006, Tänzler, Knoblauch and Soeffner underlined this further and regarded 26 ‘knowledge society’ as “one of the last great inventions of the social sciences” which 27 caused some sensation also outside of the academic world (Tänzler/Knoblauch/ Soeffner, 2006:7). 28 18 In 1988, Lyon critically assessed how the emergence of an ‘information society’ “is 29 orchestrated, by whom, to what purpose and with what methods and effects” 30 (1988:20). The book concludes that the concept ‘information society’ is ideological 31 as well as utopian in character, used “to disguise the reality of powerful interests and 32 beliefs at work within it” (1988:19), but should not be abandoned. As reasons he 33 stated: (a) the process of ‘informatising’ poses questions concerning social, economic and cultural life that have to be discussed; (b) the development of ICTs is of social as 34 well as technical relevance; (c) it should be remembered that technological potential 35 is not social destiny; and (d) ICT-policies should always also involve social analysis. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 18 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

18 A.-K. Hornidge

1 this is the inner contradiction of ‘knowledge work’. For Bell, the 2 central characterisation of the ‘post-industrial society’ typifies 3 work/labour as the ‘play between humans’. For Castells, the work 4 conditions lever through the changes in the social structure that 5 affect society. These aspects were not considered as crucial by the 6 authors themselves, but, according to Steinbicker, pose a possibility 7 for connecting all three towards an empirically based theory of the 8 ‘information society’. Concerning Castells’ concept, this empirical 9 analysis could focus on the interplay of technological development, 10 economy, state and research as well as the institutional structures 11 evolving. An empirical assessment of the transformation of work con- 12 ditions should include (a) the thesis of structural change concerning 13 work conditions; (b) the analysis of the gap between ‘knowledge 14 workers’ and lower qualified workers as pointed out by Drucker and 15 Castells; (c) the relation between ‘knowledge work’ and organisations 16 as well as the meaning of hierarchy and control in the work process; 17 and (d) the social relevance of structural change concerning work 18 conditions. Yet, Steinbicker merely suggested the development of this 19 theoretical model without developing it further. 20 In line with Webster’s criticism of technological determinism 21 underlying many analyses of the ‘information society’, Mattelart 22 (2003) assessed the magnitude of which this technological develop- 23 ment is the result of geopolitical interests. He argued that the idea of 24 a global ‘information society’ is a construction that releases symbolic 25 powers while at the same time legitimises political activities, for the 26 satisfaction of geopolitical and economic interests. According to 27 Mattelart, the term ‘information society’ developed due to the inven- 28 tion of the intelligent machines built during World War II. From the 29 1960s onwards, it emerged as academic, political and economic aim. 30 The combination of (a) the belief in technology and technological 31 process as well as (b) the idea of a sanctuary of all human knowledge 32 built the ideological foundation of the term ‘information society’. 33 Aiming for a genealogical deconstruction of the term, Mattelart takes 34 a geopolitical perspective and goes back in time, outlining the 35 development of informatic machines, the academic debates on post- 36 industrialism and its impacts on the national politics of Japan, France b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 19 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 19

and the USA as well as the spread of the concept into international 1 politics. In contrast to Webster or Steinbicker, he does not discuss 2 the theoretical works contributing to the primary phase of con- 3 ceptual construction, but rather focuses on the origin and 4 consequences of the discourse and the creation of ‘information soci- 5 ety’ in reality.19 6 In comparison to the terms ‘knowledge society’ and ‘information 7 society’, the notion of the ‘knowledge-based economy’ was less 8 constructed in the academic sphere, but mainly developed by interna- 9 tional political organisations and think tanks, before it triggered 10 down to national politics. Since the early 1990s, multinational organ- 11 isations such as the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and 12 Development (OECD) as well as the Association of South-East Asian 13 Nations (ASEAN) in publications spoke of a ‘knowledge-based econ- 14 omy’. In 1996, OECD defined the ‘knowledge-based economy’ by 15 emphasising the importance of knowledge as “the driver of produc- 16 tivity and economic growth leading to a new focus on the role of 17 information, technology and learning in economic performance” 18 (1996a). In another article of the same year, the origin of the term 19 ‘knowledge-based economy’ is seen in the “fuller recognition of the 20 role of knowledge and technology in economic growth” (1996b). 21 The ‘knowledge-based economy’ is here regarded as naturally emerg- 22 ing. As indicators of this emergence were identified: (a) the strongest 23 expansion of output and employment in high-technology industries 24 such as computers, electronics and aerospace; and (b) the rapid 25 growth of knowledge intensive service sectors such as education, 26 communications and information. Based on this, OECD estimated 27 >50% of GDP in the major OECD economies as knowledge-based 28 (1996b:9). Several of the conceptual ideas of OECD were also 29 30 31 19 Besides the here mentioned secondary theorists, many more contributed to the 32 construction of the concepts. These include authors such as Bittlingmayer (2005); 33 Cawkell (1987); David/Forray (2002); Dizard (1982); Dordick/Wang (1993); Dunning (2000); Feather (1998); Garnham (2002); Gill (1996); Lievrouw/ 34 Livingstone (2002); Lloyd/Payne (2002); Martin (1995); Riddle (1988) and 35 Williams (1982, 1991). 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 20 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

20 A.-K. Hornidge

1 adopted by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) for the 2 Asia-Pacific Region. In 2000, APEC defined the ‘knowledge-based 3 economy’ as “an economy in which the production, distribution, and 4 use of knowledge is the main driver of growth, wealth creation and 5 employment across all industries”. A definition that was later also 6 adopted by the Singaporean government (Toh et al., 2002). Overall, 7 these organisations did not question the emergence of a ‘knowledge- 8 based economy’ but merely assessed them along mainly economic 9 indicators. 10 Despite the conceptual and terminological overlaps of the notions 11 ‘knowledge society’, ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge-based 12 economy’, the terms ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge-based 13 economy’ entered the political sphere more rapidly than the more 14 academic term ‘knowledge society’. Reason might be the technologi- 15 cal and economic connotations, emphasising the importance of ICTs 16 and their infrastructure for economic prosperity, which emerged as a 17 political focal point in many countries from the 1980s onwards. 18 19 3. Entering the Political Sphere — USA, Japan 20 and the European Union 21 22 As pointed out by Kubicek et al. (1997:9), the notion of ‘knowledge 23 society’ was a technology-focused idea that — until the 1990s — 24 failed to capture the public’s imagination. While in the 1970s, many 25 industrial countries promoted microelectronics as well as the “new 26 media” cable TV and view data, the promoted technology in the 27 1980s was ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network). In the 28 1990s, multimedia and ‘the information superhighway’ emerged as 29 new catchwords, which are currently replaced by WLAN (Wireless 30 Local Area Network), UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications 31 System) and digital signalling (in opposition to analogue handheld 32 two-way radio). Yet eventually the governments of many countries, 33 with the USA, Japan and the European Union belonging to the fore- 34 most, embarked on political programmes aiming at the construction 35 of ‘knowledge societies’. In the following paragraph, I will highlight 36 some activities of these early players. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 21 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 21

3.1 United States of America 1 2 In the late 1960s, the internet, which until today can be regarded 3 as the technological backbone of the ‘knowledge society’, was 4 under the term ARPANET developed in several US-American 5 defence-sponsored university research projects. It was designed as 6 communication network which could withstand a nuclear attack. 7 From 1971 to 1981, the ARPANET grew from two dozen sites to 8 200. Besides the ARPANET, several other private companies built 9 their own networks. IBM for example built the VNET. In order to 10 enable communication between these networks, a set of conventions 11 was drafted and published in the network community. The publication 12 of these conventions, combining the varying networks that existed 13 until then, basically marks the beginning of the internet. In 1993, 160 14 countries were connected and the internet as a communication infra- 15 structure with mailing services, file transfer and news groups was 16 created (King and Kraemer, 1995:5). As technological foundation for 17 increasingly faster, by now simultaneous communication and knowl- 18 edge exchange around the globe, the internet fundamentally inspired 19 the creation of the theoretical concepts of knowledge society. It highly 20 pushed the idea of an ‘arising’ information or knowledge society in the 21 public, political and academic spheres worldwide. 22 In the USA in 1992, Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore 23 used the development of the enormously fast growing internet for a 24 successful presidential campaign (Kubicek, 1999:70–71; Read and 25 Youtie, 1995:101; Schneider, 1997:345). The ‘information infra- 26 structure’, as named by Clinton and Gore, was quickly given the 27 name ‘information superhighway’ by the public. A few months after 28 taking power, the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) com- 29 posed of high–level representatives from various ministries was 30 formed under the lead of the then Minister of Trade, Ronald H. 31 Brown, as well as accompanied by an advisory council constituted by 32 high level representatives from business, scientific community and 33 non-government organisations. In September 1993, the IITF pub- 34 lished the Agenda for Action, a mix between declaration and action 35 plan. Here, the National Information Infrastructure (NII) was 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 22 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

22 A.-K. Hornidge

1 defined as a “seamless web of communication networks, computers, 2 databases, and consumer electronics that will put vast amounts of 3 information at users’ fingertips” (IITF 1993). The access to informa- 4 tion should lead to an information revolution which was supposed to 5 introduce sustainable changes to human lives, work and interaction. 6 One year after founding IITF, a progress report was published 7 (IITF, 1994a). Furthermore, the working group on applications pub- 8 lished the broad spectrum of applications of that time (IITF, 1994b). 9 The outline involved topics such as e-commerce, industry applica- 10 tions, disaster management, schools, libraries and art. The Advisory 11 Council, founded in 1993, published three reports during its three 12 year activity (US-Advisory Council on the National Information 13 Infrastructure, 1995, 1996a, 1996b), which all focused on establish- 14 ing universal access to NII. Consequently, the question of universal 15 access was increasingly also recognised by IITF itself. Following from 16 this, the government appointed the National Telecommunications 17 and Information Administration (NTIA) with the task to suggest 18 ways of assuring universal access to the government in preparation for 19 a telecommunication reform. This reform of the telecommunication 20 law was finally executed in 1996, aiming at the deregulation of the 21 telecommunication sector (Kubicek, 1999:70). Further areas of legal 22 reform were copyright, data security and coding, control of illegal 23 discriminating contents as well as the equipment of schools. In the 24 second term of the Clinton-/Gore-administration, the focus shifted 25 to numerous projects aiming at the final user. Hence, NII was contin- 26 ued to be built, but at a more user-oriented level than before. 27 By successfully making use of the envisioning character of the 28 Agenda for Action and the booming growth of the internet technol- 29 ogy the Clinton-/Gore-administration clearly managed to introduce 30 the topic of ICTs to the public (Read and Youtie, 1995:101). Here 31 the use of the term ‘information superhighway’ which drew an 32 analogy to the construction of the interstates, the US-American 33 motorways that link the different states (Kubicek, 1999:70–71) was a 34 cleverly chosen image for fostering public acceptance. The technolog- 35 ical focus underlined the tangibles of ‘knowledge society’ and found 36 expression in the terminological choice of ‘information society’. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 23 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 23

3.2 Japan 1 2 In Japan, the term ‘information society’ has been frequently used in 3 government reports and publications from the late 1960s onwards. 4 Special focus laid on the impact of technological development, specif- 5 ically in the field of microelectronics, and on social and economic 6 processes of transformation (Steinbicker, 2001:18). Nevertheless, it is 7 important to note, that at the end of the 1960s in Japan, the stage of 8 development labelled ‘knowledge society’ was regarded as a revolu- 9 tion inside the system of industrial society. The idea, that ‘knowledge 10 society’ might replace industrial society only emerged with the begin- 11 ning of the 1970s. 12 In 1971, the Japan Computer Usage Development Institute pro- 13 duced a governmental action plan with the title “The Plan for an 14 Information Society: A National Goal towards the Year 2000” (Vogel, 15 2000:286–288). Similarly to the IITF in the USA, the plan identifies the 16 private sector as main actor in the process of creating k-society. Besides 17 this, it paints the following image of a future society: a central state con- 18 trolled database; linked up telesystems; programmed school lessons, 19 which foster an ICT-embracing attitude; a central information system 20 for small and medium sized enterprises; and a centre for retraining parts 21 of the work force. Mattelart (2003) describes it as “Computepolis”, a 22 city, completely linked via personal computers, with automatic traffic 23 planning, mega-supermarkets, computer guided transport vehicles and 24 fully automated air-conditioning systems (2003:91–92). Interestingly 25 the Federal Ministry of Education and Science of Germany published a 26 German translation of this report (entitled “Japans Technologische 27 Strategie”) merely one year after its publication in Japan (BMBW, 28 1972). This suggests that while the German government was not yet 29 speaking of a German knowledge or information society, the activities of 30 other players, i.e., Japan, were monitored.20 31 32 33 20 The first appearance of the terms ‚information society’ and ‘information economy’ in a German federal government document can be found in the final report of the 34 enquete-commission “Future of the Media in the Economy and Society — 35 Germany’s Road into the Information Society” (DBt, 1998). 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 24 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

24 A.-K. Hornidge

1 By the late 1970s, attention turned towards knowledge produc- 2 tion for development (Morris-Suzuki, 1996:212; Tuomi, 2001:4). In 3 1976 and with the aim to stimulate corporate creativity, the Very 4 Large Scale Integration (VLSI) project was set up under the auspices 5 of the National Research and Development Programme of the 6 Ministry for Industry and Trade (MITI), focusing on the develop- 7 ment of microchips. With the beginning of the 1980s, MITI defined 8 new materials, biotechnology and new forms of microelectronic 9 technology as main areas of innovation and research supported by 10 the government and several highly government-financed research 11 projects followed (Morris-Suzuki, 1996:214). In 1985, the Key 12 Technology Promotion Centre was set up jointly by MITI and the 13 Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. By the early 1990s, the 14 Key Technology Promotion Centre had supported several hundred 15 research projects, mainly in the area of microelectronics. According 16 to MITI, its activities in the information sector proved to be success- 17 ful, when Japanese companies slowly took over a major market share 18 in the hard drive and personal computer producing industry 19 (Mattelart, 2003:93). 20 The hopes of a better future, fostered by the development of the 21 microchip, video and audio systems industry were, in Japan, popu- 22 larised by the futurist Yoneji Masuda. In his book, “The Information 23 Society as Post-industrial Society”, published in 1980, Masuda 24 describes a future society, in which intellectual creativity wins over the 25 consumer society, self discipline is socially integrated and humans live 26 in harmony with nature (Masuda, 1980). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, 27 the Japanese government turned away from its former strong focus 28 on the computer industry and increasingly emphasised the reforma- 29 tion of the educational system as well as basic research, in order to 30 provide for potential long-term development (Vogel, 2000:323). 31 Interestingly, this change in focus shows a clear parallel to the devel- 32 opments in Singapore, discussed below. 33 In 1994, MITI published a “Programme for Advanced Information 34 Infrastructure” focusing on the expansion of the information technol- 35 ogy network, connecting businesses, research institutions, offices and 36 corporate production sites (MITI 1994). In 1999, the Ministry of b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 25 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 25

Posts and Telecommunications in Japan published a White Paper, 1 entitled “Communications in Japan 1999” (MPT, 1999). It assessed 2 the impact of the internet on the status of the information and com- 3 munication industry and policies of Japan and resulted in the 4 formulation of the IT policy package of the Japanese Government, 5 entitled “E-Japan Strategy” in January 2001. It overall focused on 6 the further development of communication facilities21 and therefore 7 continued Japan’s technological focus towards ‘knowledge society’. 8 9 10 3.3 European Union 11 On the level of the European Union, ‘knowledge society’ as a topic 12 only gained relevance in the early 1980s. In November 1983, the 13 Council of Europe established the Senior Officials Group on 14 Telecommunications (SOGT) as an advisory group to the European 15 Commission. Additionally, a subgroup of SOGT was formed with the 16 name GAP (Group d’Analyse et de Prévision) in order to support the 17 European Commission in the long-term development of the telecom- 18 munication networks (Campbell and Konert, 1998:73–74). Aiming 19 for economic growth and employment, ICTs were identified as 20 key technologies and therefore research in this field identified for 21 being especially pushed (Vogel, 2000:324–333). Two examples 22 are ESPRIT (European Strategic Programme on Research in 23 Information Technology — since 1984) as well as RACE (Research 24 and Development in Advanced Communications Technologies in 25 Europe — since 1988). Providers of telematic applications were sup- 26 ported by programmes, such as DELTA (Developing European 27 Learning through Technology Advance) and DRIVE (Dedicated 28 Road Infrastructure for Vehicle Safety in Europe). These research 29 30 31 21 Its main objectives were (Noguchi, 2003:71): 32 1. to increase the volume of e-commerce in 2003 to ten times the level of 1998; 33 2. to make available the world’s most advanced communication networks by 2005; 3. to increase the number of MA and PhD holders in IT-related fields to a level 34 comparable to the USA; 35 4. invitation of thirty thousand highly skilled foreign workers. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 26 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

26 A.-K. Hornidge

1 programmes were accompanied by the Commissions Action Plan on 2 Telecommunications (EC, 1984). 3 The from there following telecommunication politics of the 4 European Union were mainly structured by the “White Paper on 5 the Completion of the Community-wide Market for Goods and 6 Services”, published in 1985 (EC 1985) and the “Green Paper on the 7 Completion of the Common Market for Telecommunication 8 Services,” published in 1987 (EC, 1987). With the beginning of 9 the 1990s, the European Union widened its focus from explicitly 10 ICT-development to ICT-applications. In 1993, the Commission 11 published a White Paper entitled “Growth, Competitiveness, 12 Employment — The Challenges and Ways forward into the 21st 13 Century” (EC, 1993). It emphasizes the importance of trans- 14 European networks as stimulation for the European economy and a 15 decrease in unemployment. The construction of information networks 16 and European networks in the transport and energy sectors were to be 17 of prime importance. The increased focus on the effects of ICTs on 18 work processes resulted in a decrease of the terms ‘electronic high- 19 ways’ and ‘information economy’. Instead the European Commission 20 adopted the term ‘information society’ and reasoned that Europe 21 focuses its activities, differently to the USA, on social and educational 22 aspects of the assessed stage of development (Kubicek, 1999:73). 23 This White Paper formed the basis for the foundation of a 24 high-level expert group in cooperation with representatives from 25 the industry. In 1994, the expert group, headed by Martin 26 Bangemann, presents its report “Europe and the Global Information 27 Society — Recommendations to the European Council” at the EU- 28 summit in Corfu (Bangemann, 1994). The group argued that the 29 best support for information networks and services would be 30 open and competitive markets.22 The Bangemann-Report can be 31 32 22 33 The report outlines four steps to shape Europe’s way into a knowledge society: (a) the liberalisation of Europe’s telecommunication markets; (b) the creation of a 34 common regulatory framework regarding standardisation; (c) the protection of 35 intellectual property rights; and (d) respect of privacy and the security of data 36 transmission. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 27 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 27

regarded as EU’s master-document and key reference point for pol- 1 icy initiatives related to the electronic communication sector 2 (Preston, 1997:282). On its basis and after being requested to do 3 so by the European Heads of State and Government, the 4 Commission of the European Union published the action plan 5 “Europe’s Way to the Information Society” in the same year (EC, 6 1994).23 This was followed in July 1996 by the “Green Paper on 7 Living and Working in the Information Society: People first” 8 focusing on social aspects of ‘knowledge society’ (EC, 1996a). In 9 November 1996, the Commission adopted the action plan 10 “Europe at the Forefront of the global Information Society” build- 11 ing on completed, pending and ongoing activities (EC, 1996b). 12 Early 1998, the liberalisation of the European telecommunication 13 sector was completed. 14 In March 2000, Europe’s political leaders met on an EU-summit 15 in Lisbon. Here, the target of developing Europe into “the most 16 dynamic, competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world by 17 2010” was explicitly formulated (EC, 2000a). Consequently, the 18 European Council published the eEurope 2002 action plan in June 19 2000 (EC, 2000b), designed to speed up and extend the use of the 20 internet to all sectors of European society. In June 2002, at the 21 Seville European Council, the eEurope 2005 Action Plan was 22 launched and endorsed by the Council of Ministers in the eEurope 23 Resolution of January 2003 (EC, 2002). It states the aim to develop 24 public online services (eHealth, eLearning and eGovernment) and a 25 dynamic environment for e-business through widespread availability 26 of broadband access at competitive prices and a secure information 27 infrastructure. In June 2005, the European Commission set out a 28 new strategic framework, entitled i2010 — A European Information 29 Society for Growth and Employment and the progress made by 30 eEurope 2005 as well as by i2010 was assessed in a benchmarking 31 32 33 23 It focused on four areas: (a) the regulatory and legal framework; (b) the networks, 34 services, applications, and content; (c) the social and cultural aspects; and (d) the 35 promotion of k-society. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 28 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

28 A.-K. Hornidge

1 report in December 2005 (EC, 2005:2).24 While the technological 2 focus is here further maintained, the inclusion of all members of soci- 3 ety into the usage of ICTs and decentralised structures of knowledge 4 production becomes an increasingly discussed topic. 5 6 7 3.4 Singapore 8 Similarly to the USA, Japan and the European Union, Singapore, a 9 small island-state with limited land and labour available, adopted the 10 image of a ‘knowledge society’ for long-term economic growth and 11 social stability. From the early 1980s onwards (around the same time 12 as the European Union), the Singaporean government has taken 13 enormous action towards its realisation. Table 1 lists the government 14 programs that clearly pursued this vision. 15 In Singapore of the 1980s to early 90s the focus of government 16 activities towards ‘knowledge society’ clearly laid on the building of an 17 ICT infrastructure in conjunction with a supportive legal infrastruc- 18 ture. As such can be mentioned the “National Computerisation Plan” 19 (1980–1985; Committee on National Computerization, 1980), the 20 “National IT Plan” (1986–1991; National IT Plan Working 21 Committee, 1985), “A Vision of an Intelligent Island — The IT2000 22 Report” (1992–1999; NCB, 1992), “Infocomm21” (2000–2003; 23 IDA, 2000), “Connected Singapore” (2003–2006; IDA, 2003) and 24 “Intelligent Nation 2015” (2006–2015; IDA, 2007). It therefore was 25 a very technologically and economically determined version of knowl- 26 edge society pursued by these activities. This primary focus on ICT 27 and legal infrastructure was complemented by the application of ICTs 28 in the public administration, with the first program, the “Civil Service 29 30 31 24 32 Main trends identified are: (a) broadband roll-out is a clear success; (b) disparities 33 between the member states have not yet been reduced; (c) connectivity of enterprises is high throughout EU25; (d) availability of online public services has continued to 34 grow; (e) all member states are confronted with the challenge of extending knowl- 35 edge society to people with little or no formal education, those not in employment 36 and older people (EC, 2005:2–3). b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 29 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 29

Table 1: State activities for a Singaporean knowledge society 1 2 Year Name of Initiative Implementing Authority 3 1981 National Computerisation Plan Ministry of Trade and Industry 4 & Committee on National 5 Computerisation 6 1981 Civil Service Computerisation Ministry of Education & Civil Program Service Computerisation Group 7 1985 National IT Plan National IT Plan Working 8 Committee 9 1991 Founding NSTB/A*STAR Minister Cabinet 10 1992 A Vision of an Intelligent National Computer Board 11 Island — The IT2000 Report 12 1994 Library 2000 Ministry for Information and the Arts & Library 2000 Review 13 Committee 14 1996 Singapore ONE National Computer Board 15 1997 Thinking Schools, Learning Ministry of Education 16 Nation 17 1997 1st Masterplan for IT in Ministry of Education 18 Education 2000 Infocomm 21 Infocomm Development Authority 19 2000 1st eGovernment Action Plan Infocomm Development Authority 20 2002 2nd Masterplan for IT in Ministry of Education 21 Education 22 2002 Creative Industries Development Economic Review Committee, 23 Strategy Workgroup on Creative Industries 24 2003 Connected Singapore Infocomm Development Authority 2003 Innovation & Enterprise Ministry of Education 25 2003 2nd eGovernment Action Plan Infocomm Development Authority 26 2004 Teach Less, Learn More Ministry of Education 27 2005 Library 2010 National Library Board 28 2006 Intelligent Nation 2015 Infocomm Development Authority 29 Source: Hornidge (2010 forthcoming). 30 31 32 Computerisation Plan”, launched in 1981. Further examples are the 33 “eGovernment Action Plans” (NCB, 1982; IDA and Chua, 2006) 34 and the “Masterplans for IT in Education” (MOE, 1997, 2002). The 35 actual shift towards the wide application of ICTs, nevertheless, only 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 30 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

30 A.-K. Hornidge

1 took place in the late 1990s, with the above mentioned ICT focused 2 programs increasingly emphasizing the application of ICTs in private 3 and professional life, educational facilities and the public service. 4 Here “Innovation and Enterprise”, launched in 2003, can also be 5 mentioned. 6 In 1991, these ICT focused definitions of knowledge society 7 were challenged by activities addressing the production of knowl- 8 edge, meaning basic and applied research and development. 9 Examples are the founding of the Agency for Science, Technology 10 and Research (A*STAR) in 199125 as well as the construction of a 11 biomedical research hub, similar to an industrial park, called 12 Biopolis in 2001 (Hornidge, 2008).26 It derived from an increased 13 awareness of the importance of local knowledge production. In the 14 mid 1990s, this was further complemented by the realisation, that a 15 knowledge society requires the potential of every citizen. With the 16 building of a vast library scene, the Singaporean government aimed 17 to allow everyone to participate in the usage of ICTs as well as in 18 knowledge creation and transmission. As main action plans pursuing 19 this inclusive definition of ‘knowledge society’ attempting to 20 close the digital divide between social groups, “Library 2000” 21 and “Library 2010” can be identified (Library 2000 Review 22 Committee, 1994; NLB, 2005). 23 In the 2000s, the fostering of creativity among Singapore’s citi- 24 zens and the development of creative industries (e.g., design and 25 26 25 27 A*STAR is a statutory board of the government under the Ministry of Trade and Industry which oversees altogether 12 research institutes. 28 26 Biopolis is part of Fusionpolis, which is split into Vista X-Change (centre for 29 private-public-partnership and industry development, financial and business serv- 30 ices), Central X-Change (centre for ICTs, media and education industries) and Life 31 X-Change (Biopolis). Together these three form Fusionpolis, which is stated in a 32 newspaper article from 2003 to be “Singapore’s icon of the knowledge economy 33 where talents gravitate naturally and where diverse ideas thrive. With a focus on knowledge intensive activities in critical growth sectors, one-north would provide an 34 intellectually stimulating and creative physical environment for entrepreneurs, scien- 35 tists and researchers to congregate, interact and exchange ideas” (JTC Corporation, 36 20.02.2003). b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 31 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 31

arts), which in application of ICTs shall contribute to Singapore’s 1 economic development, moved into the center of government atten- 2 tion. This belief in creativity subscribes to an image of knowledge 3 society as a creative economy and resulted into an increased push for 4 a national cultural policy. Singapore’s first cultural policy, the “Ong 5 Teng Cheong Report” was launched in 1989 (ACCA, 1989). This 6 was then followed by the foundation of the Ministry of Information 7 and the Arts (later renamed into Ministry of Information, Communi- 8 cations and the Arts — MICA) and the development of “The 9 Esplanade” into a major performance arts venue in 1990. In 1991 10 and 1993 respectively, the National Arts Council (NAC) and the 11 National Heritage Board (NHB) were established as further coordi- 12 nating and planning bodies. In 1995, the planning document 13 “Singapore: Global City of the Arts” was published (MITA and 14 STPB, 1995), closely followed by the “Renaissance City Report: 15 Culture and the Arts in Renaissance” in 2000 (MITA, 2000). The 16 turn towards the marketability of arts nevertheless came with the 17 publishing of the “Creative Industries Development Strategy” in 18 2002 (Workgroup on Creative Industries, 2002). Here three 19 approaches to defining the scope of the creative cluster in Singapore 20 were identified and their focused development decided: (a) the cul- 21 tural industries; (b) the creative industries; and (c) the copyright 22 industries. Together these three pillars are hoped to develop arts and 23 culture as economic sector, as key element for Singapore as ‘global 24 city’ attracting ‘foreign talents’ and tourists and as creative basis 25 for innovative R&D-work in all knowledge producing sectors and 26 disciplines. 27 Taking the examples of the USA, Japan, the European Union and 28 Singapore and their government activities towards the further devel- 29 opment of information and communication technologies as well as 30 into ‘knowledge societies’ indicates three main points. First, the inter- 31 net, developed by defence-financed research projects, originates from 32 military interests. Second, the technology then, as argued in section 2 33 of this chapter, inspired academic and visionary thinking that resulted 34 in the creation of the theoretical concepts and visionary terms such as 35 ‘knowledge society’, ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge-based 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 32 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

32 A.-K. Hornidge

1 economy’. Third, these concepts and visions were then again adopted 2 by governments worldwide to push the actual creation of these envi- 3 sioned societies further by releasing programmes and initiatives 4 fostering the building of information and communication networks, 5 the application of the technology, as well as knowledge creation and 6 transmission. Yet with regard to the USA, Japan, the EU and 7 Singapore, the above illustrates that each of the three, legitimised 8 their activities towards ‘knowledge society’ with their current situa- 9 tion. While Japan hoped for a solution to the hollowing out of its 10 manufacturing industry, the European initiative has to be understood 11 as a reaction to the pressures of global competition and as a trans- 12 national reaction to increasing unemployment. In the USA, the 13 information superhighway was regarded as a solution to the U.S. 14 infrastructural crisis and advanced as a presidential campaign topic. In 15 Singapore, the drive towards ‘knowledge society’ has been identified 16 as pathway to economic survival and socio-political stability. 17 18 4. Concluding Remarks 19 20 The above review of the conceptual and actual construction of 21 ‘knowledge society’ and therewith the redrawing of a global hype 22 aimed to shed light on the notion ‘knowledge society’ by assessing 23 how it has been defined by academics in their writings and by govern- 24 ments in their actions around the world. It rests on the belief that 25 social reality is shaped by its actors; basically that, to say it with the 26 words of Franz Kafka, “paths are made by walking”. The rapid devel- 27 opments in the information and communication technologies 28 inspired scientific writers around the world, aiming to conceptually 29 grasp the ongoing and future developments. During a primary and 30 secondary phase a wide range of conceptual approaches to ‘knowl- 31 edge society’, ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge-based economy’ 32 were developed. From there and despite (possibly even fostered by) 33 terminological overlaps, lacking clear-cut definitions, these notions 34 entered the public sphere and were taken up by governments around 35 the globe for either legitimising ongoing programmes or pushing 36 future economy and technology oriented activities. Of the outlined b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 33 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 33

countries above, Singapore, while nevertheless being purely econom- 1 ically motivated, heavily included the fostering of the arts into its later 2 understanding of ‘knowledge society’. The USA, Japan and the EU 3 at large stayed with a technology-driven definition of the concept, 4 focusing on the traditional sectors of economic growth. 5 Consequently, once the notions had entered into the public dis- 6 course, they were discussed, defined and redefined by a multitude of 7 actors in multiple different ways, each outlining a unique path to 8 and from ‘knowledge society’ as vision and stage of development. 9 This multitude was then taken up again by academics, who devel- 10 oped the concepts further, while in parts the social actors creating 11 ‘knowledge society’ as stage of development were continuously in 12 the process of readjusting their original definition of it. This was 13 portrayed above by the case of Singapore, which moved within a 14 very short time frame from a purely technological definition to a 15 definition integrating technological, economic aspects with areas 16 such as culture, the arts and creativity being integrated into its 17 economic focus. 18 This process of continuous further development of the notions 19 and concepts as such and the multitude of definitions attached to 20 them as stages of development continues. Yet, at the same time, the 21 paths taken by governments around the world outline in detail differ- 22 ent conceptualisations of ‘knowledge society’ which all are neither 23 exactly that nor anything else than just that: ‘knowledge society’ as 24 we, the social actors fostering its notion, define it. 25 26 27 References 28 ACCA (Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts) (1989). Report of the advisory 29 council on culture and the arts. Singapore: Singapore National Printers. 30 APEC Economic Committee (1998). Towards an information society: Developments 31 in apec. Singapore: APEC Secretariat. 32 ——— (2000). Towards knowledge-based economies in apec — Framework and 33 summary. Singapore: APEC Secretariat. 34 Bangemann, M. (1994). Bangemann-Bericht: Europa Und Die Globale Informationsgesellschaft. Empfehlungen Für Den Europäischen Rat. Brüssel: 35 Kommission der Europäischen Union. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 34 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

34 A.-K. Hornidge

1 Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books Inc. 2 ——— (1987). The Post-industrial society: A conceptual schema. Evolution of an 3 information Society. Ed. A. E. Cawkell. London: Aslib, 1987. Berger, P. and T. Luckmann (1984). Die Gesellschaftliche Konstruktion Der 4 Wirklichkeit — Eine Theorie Der Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer 5 Taschenbuch Verlag. 6 Bittlingmayer, U. (2005). Wissensgesellschaft als Wille und Vorstellung. Konstanz: 7 Universitätsverlag Konstanz. 8 Bmbw (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft) (1972). Japans 9 Technologische Strategie — Wiedergabe Und Kommentar Einer Studie Des Ausschusses Für Technologischen Fortschritt Des Japanischen Wirtschaftsrates. 10 Bonn: BMBW. 11 Böhme, G. and N. Stehr (eds.) (1986). The knowledge society. The growing impact 12 of scientific knowledge on social relations. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing 13 Company. 14 Buchholz, A. (1970). Die Grosse Transformation. Gesellschaftliche Zukunft- 15 serwartungen Und Naturwissenschaftlich-Technischer Fortschritt. Ort 2: Reinbeck. 16 Campbell, P. and B. Konert (1998). Bausteine Der Informationsgesellschaft in 17 Europa — Die Entwicklung Der Europäischen Politik Zur Förderung Der 18 Informationsgesellschaft. Media Monographie 22. Ed. Bernd-Peter Lange. 19 Düsseldorf: Europäisches Medieninstitut e.V. 20 Castells, M. (1998). The information age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume 3: 21 End of millenium, Oxford, and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. ——— (1997). The information age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume 2: The 22 power of identity, Oxford, and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. 23 ——— (1996). The information age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume 1: The 24 rise of the network society, Oxford, and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. 25 ——— (2004). The network society: A cross-cultural perspective. Cheltenham, UK; 26 Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 27 ——— (1989). The informational city — information technology, economic restruc- turing, and the urban-regional process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 28 Castells, M. and R. Laserna (1989). The new dependency: Technological change and 29 socioeconomic restructuring in Latin America. Sociological Forum 4(4): 535–60. 30 Cawkell, A. E. (1987). Evolution of an information society. London: Aslib. 31 Collins, R. (1981). Postindustrialism and technocracy. Sociology since Midcentury. 32 Randall C. (ed.), pp. 305-308. New York: Academic Press. 33 Commission of the european communities (EC) (1984). Action plan on telecommu- nications, Com(84) 277, 17.05.1984.Brüssel: EC. 34 ——— (2000b). Europe 2002: An information society for all, 14.6.2000. Brüssel: 35 EC. 36 ——— (2002). Europe 2005: An information society for all, Com(2002) 263, 28.5.2002. Brüssel: EC. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 35 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 35

——— (1994). Europas Weg in Die informationsgesellschaft. Brüssel: EC. 1 ——— (1996b). Europe at the forefront of the global information society. Rolling 2 action plan. Communication from the commission Com(96) 607 Final. 3 Brüssel: EC. ——— (1996a). Green paper on living and working in the information society: 4 People first, Com(96) 389, 24.07.1996. Brüssel: EC. 5 ——— (1987). Green paper on the completion of the common market for telecom- 6 munications services, Com(87)290, 11.06.1987. Brüssel: EC. 7 ——— (2005). Information society benchmarking report. Brüssel: EC. 8 ——— (2000a). Lisbon european council presidency conclusions. Lisbon: 9 Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. ——— (1994). Weißbuch Wachstum, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Und Beschäftigung. 10 EGBulletin 6. 11 ——— (1985). White paper on the completion of the community-wide market for 12 goods and services by 1992, Com(85)310. Brüssel: EC. 13 Committee on National Computerisation (1980). Report on national com- 14 puterisation. Ed. Tony Tan Keng Yam. Singapore. 15 David, P. A. and D. Foray (2002). An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 16 Deutscher Bundestag (DBt) (1998). Dritter Zwischenbericht Der Enquete- 17 Kommission Zukunft Der Medien in Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft — 18 Deutschlands Weg in Die Informationsgesellschaft. Bonn: Deutscher 19 Bundestag, 13. Wahlperiode, 04.05.1998. 20 Dizard, W. P. (1982). The coming information age — an overview of technology, 21 economics, and politics. New York: Longman Inc. Dordick, H. S. and G. Wang (1993). The information society: A retrospective view. 22 Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. 23 Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of discontinuity. Guidelines to our changing society. 24 London: Heinemann. 25 ——— (1993a). Die Postkapitalisitsche Gesellschaft. Düsseldorf: Econ Verlag. 26 ——— (1993b). The rise of the knowledge society. The Wilson Quarterly 17(2): 27 52–72. ——— (1994). Knowledge work and knowledge society — The social transforma- 28 tions of this century. The 1994 Edwin L. Godkin Lecture: John F. Kennedy 29 University, 04.05.1994. 30 Dunning, J. H. (2000). Regions, globalisation, and the knowledge-based economy. 31 Oxford: Oxford University Press. 32 Evers, H.-D. (2000). Die Globalisierung der Epistemischen Kulturen: Entwick- 33 lungstheorie und Wissensgesellschaft. In Vom Ewigen Frieden und dem Wohlstand der Nationen. U. Menzel (ed.). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 34 ——— (2002a). Southeast Asian knowledge societies. Bonn: University of Bonn. 35 ——— (2002b). Malaysian knowledge society and the global knowledge gap. Bonn: 36 University of Bonn, Department of Southeast Asian Studies. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 36 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

36 A.-K. Hornidge

1 ——— (2003). Transition towards a knowledge society: Malaysia and Indonesia in 2 comparative perspective. Comparative Sociology 2(2):355–373. 3 ——— (2005). Global knowledge: The epistemic culture of development. In Local and Global: Social Transformation in Southeast Asia. Hassan Riaz (ed.), 4 pp. 3–17. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 5 Evers, H.-D. (2000). Knowledge societies: An overview of issues and theories. 6 Singapore: National University of Singapore (unpublished manuscript). 7 Evers, H.-D. and S. Gerke (2005). Closing the digital divide: Southeast Asia’s path 8 towards a knowledge society. Bonn: Center for Development Research, 9 University of Bonn, 2005. ZEF Working Paper No. 1. Evers, H.-D. and A.-K. Hornidge (2007). Knowledge hubs along the straits of 10 Malacca. Asia Europe Journal, 5(3):417–422. 11 Feather, J. (1998). The information society. A study of continuity and change. 12 London: Library Association Publishing. 13 Garnham, N. (2002). The information society: Myth or reality. 2001 Bugs. 14 Globalism and pluralism. Montreal. 15 Gershuny, J. (1978). Die Ökonomie der Nachindustriellen Gesellschaft. Produktion und Verbrauch von Dienstleistungen. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus. 16 Gibbons, M., H. Limoges, S. Nowotny, P. Scgwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow 17 (eds.) (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and 18 research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications. 19 Gill, K. S. (ed.) (1996). Information society — new media, ethics and post- 20 modernism. London: Springer. 21 Heidenreich, M. (2003). Die Debatte um die Wissensgesellschaft. In Wissenschaft in der Wissengesellschaft. S. Böschen and I. Schulz-Schaeffer (eds.). Opladen: 22 Westdeutscher Verlag. 23 Hofmann, J. (2001). Digitale Unterwanderungen: Der Wandel im Innern des 24 Wissens. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 36:3–6. 25 Hornidge, A.-K. (2010). An uncertain future — Singapore’s search for a new focal 26 point of collective identity and its drive towards ‘knowledge society’. Asian 27 Journal of Social Sciences, 38(5) forthcoming. ——— (2008). From trading goods to trading knowledge: Singapore’s development 28 into a knowledge hub. In The Straits of Malacca — Knowledge and Diversity, 29 S. Gerke, H.-D. Evers and A.-K. Hornidge (eds.), pp. 63–84. Münster/Penang: 30 Lit Verlag. 31 ——— (2007). Knowledge society. Vision & Social Construction of Reality in 32 Germany & Singapore. Münster: Lit-Verlag. 33 Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) (2003). Connected Singapore — a new blueprint for infocomm development. Singapore: Infocomm Development 34 Authority. 35 ———. Infocomm21 — Singapore: Where the Digital Future Is. Singapore: 36 Infocomm Development Authority, 2000. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 37 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 37

——— (2007). Intelligent Nation 2015—iN2015. Singapore: Infocomm 1 Development Authority. 2 Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) and C. Chua (2006). The Singapore 3 E-government experience. e-Gov Forum and Integrating Trade Facilitation: Asian Development Bank. 4 Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) (1994b). Committee on applications 5 and technology: The information infrastructure: Reaching society’s goals. 6 Washington D.C. 7 ——— (1993). The national information infrastructure — agenda for action. 8 Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 9 ——— (1994a). The National information infrastructure committee on applications and technology: Putting the Information Infrastructure at Work. Washington 10 D.C. 11 JTC Corporation (2003). Fusionpolis Launched in One-North. JTC Corporation 12 20.02.2003. 13 Jungk, R. (1973). Politik und Technokratie. Aufgabe Zukunft, Qualität des Lebens, 14 Beiträge zur 4. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zur Industriegewerkschaft Metall, 15 Bd. 8: Demokratisierung (ed. G. Friedrichs). Frankfurt a.M. King, J. L. and K. L. Kraemer (1995). Information infrastructure, National policy, 16 and Global Competitiveness. Information Infrastructure and Policy, March. 17 Knoblauch, H. (2004). Informationsgesellschaft, Wissensgesellschaft Und Die Neuere 18 Wissenssoziologie. In Neue Perspektiven der Wissenssoziologie, H.-G. Soeffner, 19 D. Tänzler and H. Knoblauch (eds.). Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. 20 ——— (2005). Wissenssoziologie. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. 21 Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Chapter 1.2: The cultures of knowledge societies. In Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge, K. Knorr-Cetina (ed.), 22 pp. 5–11. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 23 Kreibich, R. (1986). Die Wissenschaftsgesellschaft — Von Galilei Zur High-Tech- 24 Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. 25 Kubicek, H. (1999). Möglichkeiten and Gefahren der “Informationsgesellschaft. In 26 Tübinger Studientexte Informatik und Gesellschaft, S. Rizvi and H. Klaeren 27 (eds.). Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Kubicek, H., W. H. Dutton and R. Williams (eds.) (1997). The social shaping of 28 information superhighways. European and American Roads to the Information 29 Society. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. 30 Kübler, H.-D. (2005). Mythos Wissensgesellschaft — Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 31 zwischen Information, Medien Und Wissen. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: 32 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 33 Kumar, K. (1978). Prophecy and progress: The sociology of industrial and post- industrial society. New York: Penguin Books. 34 Lane, R. E. (1966). The decline of politics and ideology in a knowledgeable society. 35 American Sociological Review, 5(31): 649–62. 36 b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 38 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

38 A.-K. Hornidge

1 Library 2000. Review Committee. Library 2000: Investing in a Learning Nation. 2 Singapore: Ministry of Information and The Arts, 1994. 3 Lievrouw, L. A. and S. Livingstone (eds.) (2002). Handbook of New Media. London: SAGE Publications. 4 Lloyd, C. and J. Payne (2002). In Search of the High Skill Society: Some Reflections on 5 Current Visions. Warwick: ESRC Research Centre on Skills, Knowledge and 6 Organisational Performance (SKOPE). 7 Lyon, D. (1988). The information society: Issues and illusions. Cambridge: Polity 8 Press. 9 ——— (1996). The roots of the information society idea. In Information Technology and Society, N. Heap and et al. (eds.), pp. 54–73. London. 10 Maasen, S. (1999). Wissenssoziologie. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. 11 Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United 12 States. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 13 Martin, W. J. (1995). The global information society. Aldershot, Hampshire: Aslib 14 Gower. 15 Masuda, Y. (1980). The information society as post-industrial society. Tokyo: Institute for the Information Society. 16 Mattelart, A. (2003). Kleine Geschichte Der Informationsgesellschaft. Berlin: Avinus 17 Verlag. 18 McLuhan, H. M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy. London. 19 Mill, J. S. (1974). Das System Der Deduktiven Und Induktiven Logik. In Geschichte 20 Der Soziologie, F. Jonas (ed.), pp. 434–445. Hamburg: Rowohlt. 21 Minc, A. (1987). The Informatisation of Society. In Evolution of an Information Society, A. E. Cawkell (ed.), pp. 134–140. London: Aslib. 22 Ministry of Information and the Arts (MITA) (2000). Renaissance city report: cul- 23 ture and the arts in renaissance Singapore. Singapore: MITA. 24 Ministry of Information and the Arts & Singapore Tourist Promotion Board 25 (MITA & STPB). (1995). Singapore, Global City for the Arts. Singapore: 26 Singapore Ministry of Information and the Arts; Singapore Tourist Promotion 27 Board. Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) (1994). Programme for 28 advanced information infrastructure. Tokyo: Ministry of International Trade 29 and Industry, Japan. 30 Ministry of Education (MOE) (1997). Masterplan for it in education. Singapore: 31 Ministry of Education. 32 ——— (2002). Masterplan for it in education. Singapore: Ministry of Education. 33 Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) 91999). Communications in Japan 1999. Tokyo: Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, Japan. 34 Morris-Suzuki, T. (1996). The technological transformation of Japan. Cambridge: 35 Cambridge University Press. 36 Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends. Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 39 b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap 1st Reading

‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of Development 39

National Computer Board (NCB)(1982). Vendor’s Conference. Singapore: National 1 Computer Board. 2 ——— (1992). A vision of an intelligent island: The IT2000 Report. Singapore: 3 National Computer Board Singapore. National IT Plan Working Committee (1985). National it plan: A strategic frame- 4 work. Singapore: National IT Plan Working Committee. 5 National Library Board (NLB) (2005). L2010 — Our vision for the future 6 (Overview). Singapore: National Library Board. 7 Noguchi, Y. (2003). Is the It Revolution Possible in Japan? In Internet, Economic 8 Growth and Globalisation — Perspectives on the New Economy in Europe, Japan 9 and the US, C. E. Barfield, G. Heiduk and P. J. J. Welfens (eds.), pp. 67–83. Berlin: Springer. 10 Nora, S. and A. Minc (1979). Die Informatisierung Der Gesellschaft. Ed. Uwe 11 Kalbhen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. 12 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1996a). The 13 knowledge-based economy in 1996: Science, technology and industry outlook. 14 Paris: OECD. 15 ——— (1996b). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD. Porat, M. (1976). The information economy. Stanford: University of Stanford. 16 Preston, P. (1997). The information superhighway and the less developed regions. In 17 The Social Shaping of Information Superhighways. European and American Roads 18 to the Information Society, H. Kubicek, W. H. Dutton and R. Williams (eds.), 19 pp. 277–297. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. 20 Read, W. H. and J. L. Youtie (1995). Policy strategies along the information super- 21 highway. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2):99–106. Riddle, D. I. (ed.) (1988). Information economy and development. Bonn: Friedrich- 22 Ebert-Stiftung. 23 Schneider, V. (1997). Different roads to the information society? Comparing U.S. 24 And European Approaches from a Public Policy Perspective. In The Social 25 Shaping of Information Superhighways. European and American Roads to the 26 Information Society, H. Kubicek, W. H. Dutton and R. Williams (eds.), 27 pp. 339–358. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage Publications. 28 ——— (2001a). Moderne Wissensgesellschaften. Aus Politik and Zeitgeschichte 29 36:7–13. 30 ——— (2001b). A world made of knowledge. Society, 39(1):89–92. 31 ——— (1999). “Wissensgesellschaften” oder die Zerbrechlickeit Moderner 32 Gesellschaften. In Wissen Und Arbeit — Neue Konturen Der Wissensarbeit, 33 W. Konrad and W. Schumm (eds.), pp. 13–23. Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot. 34 Steinbicker, J. (2001). Zur Theorie der Informationsgesellschaft. Ein Vergleich der 35 Ansätze von Peter Drucker, Daniel Bell und Manuel Castells. Opladen: Leske + 36 Budrich. b1134_Chapter-03.qxd 1/19/2011 11:04 AM Page 40 1st Reading b1134 Beyond the Knowledge Trap

40 A.-K. Hornidge

1 Tänzler, D., H. Knoblauch, and H.-G. Soeffner (2006). Zur Kritik der 2 Wissensgesellschaft. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. 3 Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. New York: Random House. ——— (1990). Powershift — Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 4 21st century. New York: Bantam Books. 5 ——— (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow and Company, INC. 6 Toh, M.-H., Hsiu Chin Tang and A. Choo (2002). Mapping Singapore’s 7 knowledge-based economy. Economic Survey of Singapore. Singapore: 8 Economics Division, Ministry of Trade and Industry. 9 Touraine, A. (1969). La Société Post-Industrielle. Paris: Denoël. Tuomi, I. (2001). From periphery to centre: Emerging research topics on knowledge 10 society. Helsinki: TEKES. 11 Umesao, T. (1963). Information industry theory: Dawn of the coming era of the 12 ectodermal industry. Hoso Asahi, Jan.: 4–17. 13 United States Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure (1996b). 14 Common Grounds. A nation of opportunity: Realizing the promise of the infor- 15 mation superhighway. Washington D.C. ——— (1995). Common grounds. Fundamental principles for the national informa- 16 tion infrastructure. First Report. Washington D.C. 17 ——— (1996a). Common grounds. Kickstart initiative: Connecting America’s com- 18 munities to the information superhighway. Washington D.C. 19 Vester, F. (1968). Bausteine Der Zukunft. 22 Berichte Von Neuen Forschung- 20 sergebnissen Und Ihren Konsequenzen. Frankfurt a.M. 21 Vogel, C. (2000). Deutschland Im Internationalen Technologiewettlauf — Bedeutung Der Forschungs — Und Technologiepolitik Für Die Technologische 22 Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot GmbH. 23 Webster, F. (1995). Theories of the information society. London: Routledge. 24 Williams, F. (1982). The communications revolution. Beverly Hills: SAGE 25 Publications. 26 ——— (1991). The new telecommunications — infrastructure for the information 27 age. New York: The Free Press. Willke, H. (1998). Organisierte Wissensarbeit. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 27:161–77. 28 ——— (1999). Die Wissensgesellschaft — Wissen ist der Schlüssel zur Gesellschaft. 29 In In welcher Gesellschaft leben wir eigentlich? Gesellschaftskonzepte Im Vergleich, 30 A. Pongs (ed.), pp. 261–279. München: Dilemma Verlag. 31 Workgroup on Creative Industries (2002). Creative industries development strategy. 32 Singapore: ERC-Subcommittee Service Industries/Ministry of Trade and 33 Industry. 34 35 36