Ideological Evolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THE COMPETITIVENESS OF NATIONS IN A GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Individual Interdisciplinary Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon by Harry Hillman Chartrand Keywords: competitiveness, economics, global, ideology, knowledge © Copyright Harry Hillman Chartrand, July 2006. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Chair of Interdisciplinary Studies 180 College Building University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A2 i ABSTRACT My objective is to deepen and thicken public and private policy debate about the competitiveness of nations in a global knowledge–based economy. To do so I first demonstrate the inadequacies of the Standard Model of economics, the last ideology standing after the Market- Marx Wars. Second, I develop a methodology (Trans-Disciplinary Induction) to acquire ‘knowledge about knowledge’. In the process of surveying the event horizons of seventeen sub- disciplines of thought, I redefine ‘ideology’ as the search for commensurable sets or systems of ideas shared across knowledge domains and practices. Third, I create a definitional avalanche about knowledge as a noun, verb, form and content in etymology, psychology, epistemology & pedagogy, law and economics. In the process I demonstrate that personal & tacit and codified & tooled knowledge are the staple commodities of the global knowledge-based economy. Fourth, I establish the origins and nature of the Nation-State, the shifting sands of sovereignty on which it stands and the complimentary roles it plays as curator, facilitator, patron, architect and engineer of the national knowledge-base. Fifth, I examine the competitiveness of nations with respect to a production function in which all inputs, outputs and coefficients are defined in terms of knowledge. In the process, I demonstrated that competitiveness, as Darwinian win/lose against rivals, is inadequate because it does not account for the mutualism of symbionts and environmental change, i.e., coevolution and coconstruction. Accordingly, I propose ‘fitness’ as a more appropriate criterion for the competitiveness of nations in a global knowledge-based economy. Finally, I consider the comparative advantage of nations given their initial and differing national knowledge endowments. ii Acknowledgements 1. I acknowledge my co-supervisors Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips of the Department of Political Studies and Director of the College of Biotechnology and Professor George Khachatourians, Head of the Department of Applied Microbiology and Food Science, University of Saskatchewan (USASK). Professor Phillips guided the work to completion. Dr. Khachatourians provided the inspiration and encouragement to undertake the effort in the first place. 2. To my Advisory Committee I wish to thank: Professor Tom Steele of the Department of Physics & Engineering whose intellectual skepticism served me well in shaping the crucial concept of ‘tooled knowledge’; Professor Grant Isaac of the College of Commerce whose good nature and insight, particularly at the beginning and end of the process, encouraged me to continue; and, Professor Zaheer Baber of the Department of Sociology for answering the call to join the Committee in spite of his busy schedule. 3. To my external examiner, Professor Brian J. Loasby of the Economics Department, University of Stirling, Scotland I extend also my sincerest thanks. His inspirational work is reflected throughout this dissertation. His critical comments of the final product also served, I hope, to smooth the rough edges and highlight some key findings of the work. I also acknowledge GELS Prairies for their financial assistance. 4. I thank: Professor Morris Altman, Head of the Economics Department for directing me to the work of Nathan Rosenberg and his ‘Black Box’; Professor Joel Bruneau, of the Economics Department, who encouraged development of a more formal economic epistemology; Professor Murray Fulton, Director of the Interdisciplinary Program and eventually Chairman of my Committee for directing me to the critically important work of Brian Loasby; and, Professor Glen Aikenhead of the College of Education for directing me to the work of Ken Kawasaki highlighting how knowledge is limited by natural language. 5. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my initial application by my former professors and sometimes colleagues: Gilles Paquet, Director, Centre for Governance; University of Ottawa; A. L. Keith Acheson, Professor, Department of Economics, Carleton University; and, Christopher Maule, Professor, Department of Economics, Carleton University. I would also like to acknowledge Richard Vanderberg, formerly of Carleton University, for introducing me to the Institutional Economics of John R. Commons. 6. On a more personal level I wish to thank my friend and colleague Guy Morin of the federal department of Indian Affairs & Northern Development for his time and patience in hearing me out and, most of all, I wish to thank Grier and Olivia for their patience and support. iii CHAPTER INDEX Page PERMISSION TO USE i ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii CHAPTER INDEX iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF EXHIBITS x CHAPTERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROBLEM: A FLAWED IDEOLOGY 5 3.0 METHODOLOGY: TRANS-DISCIPLINARY INDUCTION 19 4.0 KNOWLEDGE AS NOUN 28 5.0 KNOWLEDGE AS VERB 42 6.0 KNOWLEDGE AS FORM 65 7.0 KNOWLEDGE AS CONTENT 115 8.0 ETYMOLOGY 119 9.0 PSYCHOLOGY 130 10.0 EPISTEMOLOGY & PEDAGOGY 149 11.0 LAW 169 12.0 ECONOMICS 198 13.0 THE NATION-STATE 204 14.0 COMPETITIVENESS 225 15.0 CONCLUSIONS 258 REFERENCES 270 iv Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROBLEM: A FLAWED IDEOLOGY 5 2.1 Origins 7 2.2 The Standard Model 8 2.2.1 Epistemology 9 2.2.2 Limitations 11 2.3 Objectives 14 3.0 METHODOLOGY: TRANS-DISCIPLINARY INDUCTION 19 3.1 Trans- 20 3,2 Disciplinary 20 3.3 Induction 23 3.4 Weaknesses & Strengths 25 4.0 KNOWLEDGE AS NOUN 28 4.1 Monotone 28 4.2 Noun 30 4.3 Biology 30 4.4 Immeasurability 34 4.5 Incommensurability 35 4.6 Language 38 5.0 KNOWLEDGE AS VERB 42 5.1 Science 43 5.2 Design 48 5.2.1 Etymology 50 5.2.2 Aesthetics 51 5.2.3 Biology 52 5.2.4 Economics 54 5.2.5 Psychology 55 5.2.6 Technology 57 5.3 Reconciliation 58 5.3.1 Accept the Paradox 58 5.3.2 Design as a Special Case of Science 58 5.3.3 Science as a Special Case of Design 60 5.3.4 Common Ancestor 62 v 6.0 KNOWLEDGE AS FORM 65 6.1 As Form 65 6.1.1 Personal & Tacit Knowledge 66 6.1.2 Codified Knowledge 70 6.1.2.1 Innis, McLuhan & Réalism fantastique 71 6.1.2.2 Thomas Shales & the Re-Decade 75 6.1.2.3 William Gibson & Cybercode 76 6.1.3 Tooled Knowledge 76 6.1.3.1 Hard-Tooled 78 Sensors 79 Tools 81 Toys 82 6.1.3.2 Soft-Tooled 83 Computer & Genomic Programs 84 Mathematics 85 Standards 87 Technique 89 6.1.3.3 Characteristics 90 Design 90 Density 93 Fixation 94 Vintage 95 6.1.4 Reconciliation 95 6.2 As Input 96 6.2.1 Codified & Tooled Capital 97 6.2.1.1 Cultural 98 6.2.1.2 Financial 98 6.2.1.3 Human 98 6.2.1.4 Legal 99 6.2.1.5 Social 99 6.2.2 Personal & Tacit Labour 100 6.2.2.1 Productive 101 6.2.2.2 Managerial 101 6.2.2.3 Entrepreneurial 102 vi 6.2.3 Toolable Natural Resources 103 6.3 As Output 103 6.3.1 The Person 104 6.3.2 The Code 108 6.3.3 The Tool 109 6.4 Reconciliation 113 7.0 KNOWLEDGE AS CONTENT 115 8.0 ETYMOLOGY 119 8.1 The Word 119 8.1.1 Can 121 8.1.2 Know 121 8.1.3 Knowledge 122 8.1.4 Wit 122 8.1.5 Related & Imported Words 123 8.2 Findings 124 8.3 Reconciliation 126 8.3.1 By the Senses 126 8.3.2 By the Mind 127 8.3.3 By Doing 128 8.3.4 By Experience 128 8.4 Qubit WIT 129 9.0 PSYCHOLOGY 130 9.1 Definitions 130 9.2 Wetware 131 9.3 Software 134 9.3.1 Archetypes & Complexes 135 9.3.2 Faculties 136 9.3.2.1 Reason 137 9.3.2.2 Revelation 137 9.3.2.3 Sentiment 139 Adam Smith 140 Grant McCracken 142 Ekhart Schlicht 143 9.3.2.4 Sensation 143 vii Sciernce 145 Aesthetics 145 Economics 145 9.4 Qubit PSI 146 9.5 Reconciliation 147 10.0 EPISTEMOLOGY & PEDAGOGY 149 10.1 Domains 150 10.1.1 Natural & Engineering Sciences 152 10.1.2 Humanities & Social Sciences 154 10.1.3 The Arts 159 10.2 The Practices 164 10.3 Reconciliation 167 10.4 Qubit EPI 168 10.5 Qubit PED 168 11.0 LAW 169 11.1 The Myth of the Creator 169 11.2 The Matrix 173 11.3 Rights to Know 175 11.3.1 Copyrights & Trademarks 177 11.3.2 Designs & Patents 180 11.3.3 Know-How & Trade Secrets 182 11.3.4 Sui Generis 183 11.4 The Public Domain 184 11.4.1 Economic Commons 184 11.4.2 Legal Principle & Precedent 186 11.4.3 Constitutional & Cultural