The Competitiveness of Nations in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
* With the Oct. 31, 2009 closure of my American webhost of 11 years (AtFreeWeb) links in the following dissertation and doctoral papers are generally broken. Readers are directed to the Alphabetic Bibliography to access references. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Ideological Evolution
The Competitiveness of Nations in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
|
Synopsis February 2006 Oral Defense: Where Does All This Lead? July 2006 Dissertation as Accepted |
Page i ii iii iv |
|
2.0 Problem: A Flawed Ideology |
v x 1 5 19 28 42 65 115 119 130 149 169 198 204 225 258 270
|
An Individual Interdisciplinary Studies PhD Dissertation
submitted by Harry Hillman Chartrand
© July 2006
and accepted by the University of
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -
|
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. |
- iii -
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.
- iv -
|
2.0 Problem: A Flawed Ideology 2.1 Origins 2.2 The Standard Model 2.2.1 Epistemology 2.2.2 Limitations 2.3 Objectives 3.0 Methodology: Trans-Disciplinary Induction 3.1 Trans- 3,2 Disciplinary 3.3 Induction 3.4 Weaknesses & Strengths 4.1 Monotone 4.2 Noun 4.3 Biology 4.4 Immeasurability 4.5 Incommensurability 4.6 Language 5.1 Science 5.2 Design 5.2.1 Etymology 5,2.2 Aesthetics 5.2.3 Biology 5.2.4 Economics 5.2.5 Psychology 5.2.6 Technology 5.3 Reconciliation 5.3.1 Accept the Paradox 5.3.2 Design as a Special Case of Science 5.3.2 Science as a Special Case of Design 5.3.4 Common Ancestor |
1 5 7 8 9 11 14 19 20 20 23 25 28 28 30 30 34 35 38 42 43 48 50 51 52 54 55 57 58 58 58 60 62 |
- v -
|
6.1 As Form 6.1.1 Personal & Tacit Knowledge 6.1.2 Codified Knowledge 6.1.2.1 Innis, McLuhan & Réalism fantastique 6.1.2.2 Thomas Shales & the Re-Decade 6.1.2.3 William Gibson & Cybercode 6.1.3 Tooled Knowledge 6.1.3.1 Hard-Tooled Sensors Tools Toys 6.1.3.2 Soft-Tooled Computer & Genomic Programs Mathematics Standards Technique 6.1.3.3 Characteristics Design Density Fixation Vintage 6.1.4 Reconciliation 6.2 As Input 6.2.1 Codified & Tooled Capital 6.2.1.1 Cultural 6.2.1.2 Financial 6.2.1.3 Human 6.2.1.4 Legal 6.2.1.5 Social 6.2.2 Personal & Tacit Labour 6.2.2.1 Productive 6.2.2.2 Managerial 6.2.2.3 Entrepreneurial |
65 65 66 70 71 75 76 76 78 79 81 82 83 84 85 87 89 90 90 93 94 95 95 96 97 98 98 98 99 99 100 101 101 102 |
- vi -
|
6.2.3 Toolable Natural Resources 6.3 As Output 6.3.1 The Person 6.3.2 The Code 6.3.3 The Tool 6.4 Reconciliation 8.1 The Word 8.1.1 Can 8.1.2 Know 8.1.3 Knowledge 8.1.4 Wit 8.1.5 Related & Imported Words 8.2 Findings 8.3 Reconciliation 8.3.1 By the Senses 8.3.2 By the Mind 8.3.3 By Doing 8.3.4 By Experience 8.4 Qubit WIT 9.1 Definitions 9.2 Wetware 9.3 Software 9.3.1 Archetypes & Complexes 9.3.2 Faculties 9.3.2.1 Reason 9.3.2.2 Revelation 9.3.2.3 Sentiment Adam Smith Grant McCracken Ekhart Schlicht 9.3.2.4 Sensation |
103 103 104 108 109 113 115 119 119 121 121 122 122 123 124 126 126 127 128 128 129 130 130 131 134 135 136 137 137 139 140 142 143 143 |
- vii -
|
Science Aesthetics Economics 9.4 Qubit PSI 9.5 Reconciliation 10.1 Domains 10.1.1 Natural & Engineering Sciences 10.1.2 Humanities & Social Sciences 10.1.3 The Arts 10.2 The Practices 10.3 Reconciliation 10.4 Qubit EPI 10.5 Qubit PED 11.1 The Myth of the Creator 11.2 The Matrix 11.3 Rights to Know 11.3.1 Copyrights & Trademarks 11.3.2 Designs & Patents 11.3.3 Know-How & Trade Secrets 11.3.4 Sui Generis 11.4 The Public Domain 11.4.1 Economic Commons 11.4.2 Legal Principle & Precedent 11.4.3 Constitutional & Cultural History 11.5 Reconciliation 11.6 Qubit IPR 12.1 Disembodied/Embodied 12.2 Endogenous/Exogenous 12.3 New Growth Theory 12.4 Qubit FLX 1.2.5 Anti-Climax: A Theory of Knowledge |
145 145 145 146 147 149 150 152 154 159 164 167 168 168 169 169 173 175 177 180 182 183 184 184 186 188 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 |
- viii -
|
13.1 Origins 13.2 Shifting Sands of Sovereignty 13.2.1 Biological Sovereignty 13.2.2 Cultural Sovereignty 13.2.3 Ideological Sovereignty 13.2.4 Military Sovereignty 13.2.5 Political Economic Sovereignty 13.3 Reconciliation 13.4 Governance 13.4.1 Custodian 13.4.2 Facilitator 13.4.3 Patron 13.4.4 Architect 13.4.5 Engineer 14.1 Origins 14.2 Production Function 14.2.1 Inputs 14.2.2 Outputs 14.2.3 Reconciliation 14.3 Fitness 14.3.1 Autonomous Agent 14.3.2 Coevolution & Coconstruction 14.3.3 Adjacent Possible 14.4 Comparative Advantage 14.4.1 As Noun 14.4.2 As Verb 14.4.3 As Form 14.4.4 As Content 14.4.4.1 Etymology 14.4.4.2 Psychology 14.4.4.3 Epistemology & Pedagogy 14.4.4.4 Law |
204 205 206 207 207 210 211 213 219 220 220 220 221 222 223 225 226 228 229 230 232 234 235 236 237 238 242 244 244 246 246 247 249 259 |
- ix -
|
14.4.4.5 Economics 14.4.5 Governance 14.5 Competitive Afterthoughts 15.1 Knowledge 15.1.1 Causal Hierarchies 15.1.2 Dirty Hands 15.1.3 Ideological Commensurability 15.2 Production Function & the Labour Theory of Knowledge 15.3 The Nation-State 15.3.1 Work, Wealth & Membranes 15.3.2 Fitness Limits 15.3.3 Econology?
Exhibit 1 Trans-Disciplinary Event Horizon Exhibit 2 Production Function of a Knowledge-Based Economy Exhibit 3 National Knowledge Endowment |
252 254 257 258 258 260 261 262 265
266 267 267 269 270
19 233 240 |
- x -
An Individual Interdisciplinary Studies PhD Dissertation
submitted by Harry Hillman Chartrand
© July 2006
and accepted by the University of
The Competitiveness of Nations in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy