Information, capital, well-being
<p class="first" id="d268013e69">Don Lamberton asked many questions about the nature and role of information, without expecting to be able to provide tidy or neat answers. The issues he raised have not gone away or been resolved. Some have re-appeare...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pluto Journals
2015-11-01
|
| Series: | Prometheus |
| Online Access: | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.1080/08109028.2016.1194007 |
| _version_ | 1797833985112408064 |
|---|---|
| author | Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht |
| author_facet | Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht |
| author_sort | Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p class="first" id="d268013e69">Don Lamberton asked many questions about the nature and role of information, without
expecting to be able to provide tidy or neat answers. The issues he raised have not
gone away or been resolved. Some have re-appeared in modified or new form. This paper
first focuses on the analysis of information at the macro-level, starting with the
ill-fated ‘information sector’ studies and leading on to current attempts to use neoclassical
economics to measure macro-level capital stocks in the context of the debate about
sustainable development, also known as ‘wealth accounting’. Wealth accounting has
no place for information-as-capital that goes beyond very primitive proxy measures
for intangible capital other than human capital. Often, information-as-capital is
neglected completely by denoting such capital stocks as ‘enabling assets’ that are
assumed to be reflected in what turn out to be unmeasurable shadow prices. Next, an
issue mostly neglected by Don Lamberton is discussed – the normative assessment of
information and innovation. It is argued that neither mainstream economics nor evolutionary
economics, information studies, innovation studies and so on currently has an appropriate
normative theory of innovation. Increased output, innovation counts, productivity,
competitiveness and consumption-related utility (what economists call 'welfare') are
poor indicators of what really should be measured, which is the objective and subjective
impacts of innovation on people
<i>'s</i> well-being.
</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T14:32:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-557badcba77e4be792144274450d72a3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0810-9028 1470-1030 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T14:32:32Z |
| publishDate | 2015-11-01 |
| publisher | Pluto Journals |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Prometheus |
| spelling | doaj.art-557badcba77e4be792144274450d72a32023-05-03T15:20:26ZengPluto JournalsPrometheus0810-90281470-10302015-11-0133434735910.1080/08109028.2016.1194007Information, capital, well-beingHans-Jürgen Engelbrecht<p class="first" id="d268013e69">Don Lamberton asked many questions about the nature and role of information, without expecting to be able to provide tidy or neat answers. The issues he raised have not gone away or been resolved. Some have re-appeared in modified or new form. This paper first focuses on the analysis of information at the macro-level, starting with the ill-fated ‘information sector’ studies and leading on to current attempts to use neoclassical economics to measure macro-level capital stocks in the context of the debate about sustainable development, also known as ‘wealth accounting’. Wealth accounting has no place for information-as-capital that goes beyond very primitive proxy measures for intangible capital other than human capital. Often, information-as-capital is neglected completely by denoting such capital stocks as ‘enabling assets’ that are assumed to be reflected in what turn out to be unmeasurable shadow prices. Next, an issue mostly neglected by Don Lamberton is discussed – the normative assessment of information and innovation. It is argued that neither mainstream economics nor evolutionary economics, information studies, innovation studies and so on currently has an appropriate normative theory of innovation. Increased output, innovation counts, productivity, competitiveness and consumption-related utility (what economists call 'welfare') are poor indicators of what really should be measured, which is the objective and subjective impacts of innovation on people <i>'s</i> well-being. </p>https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.1080/08109028.2016.1194007 |
| spellingShingle | Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht Information, capital, well-being Prometheus |
| title | Information, capital, well-being |
| title_full | Information, capital, well-being |
| title_fullStr | Information, capital, well-being |
| title_full_unstemmed | Information, capital, well-being |
| title_short | Information, capital, well-being |
| title_sort | information capital well being |
| url | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.1080/08109028.2016.1194007 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hansjurgenengelbrecht informationcapitalwellbeing |