By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld
08/26/05 5:00 AM PT
Just as the introduction of private property historically saved the fur trade by stopping the over-hunting of animals in North America, the future of wireless communications can be secured by creating markets in scarce spectrum.
Crystal Reports - Discover the Latest Innovations. Download a free trial, view real-time 'behind the scenes' functionality, and learn about new Crystal Reports Server trade in options! Learn more.
This week, a group of legal scholars, high government officials, Nobel prize recipients and economic experts gathered for the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, to discuss e-government, telecommunications and intellectual property, among other issues.
One of the more colorful speakers was Mart Laar, former president of Estonia. On his watch, that nation rose from poverty to become one of the fastest growing economies in the Baltic region. Flat taxes and privatization were key to Estonia's success , but technology also played a part.
According to Mr. Laar, Estonia was the first paperless government in the world and 100 percent of Estonia's public sector is now on the Internet. This transparency of government actions has made the government both less popular and more efficient.
Addressing the Future
Estonia's government has become less popular because citizens can see proposals for laws before they are fully formed, increasing the level of debate and criticism. The upside of this vigorous discussion is something America is known well for harnessing in the low-tech space. That is, input from a number of different factions means that no one group dominates the direction of public policies, making laws better and more efficient. Of course, Estonia is not a completely free market.
Many Estonians currently access the Internet through government-provided WiFi. That's a workable situation for now because it's so newly implemented, but those who understand the important connection between innovation and property rights know that in the long run, government-owned networks will become as outdated and run-down as government-owned food and clothing stores. When asked about this future problem, Mr. Laar simply said he supports privatization and then put on his politician's hat, changing the subject to his other successes.
Privatization of telecommunications continued to be a key theme as former FCC chief economist and George Mason law and economics professor Thomas Hazlett took the stage. In order for wireless and mobile voice technologies to reach their maximum potential, spectrum markets need to be liberated, he argued.
History's Course
Historically, spectrum has been treated as a "commons" managed by government with great inefficiencies. But it is possible to create a market in spectrum by auctioning off parts and letting users treat it as property. This would be the best direction to go, said renowned economist Harold Demsetz.
Just as the introduction of private property historically saved the fur trade by stopping the over-hunting of animals in North America, the future of wireless communications can be secured by creating markets in scarce spectrum. But while property rights are a key element of a strong and free society, not everyone accepted them point-blank.
Santa Clara University law professor David Friedman argued that property rights are not always superior to the commons. Consider intellectual ideas, he said. If someone fully owned each idea, it would be difficult to have conferences like MPS and for academics like Professor Demsetz to write papers about Nobel Prize-winner Ronald Coase's economic theory. While Friedman makes an interesting point, his statement seems to assume an all-or-nothing approach to property rights.
The very fact that Demsetz cites Ronald Coase in discussing his own ideas shows that Coase still maintains a property right in his work. That is, a thinker can't exclude someone from using his ideas as he could exclude someone from using his car, but perhaps one can look at property in ideas as being reflected in concepts such as fame, which can then translate into physical benefits such as speaking engagements, prizes and so on.
Respect for Incentives
"The question really is not what to do with the idea after it's created," Demsetz said, "but how to get Coase to write it in the first place." Indeed, incentives do matter, and if one were to make one's efforts fully part of the commons, creative fires would be certainly be extinguished.
Conference participants discussed many more elements of technology and society, but the overarching theme was clear: Technology is changing the way that people live and interact, but it does not change the rules of economics.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
The Evolution and Death of the Laptop Computer August 22, 2005
The laptop will probably last through this decade, but we are exploring different alternatives and as such it is likely that conclusions on this subject will be different in 2011. The market desperately needs to move to a more appliance-like device that is much more portable and much less power-hungry.
Related Stories
Hatch To Lead Senate Panel on Intellectual Property March 18, 2005
"What the subcommittee does is add another layer, but it doesn't change what
happens," said Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy agency. "Everybody still recognizes the enormous influence that Mr. Hatch has over IP issues."
Digital Property and the Laws of Inheritance February 22, 2005
If a password list is part of your estate planning, a number of issues will be alleviated. Create an inventory of URLs, Web content, e-mail passwords and any other property an heir will need access to.
An Uncommon Commons January 18, 2005
The fun begins when we look past the media reports to IBM's own press release and published statements. IBM promised not to sue any open-source developer, distributor or user, and stated clearly that IBM is legally bound by that promise. However, the statement contains disclaimers that limit IBM's promise.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.