[open-government] Economic Benefits of Open-Data - Presentation Ideas for City of Montreal

Thu Oct 28 18:12:14 UTC 2010

This is great. (..thankfully it aligns with my thesis*) I recommend that
efficiency gains within and between departments are also an important
economic benefit. This is subtly different than benefits derived from
increasing the effectiveness of government.

Increasing government's efficiency does reduce consumption in the
short-term, leading to a short run decline in economic activity. However,
the benefits to the reduced fiscal demands should lead to gains in the
longer-term.

Tim McNamara

Masters Candidate in Public Policy,
Victoria University of Wellington

* My whole paper is an evaluation of the rhetoric surrounding open
government data.

On 29 October 2010 05:11, Tom Lee <tlee at sunlightfoundation.com> wrote:

> This conversation touches on issues we frequently discuss at the Sunlight
> Foundation.  I'm very interested in making a less anecdotal and/or
> speculative case for open data than has typically been advanced, and I think
> that any such approach will quickly land us in the realm of economic
> justifications. But Toby is right that credibility becomes an immediate
> problem once you start putting numbers to things.
>
> We've been kicking around some ideas about classes of benefit, and examples
> within them, without yet any effort to quantify the benefit.  I'd be curious
> to hear any thoughts that are prompted by these proposed categories.
>
> direct - the release of freely-usable GIS data by the government enables
> the creation of a variety of commercial products and services
>
> consumer surplus-enhancing - national weather data lowers the price of a
> variety of meteorological products and services
>
> positive externality-producing - the DMV posting registration forms online
> allows drivers to save time spent in line; those hours can be used for work
> or leisure
>
> foundational - posting legal and legislative information online enhances
> the effectiveness of government and the health of society, both of which are
> necessary underpinnings to economic activity
>
> The lines between OD interventions with a direct economic benefit and those
> that enhance consumer surplus by solving collective action problems and
> lowering the price level of data seem especially slippery to me.  Same for
> the "positive externality" and "foundational" categories too, to be honest,
> though I think there is probably a useful distinction to be made between
> cases where OD delivers an economic benefit that's hard to capture, and ones
> where its effects are even more indirect.
>
>
>
> 2010/10/28 Toby Mendel <toby at law-democracy.org>
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Well, the grass is always greener ...  :)
>>
>> Seriously, you ask a very good question. We in the RTI advocacy camp have
>> often (usually) happily mixed up these two types of arguments without really
>> thinking about the philosophical or even consequential implications (using
>> whatever works best in the moment to advance our goals).
>>
>> Let me say, first, that the fact that human rights may lead to practical
>> benefits in no way undermines their human rights status (why should it?) So
>> in a way your question partly derives from a doubt about the status of RTI
>> as a human right. You would not ask it if I were interested in knowing
>> whether refraining from torture also saved money (although of course we have
>> seen arguments that allegedly important practical benefits may override
>> rights, which I reject).
>>
>> But the issue does run deeper than that. There is lack of clarity as to
>> what really underpins the (now pretty well recognised internationally)
>> status of RTI as a human right. Is it just that it delivers other benefits
>> (including other rights such as democracy, freedom of expression, right to
>> food, even right to life), or is there something more inherently linked to
>> human dignity about it (as there clearly is with freedom from torture)? This
>> question is much easier to answer for freedom of expression which, while it
>> does deliver other benefits, is also a deep human value in itself, directly
>> linked to our identity, etc.
>>
>> And if it is only a right due to delivering other benefits, then surely it
>> might be limited in scope to that functional role (ie it would not extend to
>> access to information which had no such beneficial results; I am using the
>> term limits here to refer to limits on scope, not limits in the sense of
>> restrictions to protect overriding interests). For this reason, I do not
>> like to base RTI on rights like food and life, but prefer freedom of
>> expression and perhaps democracy, which I think do not lead to such
>> limitations. However, in a recent decision recognising the right to
>> information as a constitutionally protected right insofar as it was needed
>> to sustain freedom of expression, the Canadian Supreme Court did envisage
>> limits on it (I was critical of the decision, but I agree the point is
>> arguable). Others (eg Robert Post, Dean of Yale Law School) have argued that
>> rights like freedom of expression flow from democracy, and are limited on
>> this basis (ie to what democracy demands).
>>
>> Furthermore, at some point we have to recognise that RTI, at least in its
>> proactive disclosure aspect, which I suppose is of primary importance to the
>> OG movement, is constrained by practical and financial considerations. This
>> also creates tension with the idea of it as a human right, or at least moves
>> it to the camp of economic, social and cultural rights, which may be
>> realised progressively, as opposed to being required immediately (as is the
>> case with civil and political rights). And here, of course, having good
>> practical, and especially economic, arguments in favour of openness will
>> help us win battles.
>>
>> Toby
>>
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2010, at 07:06, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> 2010/10/28 Toby Mendel <toby at law-democracy.org>
>>
>>> I run the Centre for Law and Democracy (www.law-democracy.org), an
>>> international human rights organisation [...]
>>>
>>> The issue of economic benefits from OG is an important one, but also one
>>> which needs to be approached responsibly if claims are to be credible and
>>> believed. I have seen some very impressive claims in this regard (reaching
>>> into the billions), but I confess I am sceptical about them. [...]
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your contribution Toby.
>>
>> I'm interested that you've picked this thread to add to the discussion.
>> From a more philosophical level, economic benefit tends to be an argument
>> from utility maximisation whereas you are coming from a rights-based based.
>> Do you think that the teleological and deontological approaches can happily
>> sit together?
>>
>>
>> Tim McNamara
>> @timClicks
>>
>> Masters Candidate in Public Policy,
>> Victoria University of Wellington
>>
>>
>>      ___________________________________
>> *Toby Mendel*
>> *Executive Director*
>> * *
>> *Centre for Law and Democracy*
>> toby at law-democracy.org
>> Tel:  +1 902 431-3688
>> Fax: +1 902 431-3689
>> www.law-democracy.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-government mailing list
>> open-government at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101029/6bd09b16/attachment-0001.html>