The global knowledge economy in question

被引:20
作者
Roberts, Joanne [1 ]
机构
[1] Newcastle Univ, Sch Business, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
关键词
Knowledge economy; Communication technologies; Intellectual property; Knowledge management; Globalization;
D O I
10.1108/17422040911003033
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Purpose - The aim of this paper is to bring into question the idea of the global knowledge economy. Design/methodology/approach - The paper explores the characteristics of the knowledge economy, as elaborated by academics and policy makers concerned with knowledge in the contemporary global business environment. A range of available data is reviewed concerning the global distribution of investments in knowledge, information and communications technologies (ICTs), international transactions in knowledge-intensive services and royalty and licensing fees, employment by sector and literacy rates. Such data provide a basis for an initial critical evaluation of the notion of the global knowledge economy. Findings - The use of the term "global knowledge economy" fails to acknowledge the uneven distribution of knowledge-based economic activity. Moreover, as currently constituted, the idea of a global knowledge economy, which focuses on knowledge as conceptualised in the commercial activities of advanced countries, overlooks the diversity of knowledges present in the world today. Originality/value - This paper provides the first attempt to question and critically explore the global knowledge economy.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / +
页数:20
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]   Social capital: Prospects for a new concept [J].
Adler, PS ;
Kwon, SW .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2002, 27 (01) :17-40
[2]  
Alvesson M., 2004, KNOWLEDGE WORK KNOWL
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, HIGHER ED INT STUDEN
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006, J TECHNOL TRANSFER, V31, P17
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1999, INNOVATION POLICY GL
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2005, KNOWLEDGE DEV J
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2004, PEER TO PEER FILE SH
[8]  
Bell D., 1974, COMING POSTINDUSTRIA
[9]  
Boisot M. H., 1998, KNOWLEDGE ASSETS SEC
[10]  
Boldrin Michele, 2008, INTELLECTUAL MONOPOL