How long does it take a government to do an economics study?
In today’s Guardian Technology we’ve looked at the strange case of the recommendation made in the Treasury’s Spending Review of 2000 that it should investigate the effects of lower pricing – perhaps even zero pricing – of government data.
And what did the authors find?
“The evidence is that certainly not all demands for government information are price sensitive,” the document, on the economics of government information, notes. “The government produces and sells value-added as well as raw data for which consumers are prepared to pay a premium while in other areas such as mapping and meteorology the government does much more than meet its needs.” That is, some of the data generated is surplus to the running of government; it’s simply there to generate profits, to offset the running costs of various departments.
…But the authors then admit it’s unclear how government-generated data should be priced. After discussing pricing models, they note the suggestion “that demand would grow rapidly in response to lower prices … and as basic information is repackaged in innovative ways. The issue needs further empirical work.” That is, an economist should see whether cheaper data boosts the economy.
And has anyone carried out that empirical study? Six years on, no, they haven’t. The Treasury says this is because there has been so much disruption in the public information economy, caused by the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act last year.
But we discovered that there is, meanwhile, a new OECD study on government data pricing (660KB PDF) – readers’ comments are welcome.
And we’re still trying to figure out what “marginal social cost” (see previous post) actually means in the real world.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- APPSI to examine free data model, it says (11 June 2008; score: 27.17%)
- Welcome, iPM listeners (27 September 2008; score: 26.33%)
- Parliamentary question reveals Cambridge University doing trading fund study (16 October 2007; score: 26.07%)
- OS publishes almost unredacted version of international study (26 July 2009; score: 20.97%)
- Competition watchdog reports (7 December 2006; score: 16.71%)
May 4th, 2006 at 9:28 am
“we do have a general position on pricing which is informed by experts” states the Treasury. Who are these experts? That seems to be one of the natural resultant questions to arise from this interview. Someone awhile ago on this blog noted that at least in the case of the Ordnance Survey, the Adviser to Government is the Director General of OS. I’m wondering if it is the case that the ‘experts’ who are consulted are the ones who seem to have the most to lose. Charles, perhaps that’s worth pursuing?
May 4th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
We’ve paid, so let us in!…
Charles Arthur has a piece in today’s Technology supplement to the Guardian newspaper, moving their ongoing “Free Our Data” campaign forward. The work that we are currently doing with academic and public libraries clearly has some philoso…
May 10th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I’ve only recently found this blog. Is it impossible to get the data required through the FOIA? Surely they couldn’t pull out the national security card on that?
May 11th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Ross,
What do you mean by the “data required”.
If you mean Public Sector Information in general the answer is yes and no.
The FOIA does not compel government agencies that are trading funds (eg the Ordnance Survey or the UK Meteorological Office to provide their information) It is these organisations which have the most commercially valuable information holdings – this is why they have been made trading funds.
Moreover with respect to information that dates very quickly eg meteorolgical forecasting model output or weather station observationsns, there is no guarantee that the information would be made available as soon as it was collected or generated. Todays weatehr information next week is not of very great use.
May 11th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Thanks for the clarification Nicholas. The whole thing just seems a little crazy, particularly in terms of geographic data – I work for myself, and in the process of learning about GIS in a n attempt to work in the area, the only UK data I seem to be able to find (for free) originates in the USA.
Meteo data seems to be the same, the two primary sources are both US based with the BBC not yet providing the data they have (http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/data/WeatherFeeds?v=q4).
Is there yet a standard letter that I can send to my MP? I expect if it exists it is likely to be more loqacious that I can be.
Thanks.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Ross,
I may be able to help you with your needs – contact me by e-mail.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Would love to, but can’t find your email address. I found one for your name, is it a pipex address?
May 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Ross, Yes