In this light, the SSRC organized pre-conference seemed an ideal academic event to attend after many years. I had attended many discussions on researc h in practice while in academia. There was a difference this time.

In 1993, for example, there was a memorable impromptu debate between Eli Noam and Tom Streeter about the efficacy of directly addressing policy makers/ regulators. Eli was of the opinion that it was effective provided it was done right. Tom and several others disagreed, claiming that the channels were rigged against all but powerful corporate interests. I recall this debate very clearly, because Eli, who in addition to his academic role at Columbia was at this time a Commissioner of the New York Public Service Commission, made me a prop in his argument, referring to an intervention that I had made before his Commission. He stated that coming out of the blue (Ohio to be precise), I had upset the well laid plans of some of the largest companies in the country with regard to telecom privacy rules . I was over the moon to get this certificate of efficacy from a Regulator.

However, I knew very well that my intervention had been effective mostly because Eli and his colleagues were primed to give weight to privacy concerns and that my intervention had given them a good opportunity. Two hands were needed for that particular act of clapping; both were not mine.

The debate then was between direct intervention (like mine) and indirect intervention through the media. Media coverage influenced policy makers while direct intervention did not, Streeter et al. argued. In our practice, we play both sides: direct intervention is the preferred mode, but we do believe there is a strong role of media, which constitutes the symbolic environment which our audiences lived in.

There was little discussion on these lines at the 2008 meeting. The focus was on activism: How could scholars communicate effectively to activists? How could they engage in research with activists? Should they become activists? And of course, there was the ritual grumbling about the failure of the university and its reward structure to provide incentives for activism or research of value to activists. There was also hope expressed that the discussion would be conducted in a park, instead of in the comfort of a conference hotel.

It made me wonder whether the Canadian and US societies had abandoned the center in the past 15 years, or whether it was simply a manifestation of the kind of people who attended these kinds of discussions. After all, in 1993, the organizers had rustled up real live regulators and policy makers like Eli Noam (there were a few others too). This time all they had for anyone connected to the policy process was me; and I had come on my own initiative, not because anyone had invited me. The problem, it seemed, had been defined by the organizers in the following fashion: research to activist groups to media to policy process.

Was this because there was too much research and too much information in the system? Direct communication would simply get drowned out, the implication seemed to be. It was only with the ability of activist groups to ratchet up the intensity of the communication, especially on the non-rational side (recall the anti WTO street protests), that change would occur. But are street protesters interested in research results or reasoned arguments in the first place? They are certain of the answers; why bother with evidence? Perhaps this is the larger and more productive challenge: getting activists to appreciate the value of evidence.

I talked about successes: not only about the changes we had made to Indian and Indonesian policies through proactive evidence-based interventions; but also about the successes achieved through the evidence-based but reactive and a bit more shrill intervention in the case of the regressive mobile tax in Sri Lanka last year. No one else did. It was all about inputs and processes and wishes and complaints. Perhaps it is considered immodest in these circles to talk about outcomes? Perhaps there were no outcomes that could be reported from the activist model?

May be actual changes in policy were not that important any more? The Chair of the group that I spoke in, Joe Karaganis of the SSRC, asked me whether we had any success in communicating research effectively to non-government actors (I paraphrase). I recounted the unintended consequence of shifting Sarvodaya from a sole focus on relief and recovery in relation to disasters to a broader focus on preparedness and risk reduction, in addition to relief and recovery. This is our long-haul project. We have changed minds, but we have still to get to a real result: given the difficulties of getting the sustainability phase of HazInfo up and running, we are still short on outcome.

Did I learn anything from the exercise? I have greater confidence in our approach. I am skeptical still about working through activists in a specialized area such as ours (where are these activists in Asia anyway?). Besides, I was not presented any evidence of the efficacy of this approach. I do hope that SSRC will keep this group of committed individuals focused on the prize of actually changing things in the real world. The tendency I have seen among NGOs in Asia to basically see communication among themselves and for themselves as an end in itself should be avoided at all costs. I wish this group success in their endeavors.

Monday 31 March

09:00 – 11:00

Opening session – Information society policies

Information society policies have been on the policy agenda in all countries and regions of the world since the beginning of the 1990s. The opening session of EuroCPR 2008 will explore important outcomes of policy initiatives and the similarities and differences between different regions of the world. For this purpose, speakers from Europe, Asia and the US have been invited to give their critical assessment of policy aims and results.

Speakers:

• Eli Noam, CITI, Columbia University

• Andrea Renda, CEPS

• Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia

Discussant:
• Frans De Bruïne, ISC, formerly INFSO EC

Powered by ScribeFire.

This was after many had written requiems for law review articles saying they were getting too esoteric to be of any use.

When Mobile Phones Aren’t Truly Mobile – New York Times

Then, in February, Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, published an influential paper, “Wireless Net Neutrality,” which made a well-supported case that the government should compel wireless carriers to open their networks to equipment and software applications that the carriers did not control. Mr. Wu called his proposition a call for “Cellular Carterfone,” referring to the 1968 Carterfone ruling by the F.C.C. The Carterfone was a speakerphone-like gadget that permitted a phone sitting in a cradle to be connected with a two-way radio. Over the objections of AT&T, the F.C.C. ruled that consumers could plug it or any phone or accessory into the network so long as doing so did no harm to the network. The ruling set in motion the changes that provided consumers with a cornucopia of equipment choices like answering machines, fax machines, modems and cordless phones. Among Mr. Wu’s readers was Mr. Martin of the F.C.C.The wireless carriers are fighting a cellular version of the Carterfone decision. They contend that they must exert control over all equipment used on their networks in order to protect the networks’ operations. AT&T says in an F.C.C. filing that only the carrier has the incentive to oversee “the integrity, security and efficient and economical use” of the network.

MR. WU’S paper, however, shows that the landline telephone industry used identical arguments, predicting dire consequences were its customers permitted to use equipment from unknown sources. In 1955, when AT&T was fighting to exclude a gadget called the Hush-A-Phone, the company solemnly argued, “It would be extremely difficult to furnish ‘good’ telephone service if telephone users were free to attach to the equipment, or use with it, all of the numerous kinds of foreign attachments, which are marketed by persons who have no responsibility for the quality of telephone service.”

As a postscript to the landline industry’s resistance to opening its networks, Mr. Wu said in an interview last week, “Things turned out not just O.K., but great.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

News & Broadcast – Global Gathering Seeks to Reduce Disaster Risk

Nations and institutions are looking for other ways to protect an estimated 3.4 billion people living in areas prone to at least one natural hazard, such as flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes. A Global Hotspots Analysis conducted by the World Bank and Columbia University estimates 105 million people are exposed to three or more natural hazards.

To this end, some 600 representatives of countries and organizations meet in Geneva this week for the inaugural session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The gathering is expected to become the main global forum for all parties involved in disaster-risk reduction, namely governments, UN agencies, international financial institutions, regional bodies, civil society, the private sector, and the scientific and academic communities.

“It’s an opportunity for all of us, as part of one global community, to reaffirm that it’s better to invest in disaster prevention than wait for an event to happen and then mobilize international assistance for reconstruction,” says Saroj Kumar Jha.

Powered by ScribeFire.