Partha Mukhopadhyay: Four broad issues I think we could think through.

1. This whole concept of knowledge-based economies
2. Is the classification of indicators, drivers sensible and what would you put in there
3. Where is LIRNEasia’s work most suited
4. What would be specific sectors that make sense (IT, agriculture)

Robin Mansell: Early volumes made the case that change is not just technology but related to humans and people.  A 1999 quote – ‘knowledge is like light, weightless and intangible, it can easily travel the world, enlightening the lives of people everywhere.’ This was a very top down economist view. All one had to do was count investments in these areas. It’s a very technological model.

In parallel, there’s a long tradition of empirically driven research based on local, regional and global systems of innovation. This is where innovation occurs unevenly and at all levels.

A lot of people get fixated on tools, on infrastructure, on how many ISPs there are. That’s only part of the task, it’s crucial that one goes beyond there to look at human capacities and how one takes advantage of the opportunities that emerge from there.

It’s important that we think about the tacit knowledge, the human understanding, the cultural interpretation. This enables people to take advantage of technology. I recently spoke at an EU Presidency Conference in Sweden and they’ve realized that the foundation is an inclusive society.

What does 3 decades of research on knowledge based economies tell us?

• Digital technologies alone will not create knowledge based economies
• Knowledge circulation does not eradicate poverty
• Knowledge exchange/sharing is not only about economics, it is political, social and cultural
• Knowledge needs to be situated in local context

Deunden: I think my presentation will give a realistic picture of why we need KBE (Knowledge Based Economy). First why does Thailand need? Most of our manufacturers are not original, they produce products for other brands. There is very little R&D locally. It is a myth that FDI brings in technology. Large multi national companies largely do not conduct R&D in Thailand. This is a serious concern for us because the KBE doesn’t exist without R&D. The only ones that do are the large local agricultural companies, they link to universities, etc.

SMEs and large companies still have limited use of Internet. They use it for in-house communication, sending documents and collecting data. The second question is, where do you get information? They say buyers and headquarters. Nobody seems to get information from universities. This is a picture that shows we are spoon-fed by overseas.

Most companies rely on customer’s design. Small, medium and large. SMEs still use fax more than email for communication.

When we asked what the problem was, many said the quality of Internet was inferior. They said the most needed infrastructure was Internet.

Conclusion

Looking at the data, maybe don’t put high hopes on ICT for innovation. That doesn’t come easily. It’s a matter of underlying structure of the economy. Maybe start with basic communication. This requires that broadband is readily available and affordable. Finding information (suppliers, workers, raw materials) is very useful, but the government is not providing this information. The reality is that perhaps the private sector should stop lobbying the government and do this themselves.

The next step is marketing online, which requires some ICT training. Then innovation requires well coordinated policy from various ministries and research institutions.

My final note is that we were mentioning which sector, I think the future is in the service sector. In Thailand GDP from service sector is 50% and generates 50% of employment. I think employment of IT in services can take the country quite far.