Electric Telegraph to e-Scotland: Networking remote and rural communities

There are said to be parallels in the impact that the advent of the telegraph and the internet had on their respective societies. This chapter looks at two examples of state intervention and subsidy in the development of those two communications infrastructures in remote and rural areas of Scotland, at either end of the revolution in electric communications. Both applied the technology of the day to break down geographical barriers, to increase connectivity, to spread information, and to enhance social and business links. Both initiatives grew in part out of a government concern that Scotland should not fall behind the level of technological provision available in other European countries, thereby disadvantaging Scottish business as well as citizens (a comparison with the state-owned telegraph systems in Belgium, Switzerland and France informed the 1868 Telegraph Act, and the development of a broadband infrastructure across a range of European Union countries has been quoted by the Scottish Government). The emphasis in both cases was on affordable wide-ranging availability to benefit individuals as much as business, though with an understanding that business needs would be the driver and would provide the bulk of the finance to establish and maintain the infrastructure. The first was a product of nationalisation with the expansion of the telegraph network from 1870 to 1872 driven by demand. Following is an analysis of that demand and its impact, alongside a description of the development of the network across remote and rural areas over the two years of the scheme. The second examines the rationales behind Scottish Government initiatives since 2001 to extend broadband provision and outlines the technical solutions devised in partnership with commercial operators and funding bodies to reach non-commercially viable areas and to stimulate take up

Why Do Wage Profiles Slope Upwards? Tests of the General Human Capital Model

This paper tests some empirical implications of the general human capital model's explanation of rising wage profiles. At the individual level, the model implies that there will be a negative relationship between the initial wage level and wage growth of young, inexperienced workers. At the market level, the model implies that the present value of the wage profile of an investor equals that of an otherwise identical non-investor, or that the ratio of the present values equals one. We test both of these hypotheses. Evidence on the wage level-wage growth tradeoff points to a negative relationship between initial wage levels and wage growth, even after correcting for negative biases that may have influenced existing estimates of this relationship. Evidence on present values of wage profiles suggests that the ratio of the present value of rising wage profiles to flat wage profiles is quite close to one. Alternative estimates of this ratio are tightly clustered around one, and more often than not are insignificantly different from one. Overall, then, the evidence is largely consistent with the general human capital model.

Public sector IP management in the life sciences: reconciling practice and policy

This chapter reviews the options for effective public sector management of intellectual property (IP) in the life sciences, focusing on the need for a judicious, pragmatic choice of options along two axes: (1) deployment of exclusive rights over technology and (2) use of market mechanisms to bring a new technology to the public. The essence of public sector IP management is finding the right settings along these two axes that will deliver tangible outcomes in line with defined public-interest objectives. Experience shows that ex ante assumptions about how to gain optimal leverage from exclusive rights, and the appropriate degree of reliance on market mechanisms, are unlikely to serve a public sector IP manager well. In clarifying objectives and the practical means of achieving them, pragmatic coordination between the practical and policy levels is essential. Public sector IP managers are more likely to be assessed against public interest expectations than their private sector colleagues. In IP management in the life sciences, policy and practice are ultimately two sides of the same coin; practitioners cannot hope, expect, or plan to operate outside the broader policy perspective. Policy-makers therefore need to consider the actual practice of IP management when assessing a policy framework for innovation in the life sciences. IP managers should be open to using legal mechanisms flexibly for inclusion, or exclusion, as required to achieve their goals. Finally, managers should seek mechanisms to pragmatically structure and promote partnerships with those who have the resources necessary to bring life-sciences innovation to the public. Such partnerships may be centered in the public, philanthropic, or private sectors, but more likely fall into a hybrid mix of these categories.Public Interest Intellectual Property Management, Agricultural Biotechnology, Developing Countries