Three years in the life of UK national information policy – the politics and process of policy development

Abstract

Abstract:In three years since Ed Mayo's and Tom Steinberg's 'Power of Information Review', much attention has been focused on UK national information policy (NIP) as to how to render it fit for purpose in a Gov 2.0 environment. Since 2007, the importance of collecting, creating and sharing information in different formats has been a feature of policy. Despite these austere times, the intractable problem of funding public sector information provision, particularly from the trading funds, such as Ordnance Survey, has been under review. Problems continue, however, in translating the desire for reform into reality. At a time when a new coalition government is establishing policy, the fragility of these cross-government agendas can be seen. What is needed now is a clear understanding of how NIP feeds into broader ambitions of the knowledge economy, and how spatial information, data sharing and its exploitation can be used to promote better policies, facilitate social reform and build smarter government in the process.

Issues Underpinning Information Policy in Malaysia: An Articulated Holistic Model

“…Content developed by external parties raises questions in terms of compatibility with local values and cultures. This is consistent with the view by Saxby (2011) that ICT success not only lies in the provision of infrastructure, but the extent to which the development of local content can keep up with the introduction of ICT in the country. ICT is also an issue in other sectors, particularly library services, but only for the purpose of increasing the quality of information management.…”

“…Various attempts were made in the 1970s (Lamberton, 1974) and still continued until to date (Koga, 2010;Case, 2010). The issues identified are such as Scientific and technical information (Lamberton, 1974;Ruenwai, 2006;Orna, 2008); Library and information services (Chambers, 2006;Arnold, 2007;Bustamante, 2007;Pajaro & Betancourt, 2007a); ICT (Beer, 2005;Hosman & Howard, 2010); Social (Maxwell, 2003;Pajaro & Betancourt, 2007a); Government information (Smith, Fraser & McClure, March, 2002;Orna, 2008); and Economy (Porat, 1977;Rowlands, 1996;Rowlands, Eisenschitz & Bawden, 2002;Saxby, 2011). Since information policies in Malaysia are developed by various agencies based on issues arising at any one time despite that different agency has different goals.…”

“…The problem is not technology, but the political leadership and commitment from the toplevel bureaucracy, in harnessing ICT facilities to provide better services and information to people. To enable government information to meet people's needs and contribute to national development, Saxby (2011) recommends the following actions:…”

“…The current culture of sharing information needs to be enhanced to be able to add value to data, thus reducing development costs other than to encourage the generation of ideas. Traditional mechanisms through lobby, parliament, and regular consultation processes that occur at various stages of policy development should be deleted (Saxby, 2011).…”

Making Data Flow for the Climate Risk Market

“…However, the specific ways in which these “open” initiatives are being shaped has been critiqued, with a number of authors identifying a process of co-option of the commons-based principles and practices of many open initiatives by commercial interests (see, for example, Bates 2012 and Muellerleile, forthcoming). There are clearly a wide range of sociotechnical drivers behind efforts to open data (Bates 2014; Longo 2011; Martin 2014; Saxby 2011). It is therefore important to unpack the underlying power dynamics that are driving key decisions and developments in particular national contexts.…”