Search results

The nature and extent of openness depend on the context and/or disciplinary domain. Earlier usage of the term open was in the context of computer systems. For example, in networked systems of computers, 'openness' refers to enabling protocols that connect previously closed systems so that they can communicate with each other. Beyond that, openness has been used to imply a spectrum of meanings, notably since the campaign for open source software development populated the term 'open' and its suggested notions of 'openness' as freedom, entitlement, or norm. As a social form of organising, 'openness' suggests a way of sharing resources. In the corporate context, 'openness' refers to more active involvement of stakeholders in the process of value creation.

The nature and extent of openness depend on the context and/or disciplinary domain. Earlier usage of the term open was in the context of computer systems. For example, in networked systems of computers, "openness" refers to enabling protocols that connect previously closed systems so that they can communicate with each other. Beyond that, openness has been used to imply a spectrum of meanings, notably since the campaign for open source software development populated the term 'open' and its suggested notions of "openness" as freedom, entitlement, or norm. As a social form of organising, "openness" suggests a way of sharing resources. In the corporate context, "openness" refers to more active involvement of stakeholders in the process of value creation.

This Preface to the Living Archives publication on Openness raises questions and controversies around open data and publication as an academic and expressive process. It begins by asking: why produce a publication on openness? Or, rather 3 versions, because the collected articles appeared as a series on medium.com (1/3), as a freely downloadable PDF (2/3), and finally as a limited hand bound print run of approximately 30 volumes (3/3). These are iterations on openness comprising 18 peer-reviewed contributions existing, to cite Jean Luc Nancy, "between exposed thought and knotty intimacy" within a Commerce of Thinking (Nancy 2009, 3). These 3 versions travel across materialities. They are re-mediated, but to me it feels like a sort of de-mediation – a stripping away – as we moved over time from the digital versions toward the print version. Video had to be unspooled into image frames, audio into fragmented text transcriptions. These iterations render Nancy's argument multiple both in form and in voice, without a doubt "born in agitation and anxiety, in the fermentation of a form" (ibid) but not in search of anything as unified as a coherent style or position. The contributions demonstrate the political groundedness of research data, and its cloudiness, rather than the collective fiction of the transparency of data in the Cloud.

International audience ; This chapter traces the evolution of legal conditions meant to support the production and flourishing of "commons-based peer production" in a diversity of fields covered by copyright, mostly in the digital realm. From software to creative works, including scientific articles, cultural heritage, public sector information, and open data, a wealth of digital, knowledge, intellectual or information commons can be peer produced. The rules which guarantee that they can remain in the commons, under open conditions, have been the subject of heated debates about the politics of technology and heavy legal fine-tuning along the years, opposing different definitions and nuances in openness reflecting underlying philosophies within the peer production political economy, such as liberal and commons-based approaches.

Openness vis-i-vis the world and an improved incentive system at home are the key requirements for a lasting re-acceleration of economic growth in Europe, the U.S. and indeed most parts of the world. More specifically, the policy-oriented message to be propounded in this paper is essentially twofold: (i) Europe could already learn much from the U.S. to improve its incentive system and to make its internal markets more open, (ii) Openness vis-a-vis the world economy is a task to be pushed onto the policy agenda in the U.S. as well as in Europe and Japan. Such international openness involves more competition among governments and central banks, a competition that can support our hopes for limited government and sound money in future decades.

The openness movement that started in the 1940's with the invention of the T-group has lost much of its momentum. The movement's excesses and abuses have discredited openness in its pure form to the point where anything resembling a T-group is verboten in many organizations, and many of its original champions have become disenchanted with it. What of the original form of openness can be or should be salvaged?

WHO COULD OBJECT to 'open innovation'? The term, which has migrated from software development to become a staple of business-management strategy, seems to conjure the most desirable aspects of contemporary American capitalism: freedom, creativity, democratic accessibility, the possibility of new frontiers. The 'openness' paradigm promises to combine new production systems, made possible by the technologies of Web 2.0 and the shrunken space of globalization, with novel forms of business organization and value extraction; it offers a powerful weapon in inter-firm competition and a new regime of labour. The paradigm has been promoted by a torrent of books and articles from us business schools over the past decade. In 2003 a Google search for 'open innovation' brought up 200 results, according to Henry Chesbrough, one of the gurus of the field and Director of the Centre for Open Innovation at Berkeley's Hass Business School. By 2013, the figure was 672,000,000. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
We report an intriguing empirical observation. The relationship between corruption and output depends on the economy's degree of openness: in open economies, corruption and GNP per capita are strongly negatively correlated, but closed economies display no relationship at all. This stylized fact is robust to a variety of different empirical specifications. In particular, the same basic pattern persists if we use alternative measures of openness, if we focus on different time periods, if we restrict the sample to include only highly corrupt countries, and if we restrict attention to specific geographic areas or to poor countries. We find that the degree of financial openness is primarily what determines whether corruption and output are correlated. Moreover, corruption is negatively related to capital accumulation in open economies, but not in closed economies. We present a model, consistent with these findings, in which the main channel through which corruption affects output is capital drain.