Information Policy Research Project Working Papers Canada in Context: An Overview of Information Policies in Four Industrialized Countries Cheryl Buchwald November 1995 Working Paper No. 2 Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto This paper has been accepted for publication in The Canadian Journal of Information & Library Science. Suggested citation: Buchwald, C. (1995) Canada in context: An overview of information policies in four industrialized countries. Information Policy Research Project, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. Working Paper No. 1. Toronto, ON. Canada in Context: An Overview of Information Policies in Four Industrialized Countries Cheryl Buchwald Abstract Information policy is a broad area of public policy that governs all aspects of the information life cycle and its related activities. This paper compares historical tendencies in the creation of information policy in the three countries that have most influenced the Canadian approach: the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The content of policies in industrialized countries has typically been determined by each country's national perspective on economic, cultural and social issues. In the last two decades nations have experienced a shift from these more internally directed policies to policies reflecting external influences. Thus, analysis of past trends provides a setting for an investigation of recent information infrastructure policy proposals and an opportunity to compare past and present directions. Current proposals for the information infrastructure illustrate the departure from the national outlook to an international approach, which is driven primarily by a pervasive market-oriented ideology and the interests of transnational corporations. These proposals, considered in the context of past trends, may precipitate the most dramatic changes in information policy directions for France and Canada. Introduction The demand for public policy decisions around national and international information and information technology issues in industrialized countries has accompanied the political and technological changes of the twentieth century. While countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Canada confront many of the same information issues (e.g. competitiveness, universal access, data protection, sovereignty), each country has approached policy from its own cultural perspective, albeit often tempered by external influences. Public policy in the realm of information, referred to as `information policy,' is defined by information scientist Peter Hernon as a set of laws, regulations, directives, statements, and judicial interpretations that direct and manage the life cycle of information. That life cycle encompasses planning, and the creation, production, collection, distribution and dissemination, and retrieval of information. (Hernon 1989, 229; see also Mason 1983, 93) Many investigators now believe that previously distinct policy areas related to information are merging as technologies converge. In their opinion, the scope of information policy encompasses telecommunications, broadcasting, satellite and other information technologies. (Burger 1993; Chartrand 1982; Cronin 1987; Eisenbeis 1988) At the national level, information policy has not represented a cohesive body, such as a national information policy, in any industrialized country.1 In theory, proponents of a national information policy believe that it would convey "a sense of national purpose" through "guiding principles" that would, in the example of the U.S., "integrate local, state, regional, and national government information" and maintain policy jurisdiction over government and relevant nongovernment information. (Hernon 1989, 231) Supporters also believe that cohesive information policy would strengthen a country's position when negotiating policies in the international arena. In practice, information policies have been created in an ad hoc manner. Stand-alone information policies appear in sources such as constitutions, copyright acts, government information policies, telecommunications acts and broadcasting acts. Hernon and Relyea (1991) point out that information policies "tend to address specific issues and, at times, to be fragmented, overlapping and contradictory." Sillince (1994) provides examples of administrative problems due to policy fragmentation within the European Parliament. For instance the author recalls that until 1989 telecommunications policy was split among three committees: the Transport Committee, the Economic Committee and the Energy Committee, with the result that making decisions about controversial issues became more difficult. In North America, policy makers face similar complications; moreover, they have yet to confront the simmering public policy issue of the collection and use of personal information by the private sector.2 Regulations that apply to information in the public sector usually do not apply in the private sector. A prime example can be found in privacy legislation that allows individuals to access personal information held by the government and challenge its accuracy and usage. Individuals have no such privileges over similar information gathered by private sector organizations. This fragmented approach to information policy may be brought together by default as information sources and information technologies in video, voice and data continue to merge. The formerly distinct regulatory boundaries between telecommunications, broadcasting, data collection and publishing are already breaking down as can be witnessed in decisions allowing the telecommunications and broadcasting industries to compete in each other's previously protected domain. Concurrently, as industrialized nations become more interconnected through data networks and transnational corporate activities, each country must confront the fact that developments in information technology are having a profound effect on nations and policy making and, in turn, that national policies are no longer independent of the international environment. In this context, policies can either represent an attempt to accommodate the changing international climate or represent an attempt to resist its encroachment. This paper provides an overview of the historical trends in information policy making through a comparison of the national policy positions of four countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Canada. Owing to their early, and in some cases ongoing, influence on Canadian policy in general, U.S., U.K. and French national policy strategies help to clarify the Canadian approach to information policy. A review of the policy positions of individual European nations would no longer be complete without mention of the policy recommendations of the European Union (E.U.) which, at least in the opinion of E.U. officials, should supersede those of individual member states. (Oppenheim 1994) Relevant policies that help to illustrate the political atmosphere in each country and the E.U. are highlighted. The ever-present influence of the private sector, especially transnational corporations, is also considered. In providing a rudimentary introduction to the complexities and vagaries of national and international information policy making as it will be applied to the information infrastructure3, the author only samples the host of existing information policies and does not venture deeply into policy areas such as those covering government information or the economy of information, for which extensive literature exists. (see the bibliographies of Hill 1994, 1989; Julien, Robinson, and Tinline 1992) Thus, this brief comparative history and overview of information infrastructure policy directions is intended to provide a context from which the reader can continue an exploration of major international policy players and their influence on the emerging policies for the information infrastructure. It also offers the groundwork for a more detailed analysis of the development of information policy in Canada. United States 1. Approach to Information Policy The corpus of U.S. information policy is as fragmented as any other. The U.S. has enacted numerous information policies including: the Freedom of Information Act, 1966, to provide public access to government information; the Government in the Sunshine Act, 1976, to guarantee public access to some federal meetings; the Privacy Act, 1974, to guarantee individual privacy related to government information and to augment the fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search) and the fifth Amendment (due process); the Fairness Doctrine from the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters to dedicate a portion of broadcast time to controversial issues; the Paperwork Reduction Act, 1980, to control the flow of paper within the government; and copyright legislation, 1790, to support the creation of information. (Mason 1983; see also the works of Hernon, McClure and Relyea) One noteworthy attempt to coordinate information policy was made by the Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy (1976). Anticipating policy needs in the coming years, the Council put forward a proposal to the President to address the fragmentation of policy in the U.S. and to create an advisory committee of federal and local governments, and private and academic sectors to report to the Executive Office on information issues. The Council suggested that an advisory committee could tackle issues such as privacy, freedom of information, the infrastructure, the spread of computers and better utilization of scientific and technical information. Although the Domestic Council presented a strong case for a co-ordinated information policy to address the interrelationships of "information communications, information technology, information economics, information privacy, information systems, information confidentiality, information science, information networks, and information management" (United States. Domestic Council 1976, xii), its recommendation for a national information policy was not enacted. In an environment of uncoordinated policy making, one of the areas of U.S. information policy that receives a great deal of government and private sector support is the promotion of the ideals of `freedom of expression' and the `free market' model. (Bushkin and Yurow 1980; Heim 1986) In their 1980 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Department of Commerce representatives Arthur Bushkin and Jane Yurow stated that `freedom of expression' and the `free flow of information' are enshrined in the First Amendment, "the centerpiece of United States information policy" (Bushkin and Yurow 1980). Bushkin and Yurow also emphasized to their international colleagues that U.S. external policies tend to reflect U.S. domestic policies, a point not lost on most countries. According to Herbert Schiller (1981, 1984b), the free flow of information and freedom of expression play an important role in the free market philosophy of the U.S., both internally and externally. Permitting information to flow without impediments guarantees that corporations can access and transmit data from sources situated throughout the world, allowing these corporations to reach the widest international audience possible. If corporations are also included within the scope of freedom of expression principles as in the U.S., they have the right to advertise which is especially important to corporations establishing themselves in new territories. (See also Mosco 1989) The essence of U.S. economic policy through the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush focused on deregulation, i.e. getting government out of the way of business. An initial example is found in the U.S. decision in the early 1970s to allow exchange rates to float, thus deregulating currencies and contributing to the expansion of unregulated capital. (Chomsky 1993, 5; see also Miller 1995; Pauls 1990) Political support for a free market for information-related industries has also been clearly demonstrated in the past twenty years by a deregulation policy that has allowed telephone, cable television and satellite systems to compete more freely. For example, the dismantling of the AT&T monopoly opened up the market to smaller competitors and provided the incentive for companies such as AT&T to seek new markets outside of the U.S. Deregulation opened the U.S. market to European companies but it also resulted in pressure on Europeans to liberalize their home markets to accept outside, particularly American, competition (Cronin 1987, 130) and subjected Europeans to additional demands to accept the U.S. free market perspective on information policy. Jacob and Rings typify the U.S. position: There is an increasing awareness that the U.S. principal information policy goals include assuring free flow of information and free markets. The free flow of information worldwide, subject only to the most compelling national security and personal privacy limitations, remains a cornerstone for American policy....Promotion of U.S. interests is seen as essential to our leadership role in the world. (Jacob and Rings 1986, 138) The U.S. government is pressuring other nations to forfeit control over the flow of information currently maintained through regulation (or any other means). This growing interest in the international free flow of information is not so much furthering the cause of democratic discourse as entrenching competitive market ideology outside the U.S.; U.S. businesses want to sell their goods and services unfettered in a global market. The drive toward global access is also rooted in fears that the U.S. could lose its international leadership position in what industry and government perceive as the new world of economic opportunity: information and information technology. (Jacob and Rings 1986) 2. Proposals for the Information Infrastructure The U.S. infrastructure project, formally announced in 1993, consolidated many issues related to information policy and could act as a catalyst for coherent information policy development as the government deals with convergence in information creating and disseminating technologies such as telecommunications, computing and broadcasting. Introduced by the Clinton Administration, the National Information Infrastructure (NII) project has raised many of the same issues as the Domestic Council Committee in 1976. The Executive Office has established a high-level advisory council, the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), to recommend policy for the NII. The IITF represents the government, the public sector and the private sector. Its terms of reference list nine principles and goals: to promote private sector investment; provide universal access; promote technological innovation; protect privacy; improve management of the radio frequency spectrum; protect intellectual property rights; co-ordinate with other levels of government and other countries; and provide access to government information. (United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force 1993, 7) In keeping with U.S. free market philosophy, the IITF confirms that the private sector will bear major responsibility for NII development and implementation (and reap the profits). However, in a loose interpretation of its own free market ideology, the government will engineer the environment for the NII (e.g. tax incentives, regulations, research programs and grants). The passage of the new telecommunications bill (HR1555) by the House of Representatives, according to its critics, provides such opportunities to the private sector and to large corporations in particular. The bill deregulates more of the information industry and allows greater concentration of businesses. Companies will be permitted to enter into each others "lines of business" so that telecommunications companies will be able to provide cable service, local telephone companies will be allowed to provide long distance services, and a single owner may acquire a television station, cable service and newspaper in the same market. (Priest 1995) In 1994, the IITF released a document introducing the U.S. vision of a Global Information Infrastructure (GII). The IITF, reporting on a speech given by Vice President Albert Gore, stated that the GII, composed of local, national, and regional networks, will "facilitate the global sharing of information" and create a "global information marketplace." U.S. plans for the GII are in keeping with its NII proposals and the free market ideology that it is prodding other nations to adopt. Gore's action plan is based on five principles: to encourage private investment; to promote competition; to create a flexible regulatory framework compatible with technological and market changes; to provide open access to the network for all network providers; and to ensure universal service. According to Gore, implementation of the plan will aid the U.S. in "opening up overseas markets, eliminating barriers caused by incompatible standards, and examining international and U.S. regulations." (United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force 1994) United Kingdom 1. Approach to Information Policy As in most countries, information policy in the U.K. has been, at best, an ad hoc response to information issues. Recommendations for creating a national information policy have been proffered and refused. During the early 1980s, the government rejected a proposal for a department dealing with information policy stating that information policy was the responsibility of a number of departments and it would "therefore be inappropriate to concentrate executive responsibility in the hands of one Minister" (United Kingdom. Minister for the Arts 1981, 3). This situation has not changed even though advocates such as Ian Malley (1988) have suggested that nations that enter international negotiations with their own coherent information policies will be in a more favourable negotiating position. According to many investigators in the field of information policy, citizens of the U.K. like to believe that they function without formal public policies in many areas. (Lewis and Martyn 1986; Morgan and Webber 1986; Oppenheim 1994; Palmer and Tunstall 1990) Lewis and Martyn claim that "a British temperamental predisposition towards the pragmatic rather than the theoretical...tends to inhibit policy formulation before the event" (Lewis and Martyn 1985, 25). Palmer and Tunstall refer to a preference for decisions wrought through consensus. The major example offered as evidence that the country functions well by consensus is that the U.K. has never instituted a constitution. However, the U.K. has already had at least one lesson in the perils of not legislating information policies. In the early 1980s, the government refused to enact data protection legislation. When it became apparent that other countries were prepared to prohibit data transfer to the U.K., the government was forced to follow the lead of countries such as Denmark, France, Canada and the United States or risk placing its information industry in jeopardy. (Crook 1983; Mellors and Pollitt 1986) Despite the conventional wisdom that the U.K. eschews information policies, both explicit and implicit policies do exist in the government's treatment of the public and private sectors. Like other industrialized countries, the U.K. has legislated a telecommunications act, a broadcasting act, an access to personal files act as well as a data protection act. (Hill 1994, 23-27) The British Library and its predecessors have contracted out for information services from the private and public sectors whenever possible. (Judge 1985) The government has also driven policy initiatives in the U.K. such as the Interdepartmental Co- ordinating Committee for Scientific and Technical Information (ICCSTI), formed to "foster co-ordination of information policy amongst government departments" and with the E.U. (Malley 1988, 14). According to Michael Hill (1994), the U.K. government generally favours the private sector and has used legislation to reduce government involvement in activities it deems to belong in the domain of the private sector. This policy approach is due partly to "a reluctance on the part of government to intervene or interfere in areas where local resources or the private sector are able to make adequate provision for themselves" (Lewis and Martyn 1985, 25). The government has "ceded much of the policy-making responsibility to an existing consensus, or negotiated bargain, of large companies and trade associations with trade unions and professional associations" (Palmer and Tunstall 1990, 223). In one instance, the Cabinet Office Information Technology Advisory Panel, as recommended in its report, Making a Business of Information (Great Britain. Cabinet Office in Malley 1988, 22), brought together interested information industry organizations in 1984 to form the Confederation of Information Communication Industries (CICI). Eyeing the profits being made by the U.S. information industry, the Cabinet Office was looking for a "positive, profit-oriented approach from the new body" (CICI in Malley 1988, 23). The Cabinet Office also mandated CICI to advise the government on information policy issues such as copyright, telecommunications, technical standards and manpower. In CICI's annual report of 1989, the organization declared that "a full-blown, strongly interventionist national information policy directed by government is inappropriate in a democratic society." (Malley 1988, 23) Nevertheless, according to Ian Malley, CICI was aware that there was a need for a consistent, overall approach. He concluded that, while CICI may not have championed government-directed approaches to policy, such as a national information policy, the organization was at least stimulating discussion about a coordinated approach. (Malley 1988) In 1986, the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) launched its government-held tradable information policy. The DTI invited twelve companies interested in acquiring government information for value-added services to work on market feasibility studies. In effect, the government was introducing and promoting the development of government information as a commodity. (Worlock 1987) It is worth noting that some decisions have contradicted prevailing market-oriented policy tendencies. The obvious examples in the U.K. are the government-created and -controlled (until the 1980s) Post, Telephone and Telegraph (PTT) and broadcasting systems. (Palmer and Tunstall 1990) Michael Palmer and Jeremy Tunstall attributed nationalization of these systems to decisions taken by twentieth century governments, both Labour and Conservative, that relied upon the opinions from Royal Commissions or the consensual processes of government, industry and trade unions. Palmer and Tunstall have claimed that much of the U.K.'s current approach to information policy has to do with the "special relationship" Britons feel they have with the United States. The U.K. is keen to imitate the U.S. movement to market liberalization4 and deregulation. For example, "Britain followed in American telecommunications policy footsteps" to become "the leading telecoms deregulator in Europe" by the mid-1980s. However, Palmer and Tunstall argued that privatization of companies such as British Telecom only meant that "state `champion'5 companies...[became] commercial champions" (Palmer and Tunstall 1990) because the government continued to favour these companies even as competitors were allowed to enter the market: The free market which the UK government has engineered in telecommunications is a synthetic duopoly. The only viable competitor [Mercury] against the existing operator [BT] had to be chosen and structured with care. ( Davenport and Cronin 1987, 165) The result of liberalizing and deregulating during the Thatcher era has been that "the status of telecommunications in Britain is shifting so that it is less of a social, and more of a business, service" (Morgan and Webber 1986, 62). As for the cost of telecommunication services under deregulation, the U.K. became one of the forerunners in Western Europe in higher charges for small business and residential users and lower charges for big business users whose size afforded them concessions such as volume discounts. (Morgan and Webber 1986, 62) This type of inequity was first observed in the U.S. after deregulation (Mosco 1990). 2. Proposals for the Information Infrastructure To date, the U.K. government has not demonstrated as much interest in the information infrastructure as its North American counterparts. (Oppenheim 1994) This may be attributable to the government's preference for leaving such decisions to the information industry. The seeming lack of direct U.K. government input to infrastructure development could also be related to its relationship to the U.S. and the E.U. The U.K., as the forerunner in deregulation and liberalization in Europe, quickly became the major European location for many U.S. telecommunications corporations (Morgan and Webber 1986, 62). This status with U.S. corporations has perhaps bestowed the U.K. with some influence over the policy development direction of the E.U. and with the confidence to pursue its information infrastructure vision through the E.U. One public and private sector collaborative initiative is of note. Under the auspices of the Programme on Information and Communication Technology (PICT), a number of industry experts, public officials and researchers met in June 1994. This forum endeavoured to provide insights into vital policy issues that would lead to a vision for the U.K.'s information infrastructure. Their recommendations, while supporting the adoption and diffusion of technical innovation throughout U.K. society, specified that government had a role in creating a coordinated focal point for debate and action on the information infrastructure, both nationally and internationally. The forum also advocated policies to ensure the application of government authority and resources to protect and support public interests, and to supervise new media regimes (i.e. to curb transnational monopolies). (Dutton et al. 1994) France 1. Approach to Information Policy One of the major characteristics that accompanied the development of the French nation state in the seventeenth century was the willingness of the populace to grant the state tremendous authority over the economy. (Humphreys 1990; Mercantilism 1983; Morgan and Webber 1986; Nora and Minc 1980; Palmer and Tunstall 1990) Peter Humphreys (1990, 198) describes the French state as being "interventionist and mercantilist." In the past, the state maintained control of print media by licensing and censoring printers and publishers. For most of the twentieth century, the state directed telecommunications and broadcasting via legislation and state controlled monopolies. (Palmer and Tunstall 1990, 73) Due to this centralized control and a deep (and vocal) concern for the preservation of its culture, France, in comparison with the U.S., U.K., and Canada, has applied the most systematic approach to its information policy. The French government made its first attempt at creating a National Information Policy in the early 1970s with the creation of the Bureau National de l'Information Scientifique et Technique (BNIST) within the Ministry of Industry. Its mandate was to collect and disseminate information, set up a basic infrastructure and encourage research and development. BNIST met with mixed success: it launched some promising research and development; however, a small budget, a lack of credibility with other ministries and an inability to foster cooperation among industrial and agricultural sectors limited BNIST's effectiveness. (Chambaud 1985, 123). The French statist tradition was very much in evidence in the publication of the seminal document The Computerization of Society: A Report to the President of France, in 1978. (Nora and Minc 1980) Their report is worthy of note because of its emphasis on social and cultural issues and on the threat of transnational corporations, thus offering a stark contrast to the U.S. and U.K. positions. Nora and Minc recommended implementation of a national policy and government facilitation (if not outright control) of information technology development and application in France. Nora and Minc predicted potential problems for France: unemployment, without stimulation of demand; decentralization of a centralized system; and particularly the loss of sovereignty, if the `transnationalization' or `Americanization' of information technology was not addressed. Despite their faith in telematics6 as France's future industrial direction, Nora and Minc's projections were tinged with reluctance and foreboding: New technological breakthroughs are placing some countries in a hyper-competitive position on the battlements of the future, and the low cost of labor is intensifying competition from the less developed countries in traditional markets. France is being forced by the imperative of foreign trade to compete in a race over which it has no control. (Nora and Minc 1980, 40) The role of the government in telematics was clear to Nora and Minc. The authors proposed that the government should "allow powerful public intervention in the field of research, provide incentives...to the computer industry" and "allot a proper role to the national manufacturer of large computers" (Nora and Minc 1980, 8) They added that the government should be prepared to regulate in "support of weaker parties," to ensure that the computer industry did not dominate business or the French citizenry. (Nora and Minc 1980, 7) Above all, the authors feared that lack of government action would lead to a loss of sovereignty as multinational corporations, such as IBM, dominated segments of industry and set international standards. They urged the French government to develop its own telematics infrastructure, especially databases, in order to ensure independence and the survival of their culture. "Installing data banks is an imperative of national sovereignty." Organizing the "collective memory" should not be left "to others" (Nora and Minc 1980, 80). Nora and Minc also advised the President to pursue projects that ensured "as democratic as possible a diffusion of data processing" (Nora and Minc 1980, 91). What they had in mind was a national telecommunications company, controlled by the government and "designed to serve the public" (Nora and Minc 1980, 74). A year after the release of the Nora and Minc report, the government created an interministerial body, the Mission Interministerielle de l'Information Scientifique et Technique (MIDIST) "to study and propose to the government the trends of a national policy in the field of scientific and technical information, to incite the agencies' work and assure their coherence." MIDIST was also responsible for managing international information relations and coordinating sections dealing with information policy within each government department. (Chambaud 1985 124) The creation of MIDIST once again demonstrated the French preoccupation with sovereignty. Chambaud observed that during these six years [of MIDIST, 1979-1985], the main purpose of the information policy has been to provide the basis for a powerful information industry able to compete at the international level, and thus protect French users from an external monopoly. (Chambaud 1985, 125) The government did follow many of Nora and Minc's recommendations such as creating MIDIST and establishing "national champions" and "grands projets" in telecommunications. Peter Humphreys elaborated that typically the instruments of successful state action have been the provision of very generous subsidies to industry, an extremely nationalistic public procurement policy, and the promotion of industrial concentration, in particular the deliberate promotion of giant French `national champions' which have typically been the beneficiaries of large public R&D funds and munificent public procurement contracts. (Humphreys 1990, 199) National champions were created by nationalizing companies such as Thompson and CIT- Alcatel. These companies were given the contracts for the development of projects such as France's digital switching telephone network and the videotex system, Minitel (replacing traditional phone directories with an electronic version and adding new electronic services). The government also followed through on Nora and Minc's suggestion that information technology should be introduced on a universal basis. France Telecom dramatically increased telephone installation in homes, from 74% in 1981 to 95% of households in 1989. France Telecom's next priority was to develop the Minitel system and make it widely accessible by providing free terminals and charging minimum rates for information services. "The free and voluntary distribution of Minitel terminals permits all citizens access to the system" (Housel and Davidson 1991, 40). By 1994, 6.5 million households and businesses7 had a Minitel terminal installed. (Truell 1994) Minitel provides access to databases and other services such as consumer information, travel information, jobs, electronic mail and personal ads. These initiatives have been successful in developing and extending the information industry in France. (Oppenheim 1994) Since the late 1980s, France has had to face the growing international trend towards liberalization and deregulation. The government has recognized that its national champions are neither strong enough nor have the international penetration to compete with transnational corporations such as IBM. At the same time, large French corporations and transnationals are lobbying in France for deregulation. In this climate, the government has begun to accept competition from the private sector while seeking partnerships within the European community to help fend off the onslaught of American transnational corporations. The government has allowed international companies to buy into French telecommunications companies but it remains a major shareholder and is still prepared to "intervene in markets whenever strategic considerations dictate" (Humphreys 1990, 211). 2. Proposals for the Information Infrastructure Like the British government, the French government exhibits comparatively limited interest in an information infrastructure project. (Oppenheim 1994) This lack of public promotion may be explained by the fact that France already has a universal information infrastructure of sorts created by the Minitel system. Although current events, such as the election of a conservative government, make it increasingly unlikely that the French government will retain its past degree of control over the information infrastructure, France still may not veer as readily from its historical statist policies to embrace `open market' concepts as the U.S., Britain or the E.U. have done. European Union 1. Approach to Information Policy According to Charles Oppenheim (1994), the majority of policy activity related to the information infrastructure in Europe is taking place within the E.U. governing bodies. Schneider and Werle (1990) claim that the E.U. has been especially active in policy formulation since AT&T's entry into the European market and since IBM began competing in the former monopoly markets of the Post, Telephone and Telegraph (PTT). The European Commission has made substantial investments in programs for information infrastructure development for well over ten years. Euronet was set up to help PTTs to standardize services and tariffs. In the early 1980s, the European Commission supported projects to increase Europe's competitiveness such as the Direct Information Access Network for Europe (DIANE), APOLLO (satellite) and EUROTRA (translation system). (Judge 1985) The Commission also implemented research and development programs such as the European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology (ESPRIT). In 1988, the Council of Ministers implemented the Information Market Policy Actions (IMPACT) program to help establish a common internal information market and improve competitiveness. One of the program's important objectives was to help eliminate legal, technical and administrative barriers to public information. (Burkert 1992) The E.U. is attempting to standardize and harmonize the patchwork of member state policies related to telecommunications, database development, direct broadcast satellites and information supply. (Cronin 1987) A recent example of harmonization is found in the adoption of the Directive on the Protection of Personal Data in July 1995. This directive was designed to harmonize variations in the data privacy legislation of E.U. member states. (Rotenberg 1995) Programs in progress include the development of an information services market; a legal advisory board; a standards development program; a program concerned with satellites, distribution networks and broadband networks; a program for administrative networks (e.g. police, taxation, libraries); and value-added network services. (Bender 1993; see also European Union 1995) The Commission of the European Communities (1989) has also developed "Synergy Guidelines" as a first step toward harmonizing the public and private sectors of the information market through policies addressing copyright, competition, data protection, administrative secrecy and access. According to these guidelines, the public sector is not to `distort competition' by means such as restricting who may receive public information furnished by the private sector, granting exclusive rights to specific private data services, or setting up new public services when an existing private service can fulfil requirements. The guidelines do not prohibit the public sector from supporting private sector services in precompetitive activities or from supporting the development of services that may not be commercially viable but are in the public interest. (Burkert 1992) The recent policies of the E.U. appear to diminish the European traditions of countries such as France that emphasized social services, cooperative industrial relations, and economic systems that supported the general welfare. In the opinion of Schneider and Werle, the new European free-trade regime forced by the Commission results in deregulated telecommunications, in open markets for terminal equipment, services and partial networks and in international competition and co-operation among those that operate networks, offer services and produce equipment. Communication ceases to be understood as an essential social task and is seen as a commodity. (Schneider and Werle 1990, 102) As might be expected, governments of countries such as Britain and France have been on a collision course over E.U. policy decisions. George Ross (1993), in his observations of industrial policy development by the E.U. Commission, implied that former Commission President Jacques Delors persisted in using the French model of state control when he proposed E.U. intervention to bolster the troubled European electronics sector as it struggled to compete in a global economy. Delors's proposals were met with opposition from the British, Dutch, Danish, and Germans, none of whom were prepared to accept further industrial sectoralism in Europe. At the same time, Europe's erstwhile `national champions' were at Delors's doorstep requesting protection and bailouts. Delors was also attempting to hold back the tide of neo-liberalism that had hit Europe; a tide that was undermining European policies supporting public intervention and general social welfare. Ross noted that, despite the pressure, Delors managed to embed protectionist recommendations in his 1990 Commission document, Industrial Policy in an Open and Competitive Environment. Although the initial document endorsed an independent industrial sector and aggressively competitive policies, it also suggested that endangered industrial sectors such as electronics be designated as "exceptional strategic industries" (Ross 1993, 25). This proposal did not please some of the Commissioners. After considerable infighting, Delors finally convinced the Commissioners to include a statement in the document declaring that both the U.S. and Japanese governments had played central roles in the development of their electronics and informatics industries and that Europeans were disadvantaged by the fact that they had not had a "single market" in which to develop. Ultimately, the report allowed that the E.U. should ensure a "favorable environment" for market development. (Ross 1993, 34) 2. Proposals for the Information Society The next major report to be issued by the E.U., Europe and the Global Information Society (Bangemann 1994), was prepared by a group of prominent Europeans. The Bangemann Report made recommendations to the European Council for the development of Europe's information society. The report urged member states to rely on the market for the development of the information society and to concentrate decision making at the regional level rather than at the national level. Member states were exhorted to cultivate an entrepreneurial mentality to enable the emergence of dynamic new industrial sectors. The Bangemann group also recommended that member states develop common regulatory approaches to foster a competitive market for information services. In what appears to be a change to the previous Commission policy trend, both investing additional public money and depending upon either dirigisme8 or protectionism were discouraged. The Bangemann group developed an action plan of specific initiatives that are based upon partnerships between the public and private sectors. The report advised opening monopolistic telecommunication sectors to market competition and removing the regulations currently impeding telecommunications operators. Other recommendations included negotiating European interconnection and interoperability; reducing international, long distance and leased line tariffs "in line with rates practised in other advanced industrialised regions," while simultaneously guaranteeing the "fair sharing of public service obligations among operators;" promoting public awareness; and ensuring equal access and the freedom of movement of all goods and services on an international basis. Furthermore, the E.U. was urged to establish common regulatory frameworks for the protection of intellectual property rights, privacy, and security of information both in Europe and internationally. The Bangemann group also identified "ten applications to launch the information society": teleworking, distance learning, a university and research centres network, telematic services (e.g. email, file transfer, video conferencing) for small and medium sized enterprises (the majority of European business), road traffic management, air traffic control (integrating the communication systems among all European Air Traffic control centres and airplanes), healthcare networks (linking general practitioners, hospitals, social centres), electronic tendering, a trans-european public administration network, and city information highways (households online for multimedia and entertainment services). The report stressed the need to act quickly to adopt an effective role in the development of the information society: The first countries to enter the information society will reap the greatest rewards. They will set the agenda for all who must follow. By contrast, countries which temporise, or favour half-hearted solutions, could, in less than a decade, face disastrous declines in investment and a squeeze on jobs. (Bangemann 1994) The Bangemann group was concerned that foreign enterprises will predominate in Europe and that European companies will move elsewhere in pursuit of more favourable economic conditions. The Bangemann Report was welcomed by the Commission and incorporated into its Action Plan report. (Commission of the European Communities 1994) However both of these reports received criticism from the E.U. Parliament and from the Economic and Social Committee, whose members were disturbed by the limited consideration shown for social and cultural issues. (European Union. Economic and Social Committee 1995; European Parliament 1994) At the G7 mini-summit on the Global Information Society in February 1994, the E.U. Ministers in attendance agreed that more competition and fewer restrictions would increase the potential of the information society. (Gaunt 1995) Governments and corporations stated that they expected the private sector to take the lead in infrastructure development through investment, innovation and creating network standards. (Commission of the European Communities 1995; Perry 1995) Lucio Stanca, Chief Executive and Chairman of IBM/Europe posited to his Summit audience that a "true" information society can only emerge with the removal of barriers to market forces. He noted that Europeans have been reluctant to put their faith in market forces and cautioned that if they do not implement necessary reforms and position themselves for global competition, Europeans "risk falling behind the United States and the Asia Pacific region" (Stanca 1995). Stanca advocated changes in the regulatory environment to increase competition, changes in labour law to allow "more flexible methods of work" (e.g. telework), and changes in attitude to ensure that Europe does not become a two-tier society. (Stanca 1995) The Commission itself stated at the G7 mini-summit that it anticipated preparing regulatory measures and facilitating "complete liberalization" of networks and voice services by January 1998. (Commission of the European Communities 1995) The market, however, should have a "helping hand" with the infrastructure from the Commission in areas such as: liberalization and the regulatory framework; research funding and orientation, support for the regions; assessing the social impacts; building public awareness; and, helping business cooperate. (Commission of the European Communities 1995) Canada 1. Approach to Information Policy According to Carolyn Tuohy (1992, 4), Canada's policy process is generally distinguished by ambivalence. She claims that Canadians are ambivalent about the appropriate roles of the state and market; national and regional conceptions of political community; and individualist and collectivist concepts of rights and responsibilities. This ambivalence can be traced to Canada's genesis from political and cultural traditions imported from Britain and France, and to Canada's proximity to the United States, which has always had a tremendous influence on the Canadian people and the government. Like Americans and Britons, Canadians have tended to accept the principles of individualism and free market capitalism. Like the French, Canadians generally expect the government to oversee the market and balance market demands with collective social and cultural needs. Canadian public policy makers strive to equalize community rights with individual rights, and to avert conflicts precipitated by split federal/provincial responsibilities, regional disparities and English/French duality. These conflicting demands upon society increase the degree of complexity in policy making and necessitate legislation by compromise to keep the country together. (Tuohy 1992) Canada's information policies reflect the nation's political ambivalence. The usual government response to conflict is a compromise that meets some of the expectations of many of the stakeholders involved. "It is routinely expected that public policy on an issue such as communications policy will reflect and express the broader features of the Canadian reality- its essential linguistic duality, its regional diversity, and its continuing need to safeguard national sovereignty" (Woodrow et al. 1980, 2). The Broadcasting Act (Canada. Statutes and Bills 1991) offers an example of legislative recognition of English/French duality built into the public system through radio and television services in both languages. The Act also takes into account the needs of inhabitants of urban and remote areas. The dual forces of federal and provincial governments are apparent as provinces undertake their own information policy development. For example, the Ontario government approved a telecommunications strategy developed by a committee representing the private and public sectors. (Advisory Committee on a Telecommunications Strategy for the Province of Ontario 1992) The committee recommended that the government should facilitate coordinating efforts and help finance initiatives to ensure that Ontario will develop a competitive edge in the telecommunications market. Goals included developing a dynamic telecommunications sector, investing in a telecommunications infrastructure, "reinventing" the government via the application of telecommunications, and ensuring that these goals are implemented to enhance the quality of life for all Ontarians. While the committee made no mention of relying upon direction from the federal government and identified Ontario as the pacesetter for Canada in "implementing a world class research and educational network," the committee expected the information sector to "complement and accelerate such activity in other provinces and at the national level" (Advisory Committee 1992, 7). In this instance, it was the province that recognized the need for compromise with the federal government and other provinces. Canadian information policy decisions related to public and private sector rights exhibit a hybrid quality. For example, the Canadian broadcasting system evolved with a combination of public and private ownership. In the early 1930s Canada's first broadcasting regulators were primarily concerned with preserving Canadian voices before they were overwhelmed by U.S. broadcasting. The government tried to implement a publicly owned and controlled system much like the U.K.'s broadcasting model, the BBC; however, resistance from established private broadcasters forced the government to compromise on a shared public and private system, and to create the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as its national public service. (Ellis 1979) Canada's telecommunications system is also a combination of public and private enterprises: Unlike the practice in the many countries where there is a state-controlled Post, Telephone and Telegraph (PTT) organization, the Canadian telecommunications carriage industry consists of a mixture of private, governmental and joint private-governmental corporations and organizations. These are generally each regulated by a single federal or provincial regulatory agency. (Communications Canada 1988, 5) The Canadian government has supported monopolies in telecommunications in order to provide universality of service and stable employment. (Babe 1990; Mosco 1990, 6). However, in the 1980s, the government began to minimize these goals in favour of information technology policies that would "enhance the competitiveness of Canadian industry" (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1992, 54). Liberalization and deregulation of the Canadian market has attracted transnational corporations such as AT&T, Sprint and Viacom and increased their influence in information policy discussions. While Communications Canada in 1987 pledged to "create an environment which will spur new services without undermining our traditional commitment to universal basic service at affordable prices" (Communications Canada 1987, 56), Vincent Mosco warned that "large, mainly transnational users are directly involved in decisions about industry structure, pricing, network development" that place universality at risk. (Mosco 1990, 10) This movement to liberalize the information sector has been applied to government information according to Kirsti Nilsen (1994). The federal government first recognized the public right to government information in the late 1960s. Federal policy developed at that time specified that information should be available from the government on a cost recovery basis. By the late 1970s, federal policy began to assume a greater market orientation as the government established co-publishing ties with the private sector ; and by the 1980s the government was referring to its information as a corporate resource available for exploitation. As it has become increasingly market-oriented, the government has decided that new electronic sources of government information are to be developed in partnership with the private sector. Canada's information policies are no more cohesive than those of the U.S., U.K. or France. At various points, Canada has enacted information policies such as a section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada 1982) that provides for freedom of expression, as well as policies that address the issues of access, privacy and copyright. According to Morton and Zink (1991, 313), the Canadian federal government has been studying national information policies for years but has not succeeded in creating "coherent, overarching, national information policies." One such effort, the National Summit on Information Policy, organized by the Canadian Library Association (CLA) and supported by the government, took place in 1992. Members of the government, information professions and academia agreed on the need for common standards and minimum regulation across the provinces and discussed issues of access to public and private information, equity of access, privacy protection, skills development, clarifying copyright and intellectual property legislation, improving competitiveness, strengthening the infrastructure, and defining the strategic role of government. (Canadian Library Association 1992) Nilsen (1994) believes that the summit played a role in reminding the government and the information industry that public issues are an integral part of information policy. No further action was taken after the summit, although one might argue that the events of information infrastructure policy creation have superseded the CLA initiative. 2. Proposals for the Information Infrastructure Canada has jumped on the information infrastructure bandwagon. The federal government first publicly announced its intentions for the development of the Canadian information infrastructure at the January 1994 Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC) conference held in Toronto. In his address to the conference, Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, Jon Gerrard indicated that the government had committed itself to developing a strategy for the information infrastructure. "We recognize that an advanced information and communications infrastructure will become increasingly essential to job and economic growth in Canada." (Gerrard 1994, 5) The government plans to establish a national "network of networks" that will link homes, offices, schools, libraries, hospitals and government. Technical upgrading, education and the updating of statutes that "may unintentionally hamper our ability to use the new technologies and conduct business in creative ways" are prerequisites to success (Gerrard 1994, 10). In his speech, Gerrard reiterated the government's $26 million commitment to the development of CANARIE (Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education), of which $16 million is allocated to industry for the development of new network applications, up to $5 million for upgrading and operating CA*net, the current national "backbone" (Cleveland 1992; MacPhee 1994), and $3 million for planning and establishing a high-speed network test bed to interconnect the regional broadband networks (Gerrard 1994, 22). He also unveiled the government's objectives for information infrastructure development: to create jobs through innovation and investment; to reinforce Canadian sovereignty and cultural identity; and to provide universal access at a reasonable cost. (Gerrard 1994, 39) Gerrard concluded his address by stating that the Minister of Industry was in the process of creating an Advisory Council to make recommendations on a national strategy. Representatives were to be chosen from industry, government, labour, and consumer groups. (Industry Canada 1994, 33) The Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC) was formed in the spring of 1994. Industry Canada brought together twenty nine prominent individuals, mainly representing private sector interests (twenty-two of its members), to make recommendations for meeting the government's objectives. Initially, the government did not make provisions for public consultations through IHAC but after pressure from interest groups, conceded by allowing some public input through the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications (CRTC) hearings on convergence.9 In May of 1995, after reviewing the private and public sector submissions, the CRTC presented a package of market-oriented recommendations for information infrastructure policy to IHAC. The CRTC concluded that the key to success in the information economy would depend upon "fair, effective and sustainable competition" and therefore recommended removing barriers to competition in the telephone and cable industries. To maintain Canadian cultural products and services, the CRTC recommended that all distributors should make contributions to the development and production of Canadian products and services. Universal access should be "realized through various means, including market forces, subsidies and cooperation," and in the case of education and health services, preferential telecommunications tariffs. (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission 1995) IHAC released its recommendations in September of 1995. (Canada. Information Highway Advisory Council 1995) At the beginning of the report, the Council identified nine themes that reflected the focus of their conclusions. Four of these themes dealt with market demands- competition, urgency, research and development, and diffusion of information infrastructure technology throughout the Canadian economy. The remaining themes addressed giving priority to Canadian culture and content, providing access to the infrastructure at the same level as current telephone and television services, creating a learning culture, investing in health and education sectors, and guaranteeing the rights and interests of individuals. The report clearly favoured a market approach to developing and operating the information infrastructure. IHAC recommended that development should be driven by market forces in a competitive environment with less regulation. In the Council's opinion, consumer demand should determine essential services although "few services will meet the criteria." (Canada. Information Highway Advisory Council 1995, 44) Affordable access was also considered to be attainable through competition, with government intervention only in instances of market failure. More publicly-oriented recommendations included giving the federal government responsibility for developing a national universal access strategy that would ensure delivery of advanced services to all geographic areas of Canada, guaranteeing preferred rates for educational institutions, and providing the environment for lifelong learning. Nevertheless, the report only attempts to appease some public concerns within the context of its market-driven plan. Conclusion The examination of information policy decisions of the last quarter century demonstrates the contrasts in the past policy approaches of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and the European Union. It also reveals a growing understanding of and general acquiescence to international pressures on the part of national governments. The fact that these North American and European countries are concerned with their preparedness to compete in a global market dominated by transnational corporations is plainly evident in proposals for information infrastructure development. While individually the U.S., U.K., France and Canada have never succeeded in creating a cohesive body of information policy, planning for the information infrastructure has brought together many information policy issues for consideration at the national and international levels. Information policy proposals include discussions of privacy, access, universal service, intellectual property, and freedom of expression along with economic and technical considerations. The U.S., U.K., France, Canada and the E.U. have accepted, to varying degrees, that private industry should develop the infrastructure, with limited regulatory assistance from their governments. Countries such as France and Canada that have had relatively strong government intervention in economic, cultural and social affairs now feel compelled to reorient policies to more market-directed approaches. Presently the U.S., through its large base of transnational corporations, has the greatest potential for manoeuvring information policy outcomes to favour liberalization and deregulation. The inspection of policy decisions also reveals paradoxes between theories of liberalization and deregulation, and actual practices. While the governments (except France for the most part) and private sectors have endorsed free market principles, industry still depends upon protection or assistance from government in one form or another. Transnational corporations expect governments to ensure fair competition, according to a self-serving definition of the free flow of information. In the U.S., the government has fought continuously for the international free flow of information on behalf of U.S. industry. The Canadian government (occasionally) protects vulnerable cultural industries from U.S. competition. In the U.K. , the government has supported the PTT and broadcasting. In all of the countries, assistance comes to the private sector in the form of grants, subsidies and preferential regulations. Plans for the information infrastructure favour private sector demands. Governments are still lending support to industry in the form of funding and perhaps more importantly by making the policy concessions necessary for the further growth of transnational corporations. The general approach to information infrastructure policy indicates a willingness to harmonize national policies with the international market demand for economic liberalization, deregulation, and technical standardization. In doing so, national governments are relinquishing authority over much of their previous policy domain in information technology and services. This paper has touched upon the power of transnational corporations, a subject that has been approached with great vigour by critics. (See for example Chomsky, N. 1993; Mansell, R. 1993; Schiller, H. 1984a, 1984b; Smythe 1981) However the topic merits further attention, especially in the context of the role transnational corporations play in Canadian information policy development and on their effect on Canada's ability to sustain a national economic, social and cultural presence. It remains to be seen how much Canada's preference for political compromise will temper future information policy decisions. International pressures to conform are strong and the current conservative climate of the country provides the incentive to implement market- oriented policies. The development of the information infrastructure begs for closer scrutiny of Canadian information policy making as a barometer of change in the information sector and perhaps in society itself. Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the Information Policy Research Project, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. The author also wishes to thank Professor Joanne Marshall and Kirsti Nilsen for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Notes References Angus, Elizabeth, and Duncan McKie. 1994. Canada's information highway: Services, access and affordability. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Babe, Robert. 1991. Telecommunications in Canada: Technology, industry, and government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bangemann, Martin. 1994. Europe and the global information society: Recommendations to the European Council. [Online]. Available at URL htp://www.earn.net. Bender, David. 1993. A strategy for international information policy. Libri, 43(3): 210-31. Burger, Robert. 1993. Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Burkert, Herbert. 1992. The legal framework of public sector information: Recent legal policy developments in the EC. Government Publications Review, 19(5): 483-496. Bushkin, Arthur, and Jane Yurow. 1980. The foundations of United States information policy. Information Hotline, 12(9): 12-18. Canada. 1982. Constitution Act. Statutes of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. ___. 1991. Broadcasting Act. Statutes of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Canada. Information Highway Advisory Council. 1994. Canada's information highway: Building Canada's information and communications infrastructure. Ottawa: Industry Canada. ___. 1995. The challenge of the information highway: Final report of the Information Highway Advisory Council. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Canadian Library Association. 1992. Summary report of the national summit on information policy. Ottawa: Canadian Library Association. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. 1995. Competition and culture on Canada's information highway: Managing the realities of transition. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Chambaud, Serge. 1985. The four ages of the French national information policy. In Information 85: Using knowledge to shape the future, 123-127. Bournemouth: Aslib in association with Library Association Publishing. Chartrand, Robert. 1982. The role of government in the information society. Journal of Information Science, 5(4): 137-42. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. The Prosperous few and the restless many. Berkeley: Odonian Press. Cleveland, Gary. 1992. Canadian libraries and the emerging information network. Canadian Library Journal, 49(5): 367-75. Commission of the European Communities. 1989. Guidelines for improving the synergy between the public and the private sectors in the information market. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities. ___. 1994. Europe's way to the information society: An action plan. (COM(94) 347 final). [Online]. Available at URL http://www.echo.lu. Communications Canada. 1988. Canadian telecommunications: An overview of the Canadian telecommunications carriage industry. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Cronin, Blaise. 1987. Transatlantic perspectives on information policy: The search for regulatory realism. Journal of Information Science, 13(3): 129-38. Crook, Anne. 1983. Data protection in the UK: Part 1. Journal of Information Science, 7(1): 15-22. Davenport, Lizzie, and Blaise Cronin. 1987. Government policies and the information industry- the balance of interests. Aslib Proceedings, 39(5): 159-67. Dutton, William et al. 1994. The information superhighway: Britain's response (Policy research paper no. 29). Uxbridge: Programme on Information and Communication Technologies, Economic and Social Research Council. Eisenbeis, Kathleen. 1988. US government information policy. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 29(2): 92-98. Ellis, David. 1979. Evolution of the Canadian broadcasting system: Objectives and realities, 1928-1968. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. European Parliament. 1994. Resolution on the G7 conference on the information society. [Online]. Available at URL http://www.echo.lu. European Union. 1995. European Community programmes related to the information market. [Online]. Available at URL http://www.echo.lu. European Union. Economic and Social Committee. 1995. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on Europe's way to the information society: An action plan. [Online]. Available at URL http://www.echo.lu. Gaunt, Jeremy. 1995. High-tech future will benefit all, promises G7 delegation. G7 Live. [Online]. Available at URL http://www.ibm.com. Gerrard, Jon. 1994. Building the Canadian information highway. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Heim, Kathleen. 1986. National information policy and a mandate for oversight by the information professions. Government Publications Review, 13: 21-37. Hernon, Peter. 1989. Discussion forum: National information policy. Government Information Quarterly, 6(3): 229-236. Hernon, Peter, Charles McClure, and Harold Relyea. 1989. United States government information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hernon, Peter, and Harold Relyea. 1991. Information policy. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science Vol 48. , ed. A. Kent and H. Lacour, 176-204. New York: M. Dekker. Hill, Michael. 1989. National Information Policies: A Review of the Situation in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, with Particular Reference to Scientific and Technical Information. The Hague: Federation Internationale d'Information et de Documentation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. ___. 1994. National Information Policies and Strategies: An Overview and Bibliographic Survey. London: Bowker Saur. Housel, Thomas, and William Davidson. 1991. The development of information services in France: The case of public videotex. International Journal of Information Management, 11, 35-54. Humphreys, Peter. 1990. The political economy of telecommunications in France: A case study of `telematics'. In The Political Economy of Communications: International and European Dimensions, ed. K. Dyson and P. Humphreys, 198-228. London: Routledge. Industry Canada. 1994. The Canadian information highway: Building Canada's information and communications infrastructure. Ottawa: Supply and Services. Jacob, M.E.L., and D.L. Rings. 1986. National and international information policies. Library Trends, Summer, 119-169. Jones, R.J. Barry. 1988. Political economy: Contending perspectives on a changing world. In The Worlds of Political Economy, ed. B. Jones, 1-26. London: Printer Publishers Limited. Judge, Peter. 1985. National information policy. Canberra: Department of the Parliamentary Library. Julien, Elaine, Douglas Robinson and Jennifer Tinline. 1992. Bibliography for the national summit on information policy. Ottawa: National Library of Canada. Lewis, D.A., and J. Martyn. 1986. An appraisal of national information policy in the United Kingdom. Aslib Proceedings, 38(1): 25-34. MacPhee, Joyce. 1994. Driving down the information highway: What's it all about, anyway? Feliciter, 40: 24-7. Malley, Ian. 1988. National information policy in the UK. Shepsted: IMPC. Mansell, Robin. 1993. New telecommunications: Political economy of network evolution. London: Sage. Mason, Marilyn Gell. 1983. The federal role in library and information services. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry Publishers Inc. Mellors, Colin, and David Pollitt. 1986. Policing the communications revolution: A case- study of data protection legislation. In The politics of the communications revolution in Western Europe, ed. K. Dyson and P. Humphreys, 195-211. London: Frank Cass and Co. Mercantilism for the 21st century. 1983. Business Week, (Jan 10): 54-7. Miller, Morris. 1995. Where is globalization taking us? Futures, 27(2): 125-144. Morgan, Kevin, and Douglas Webber. 1986. Divergent paths: Political strategies for telecommunications in Britain, France and West Germany. In The politics of the communications revolution in Western Europe, ed. K. Dyson and P. Humphreys, 56-79. London: Frank Cass. Morton, Bruce, and Steven Zink. 1991. Contemporary Canadian federal information policy. Canadian Public Administration, 34(2): 312-38. Mosco, Vincent. 1989. The pay-per society: Computers and communication in the information age. Toronto: Garamond Press. ___. 1990. Transforming telecommunications in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Nilsen, Kirsti. 1994. Government information policy in Canada. Government Information Quarterly, 11(2): 191-209. Nora, Simon, and Alain Minc. 1980. The computerization of society: A report to the President of France. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Ontario. Advisory Committee on a Telecommunications Strategy for the Province of Ontario. 1992. Telecommunications: Enabling Ontario's future. Toronto: Ministry of Culture and Communications. Oppenheim, Charles. 1994. Information policies in the new Europe. Paper presented at Electronic Democracy '94 Conference, 14 November, Ottawa. Palmer, Michael, and Jeremy Tunstall. 1990. Liberating communications: Policy-making in France and Britain. Oxford: NCC Blackwell. Pauls, B. Dianne. 1990. U.S. exchange rate policy: Bretton Woods to present. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 76(11): 891-908. Perry, Suzanne. 1995. Ministers have firmer grip on information society issues. G7 Live. [Online]. Available at URL http://www.ibm.com. Priest, Curtiss. 1995. HR1555 we have a telecommunications bill. [Online]. Available at tpr-ne@mitvma.mit.edu. Ross, George. 1993. Sidling into industrial policy: Inside the European Commission. French Politics and Society, 11(1), 20-44. Rotenberg, Marc. 1995. Announcing E.U. adoption of the directive on the protection of personal data. [Online]. Available at cpsr-announce@cpsr.org. Schiller, Herbert. 1981. Who knows? Information in the age of the Fortune 500. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ___. 1984a. Informatics and information flows: The underpinnings of transnational capitalism. In The critical communications review. Volume 2, Changing patterns of communications control, ed. V. Mosco and J. Wasco, 3-29. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ___. 1984b. Information and the Crisis Economy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schneider, Volker, and Raymund Werle. 1990. International regime or corporate actor? The European Community in telecommunications policy. In The political economy of communications: International and European dimensions, ed. K. Dyson and P. Humphreys, 77-106. London: Routledge. Sillince, J.A.A. 1994. Coherence of issues and coordination of instruments in European information policy. Journal of Information Science, 20(4), 219-36. Smythe, Dallas. 1981. Dependency road: Communications, capitalism, consciousness and Canada. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX. Stanca, Lucio. 1995. Market forces and government share key role in GII development. G7 Live. [Online]. Available at URL http://www.ibm.com. Truell, Peter. 1994 (14 November). Follow the French. The Wall Street Journal, p. 35. Tuohy, Carolyn. 1992. Policy and politics in Canada: Institutionalized ambivalence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. United Kingdom. Minister for the Arts. 1981. Information storage and retrieval in the British library service: Observations by the government on the second and fourth reports from the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts session 1979-80. London: HMSO. United States. Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy. 1976. National information policy: Report to the President of the United States. Washington.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force. 1993. The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action. [Online]. Available at ftp.ntia.doc.gov, file niiagenda.asc. ___. 1994. The global information infrastructure. [Online]. Available at gopher iitf.doc.gov. Woodrow, R. Brian, Kenneth Woodside, Henry Wiseman and John Black. 1980. Conflict over communications policy: A study of federal-provincial relations and public policy. [Montreal]: C.D. Howe Institute. Worlock, David. 1987. Information policy progress: A UK-EEC update. Aslib Proceedings, 39(6): 193-96. About the IPRP Working Papers Series The Information Policy Research Project (IPRP) Working Papers Series is intended to provide a pre-publication forum for dissemination of research conducted by members of the IPRP. Abstracts of Working Papers will be made available on the Internet, from IPRP's home page at URL http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp.htm. We plan to publish an edited collection of revised versions of these papers. Authors welcome your comments. To order copies, please email to iprp@fis.utoronto.ca, or contact Andrew Clement (details on next page). Currently available: 1. Clement, A.; Marshall, J.; McDowell, S.; Mosco, V. & Buchwald, C. 1995. Developing information policies for a Canadian 'information infrastructure': Public interest perspectives in a research framework. Information Policy Research Project, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. Working Papers Series No. 1. Toronto, ON. 2. Buchwald, C. 1995. Canada in context: An overview of information policies in four industrialized countries. Information Policy Research Project, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. Working Papers Series No. 2. Toronto, ON. Works in progress: Buchwald, C. Canada's Coalition for Public Information: A case study of a public interest group in the information policy-making process. Buchwald, C. Recalling the past: Canada's experiences with universality in relation to information infrastructure access. Clement, A. & Mielniczuk, S. Access, privacy, participation and governance in public interest information infrastructure: Building Ontario's Social Development Network. Clement, A. & Shade, L. R. Defining and maintaining universal access to basic network service: Canadian directions in an international context. Clement, A. & Stockler, J. P. Selling information technology: Images and metaphors. Easun, S. Do children have a right to know?: Representation of minors in the Canadian information policy arena. Marshall, J. Information policy issues at the firm level: Case studies of five Canadian industry sectors. McDowell, S. Non-commercial stakeholders and Canadian Information Highway debates: Redefining public policy without public interest groups? McDowell, S. & Maitland, C. Regulating content and converging information services: Comparing Canada and the United States. Mosco, V. Myth-ing links: Power and community on the information highway. Nilsen, K. Canadian government information policy: Moving from an access to a market approach. About the Information Policy Research Project The Information Policy Research Project (IPRP) was established in June 1995 to undertake a program of research and dissemination of knowledge about information policy development for the Canadian information infrastructure. IPRP, in collaboration with the government, private sector and non-profit associations, will contribute public interest perspectives to the current policy development discussions. IPRP is supported by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. Current Project Members Ellen Balka Herbert Kubicek Ross Barclay Joanne Marshall Cheryl Buchwald Simon Mielniczuk Richard Cavanagh Stephen McDowell Andrew Clement Vincent Mosco Arthur Cordell Kirsti Nilsen David Crowley Margaret Oldfield Maureen Cubberley Jo Ann Oravec Sue Easun Leslie Regan Shade Caroline Haythornthwaite Sam Sternberg Lewis Kaye Jaine Stockler For further information or to order Working Papers, contact: Andrew Clement (Principal Investigator) Information Policy Research Project Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto 140 St. George Street Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 3G6 Phone: (416) 978-3111 Fax: (416) 971-1399 E-mail: clement@fis.utoronto.ca URL: http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/ 1. Victor Montviloff, General Information Programme, Unesco, in a 1993 interview with the author. 2. The private sector has been included in the policies of most European Union countries for some time. In North America, only Quebec has included the private sector in provincial legislation. 3.The information infrastructure, commonly referred to as the `information highway' is defined as "the complex of technologies and services needed to transport the vast array of databases, images, conversations, multimedia files, and other electronic signals" (Angus and McKie 1994). 4. According to Barry Jones, the basic values of the liberal political economic position include "a belief in the moral and practical priority of the individual; a faith in the efficiency of free economic markets;...a belief that the role of government should be as limited as is practically possible." (Jones 1988, 6) This value system underlies the current international drive to liberalize i.e. open previously protected national markets to competition. 5. i.e. monopolies. 6.Telematics is defined by Nora and Minc as the interconnection between computers and telecommunications. 7. France has a population of 58 million. 8. i.e. government direction. 9.These public hearings were held in February/March 1995. 1 Buchwald/Canada in context 27