individual users of books and libraries. Popper was the first among the methodologists of science to capture this kind of knowledge in his formalization by
introducing his conception of objectivistic epistemology without the knowing
subject (Popper 1972; Pandit 2012a; Pandit and Dosch 2013). As we have noted
above, Popper argued for the existence of the World3 of objective knowledge, but
we will not discuss the details here. Second, in the fast changing social-ecologicalpolitical-economical-environmental contexts, where newly emerging frontiers—
biodiversity, land use, urbanization and energy systems—pose a challenge to public
understanding of science and to established knowledge and practise, knowledge has
to be strongly context-dependent. This must be understood in the newly emerging
context of KBCE that is replacing the one based on industrial society. In the KBCE,
the emphasis is on the value of intangible dimensions of products and services,
since wealth and economic growth are “driven primarily by intangible (intellectual)
assets” (Lev 2000, p. 1). No surprise, if the intangibles and intellectual capital
(RICARDIS 2006) are building up an interface between the world of science,
corporate and business worlds, technocrats, governments, regulators and enterprises
(Drucker 1993; Hussi 2004).
With the emergence of the KBCE, context-specific knowledge increasingly
plays an important dynamic role of a valuable resource. In this sense, knowledge
resources cannot only be generated, acquired, transferred, combined and used in
process/product innovation to fulfil the societal need. They can also be deployed to
find solutions to pressing global problems. It is no surprise if in today’s globalized
world the crucial managerial question to ask is as follows:
Given its knowledge resources, how an organization − a firm, an industry, an enterprise, a
state or an economy - can go up the regional/global value-chains (GVCs), creating more
and more value and generating economic growth?
From such a strategic perspective, the context-specific knowledge resources that
have the potential to create value are defined as intellectual capital. Thus, it is
primarily the intangible knowledge resources that give an organization, a firm or an
economy, a sustainable competitive advantage. As a corollary thereof, ‘identifying,
measuring and managing intellectual capital is crucial for corporate innovation and
competitiveness’.
As a next step, therefore, strategic knowledge resources management for creating value and staying competitive in the changing contexts of KBCE assumes
significance. To cite an example, India’s participation in the GVCs, while rising, is
evidently much lower than that of many other countries (Gasiorek 2015) including
smaller countries. While there are challenges and opportunity for India to enhance
her participation, many experts think that there exist no ‘ecosystems’ in India for
her to go up the GVCs in particular segments, if we may use the term ‘ecosystem’
rather very vaguely as referring to industrial ‘ecosystems’ and ‘competitiveness’,
i.e. to supportive basic production chains that could be used as a trigger for
enhancing India’s going up the GVCs sector to sector.
Going by their role in the recent period, GVCs are best conceptualized as main
drivers of globalization. Individual countries can enhance their participation in the
Knowledge-Based Climate Economy …
143
introducing his conception of objectivistic epistemology without the knowing
subject (Popper 1972; Pandit 2012a; Pandit and Dosch 2013). As we have noted
above, Popper argued for the existence of the World3 of objective knowledge, but
we will not discuss the details here. Second, in the fast changing social-ecologicalpolitical-economical-environmental contexts, where newly emerging frontiers—
biodiversity, land use, urbanization and energy systems—pose a challenge to public
understanding of science and to established knowledge and practise, knowledge has
to be strongly context-dependent. This must be understood in the newly emerging
context of KBCE that is replacing the one based on industrial society. In the KBCE,
the emphasis is on the value of intangible dimensions of products and services,
since wealth and economic growth are “driven primarily by intangible (intellectual)
assets” (Lev 2000, p. 1). No surprise, if the intangibles and intellectual capital
(RICARDIS 2006) are building up an interface between the world of science,
corporate and business worlds, technocrats, governments, regulators and enterprises
(Drucker 1993; Hussi 2004).
With the emergence of the KBCE, context-specific knowledge increasingly
plays an important dynamic role of a valuable resource. In this sense, knowledge
resources cannot only be generated, acquired, transferred, combined and used in
process/product innovation to fulfil the societal need. They can also be deployed to
find solutions to pressing global problems. It is no surprise if in today’s globalized
world the crucial managerial question to ask is as follows:
Given its knowledge resources, how an organization − a firm, an industry, an enterprise, a
state or an economy - can go up the regional/global value-chains (GVCs), creating more
and more value and generating economic growth?
From such a strategic perspective, the context-specific knowledge resources that
have the potential to create value are defined as intellectual capital. Thus, it is
primarily the intangible knowledge resources that give an organization, a firm or an
economy, a sustainable competitive advantage. As a corollary thereof, ‘identifying,
measuring and managing intellectual capital is crucial for corporate innovation and
competitiveness’.
As a next step, therefore, strategic knowledge resources management for creating value and staying competitive in the changing contexts of KBCE assumes
significance. To cite an example, India’s participation in the GVCs, while rising, is
evidently much lower than that of many other countries (Gasiorek 2015) including
smaller countries. While there are challenges and opportunity for India to enhance
her participation, many experts think that there exist no ‘ecosystems’ in India for
her to go up the GVCs in particular segments, if we may use the term ‘ecosystem’
rather very vaguely as referring to industrial ‘ecosystems’ and ‘competitiveness’,
i.e. to supportive basic production chains that could be used as a trigger for
enhancing India’s going up the GVCs sector to sector.
Going by their role in the recent period, GVCs are best conceptualized as main
drivers of globalization. Individual countries can enhance their participation in the
Knowledge-Based Climate Economy …
143