National information policy in the less developed countries: an educational perspective

ht. Libr. Rev. (1991) 23, 49-64

National Information Policy in the Less Developed Countries: an Educational Perspective*

MICHEL J. MENOUt

This paper aims to provide a background for discussion and is thus deliberately provocative. Further, it has no pretensions to articulating empirical evidence, even though it is based upon some 25 years of field observation and experience in many different countries, the latter being mainly Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and our main concern being the development of these countries. The paper therefore primarily refers to LDC’s conditions and problems. However, all countries are to a large extent underdeveloped regarding information policy and this slant may indeed prove helpful in highlighting universal facts or specific features of the industrialized countries’ situation. Since the present lack of information policy is, in our opinion, a result of the lack of preparation by most players, especially information specialists, we have tried, wherever possible, to draw conclusions directly related to educational requirements in connection with the various topics discussed.

The paper examines the following relatively self-contained topics:

(i) What is a national policy? (ii) distinguishing information policy from planning of national

information systems; (iii) which are the driving forces behind an information policy; (iv) which kind of reference framework is required; (v) what is the scope of an information policy;

(vi) the need for background data; (vii) the pre-eminence of action;

(viii) the approaches to education.

*A preliminary version of this paper was first presented at the FID & BLRDD Seminar on national and regional information policy, London, 9-10 July, 1990; this present version is derived, with slight modifications, from a keynote paper presented at the FID/EI’ seminar on information policy, planning and research: preparing information professionals for achievement, Havana, Cuba, 17-18 September, 1990.

f Consultant in Information Management Systems, Gentilly, France.

002~7837/91/010049+ 16 $03.00/O 0 1991 Academic Press Limited

50 M. J. MENOU

1. WHAT IS A NATIONAL POLICY?

A policy is a set of principles which guide a regular course of action. A policy consists of:

(a) an image of the desired state of affairs, as a goal or set of goals, which are to be achieved or pursued;

(b) specific means by which the realization of the goals is to be brought about;

(c) the assignment of responsibilities for implementing the means; (d) a set of rules or guidelines regulating the implementation of the

means.

These four components form the apparent part of a policy. They may be observed from the current patterns of behaviour among the various parties concerned (de facto policy). They may be stipulated in documents (formalized policy) or legal acts (de jure policy). The existence of documents does not preclude that a policy is actually in effect nor that the observed behaviour will generally be consistent with it. Conversely, the absence of documents does not preclude that there is no policy, as it could be for instance one of “Laissez-faire” or be well enough embodied into societal practices so as not to require any document. Too much attention, regarding policies as well as consti- tutions, is paid to their formal aspects at the expense of those related to their application, which is far more significant.’

There is more often than not a hidden part of a policy, which consists Of:

(a) more general policies governing them; (b) general concepts or ideologies and (c) durable power structures.

These three components almost inevitably exist, even if no explicit reference is made to them, and they can not be overlooked since they determine the very nature of a society and its goals.

A policy thus shows you what game is to be played and what are the rules of the game. It does not tell you how to play the game.

The use of means by the “stakeholders” in a given policy, according to their recognized responsibility and to the general rules, in order to move toward the goal, is a matter of planning. The planning is an iterative process of allocating the available resources to specific actions in order to make incremental steps toward the ultimate goal. A plan embodies a policy for a given time, according to the existing conditions. Policy and plan are ofdifferent level and nature. From policy to projects there is a hierarchy among the respective acts-a difference of scale

NATIONAL INFORMATION POLICY IN LDCs 51

which may vary according to which constituency considers which issue and when. Different plans may be applied in pursuance of the same policy and different policies may rely upon the same plan. For instance, the absorption of information technology may be tried through market reserve or joint ventures. The aim of developing database services may be to strive to expand reliance upon international ones or to support the development of national ones.

Ultimately a policy says what kind of society is to exist, a plan only says what it is going to do toward this end. Policy points to the essence, plan to the activities. Policy deals with “why” and “what”, plan with “how”. Even though they are intrinsically interwoven, policy and plans must be distinguished.

2. DISTINGUISHING INFORMATION POLICY FROM PLANNING OF INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURES

Mr. M. Hill* was right enough in stressing that “the words policy, strategy, plan and programme tend to overlap in meaning”, and “in translation to and from other languages (these words) tend to overlap in meaning”. It is nevertheless questionable whether a pragmatic approach which does not try to establish any particular distinction among the diverse concretizations of such uneven and ambiguous concepts or perspectives could draw the light and provide the basis required for clear a framework and guidelines to emerge. If one is not satisfied with any existing model, it is of the utmost importance, when dealing with this subject, to clearly define the nature, scope and scale of such basic categories as policy, strategy, plan, programme, etc., as well as of the objects and activities they are respectively concerned with, and to stick to these proposals. A good example of this and its application in an LDCs context can be found in the first draft proposal of an information policy for Egypt.3 Violating this elementary rule exposes endless vagaries in the formulation, discussion and implementation of a policy, as it can be seen from the news every day.

Clearly, an information policy should address such questions as, what is the desirable state of “informationalization” of a country and what would it contribute to the welfare of the community or to the over- coming of current limitations?

Unfortunately, many articles on this subject, or so called information policy documents, especially in/on the LDCs, have focused on:

(a) translating the goals and activities presented in national development policies or plans into the corresponding information needs;

52 M. J. MENOU

(b) or compiling a more or less structured list of the information needs of the various constituencies;

(c) and devising ways and means by which the provision of information resources could be more adequately tailored to these information needs;

(d) possibly considering how to achieve a more balanced development of the information infrastructure.

This approach has resulted in tautologies like:

“It shall be the (information) policy of the Government to promote the development of national information resources and services as an integral part of the national development plan”.”

Likewise, its economic policy shall be to increase national and individual income in order to satisfy the needs of the population. Is such intellectual and organizational strength necessary to arrive at such statements, and do they actually mean anything special?

These documents refer, in very general terms, to the kind of societal change and its rationale, which such activities are supposed to induce, mostly repeating the motto that, “information is a basic resource for development”. This assumption, as Saracevic noted,5 still lacks supporting empirical evidence.

The debate is not merely a theoretical and methodological one. National plans for the development of information services tend to offer a more or less coherent catalogue of actions, in all related areas, which correspond to their internal growth. In LDCs, especially the less advanced ones, where all aspects of the information scene are lacking, this often results in an undiscriminated call for development efforts in all the areas at the same time. Consciously or not, what is proposed is to equip the country with facilities similar to those found in the more advanced countries and to allocate the required resources in order to do so. The basic problem however is precisely that these resources do not exist or can not be allocated, in first place, and secondly, that such an overall expansion does not relate to alternative strategies connected with expected societal benefits in a dynamic perspective. Unless the proposed development of the information sector is explicit about which return will be generated in order to support further development, it can only be wishful thinking. In addition, the majority ofthese proposals concentrate on one or another segment of the sector and miss the global cross-section which may attract support from top level decision makers.

Replenishing the collections of academic and research, special and public libraries may, for instance, be desirable in principle. However such an effort can alone absorb all the available resources and will not by itself bring about any significant change. It is fascinating to observe


what little impact the declining purchasing power ofacquisition budgets (when they exist), the prevailing patterns of the utilization of collections or the size of the illiterate population actually have on traditional thinking in this area. The concept of appropriate information remains to be realized in suitable practical applications. Even if relevant strategies for the planning of information systems were available, they are unlikely to be applied in a socially meaningful way without the guidance of true policies, i.e. an indication of the scope and steps of the social transformation they are to contribute to.

3. DRIVING FORCES BEHIND INFORMATION POLICIES

The advent of the “information society” is a deep transformation in the balance among production factors. It raises many uncertainties regarding the future way of life of individuals, groups and nations. It is therefore natural that the major drive toward the formulation of information policy is fear, like in most other matters.

Since the 50’s, information policies have emerged and vanished in various countries as a reaction to, and at a pace with, the growth and decline of fears related to the threats to:

(i) existing technological advantages or technological self-reliance (e.g. the post-Sputnik policies in the USA or the Japanese domination syndrome in most Western countries),

(ii) economic independence (e.g. the computer industry policy in France or Brazil),

(iii) level of productivity and competitiveness (e.g. EEC support to research in information technology),

(iv) balance of forces in the information sector (e.g. privatization or divestiture policies in the telecommunications sector of Western countries),

(v) national sovereignty (e.g. Brazilian policy on informatics), (vi) cultural identity (e.g. inclusion of information in the agenda of

the Francophone Summit), (vii) perennity of languages other than English (e.g. support to

databases in their national languages by most non-English speaking countries).

Fear driven policies, which are more common in any subject, say, “We do not want this”. Policies rarely say, “We want this”, or in other words express a positive vision of tomorrow’s society, except for very broad ideological stakes, which may be in practice attuned to any reality with a minimum flexibility in dialetics. Eventually these negative

54 M. J. MENOU

concerns could be turned into positive ones in extending the reach of counteractions to positive moves toward the occupation of market niches (e.g. to some extent with MINITEL or fibre optic cables in France).

Because of their low level of economic resources, reliance upon exter- nal assistance and imports, and the permanence of large pockets of poverty among their population, LDCs continue to face threats of domination in all aspects of their cultural, social and economic life. When the prime concern is for food self-sufficiency, the risk of domination through information, even if it is recognized, can only be dis- regarded for a while. This obviously does not exclude the occasional outcry in order to exorcize the danger.

Policies could also result from a need to regulate the competition between social or economic forces. In this sense they are a reaction against the possibility of the natural development of those forces likely to create a situation out of control (e.g. policies to prevent information carriers from being at the same time producers and distributors). Though relatively close to fear driven policies, the latter redirecting ones may have some more positive contents at least to the extent the parties between which one arbitrates are themselves rich.

The information industries and infrastructures of most LDCs are clearly far from a stage of development where such reactive policies would be necessary. However, at least in the 70’s when the proliferation of information technology had not yet confused the whole scene, many developing countries showed interest in preventing the kind of dupli- cation and waste of resources observed in the more advanced countries. This goal is still worthy of consideration.

A third type of policy is the one imposed by a leading and powerful constituency, organization or branch of industry, generally when it has a de facto monopoly or overriding domination in the considered sector. They obviously will tend to establish particular concerns and benefits as the common law. In the information sector such individual policies are frequently forced as a national policy, especially from the telecommunications agencies. Except for the military, no constituency in LDCs is aware enough of information issues, or strong enough, to bring about such forced policies.

A fourth type of policy is one driven by imitation, whether genuine or inspired by foreign advisers or examples. Even though the rationale and background considerations which led some country(ies) to a policy is not fully understood or readily transferable, it may do no harm, and possibly some good, to step in the footprints of the big league players. Such imitation policies are frequently a petition of principle rather than something one is going to actually work at. The concept of information development was, in fact, brought to the less developed countries by


international organizations at a time when concrete examples were rarely found in the more advanced countries. This trend is however more apparent when it comes to programmes, material investments and operational activities which do not necessarily result from the application of a related policy (e.g. the development of television systems).

In most instances, for a policy to take shape, there is a need for several of the above mentioned forces to combine (particularly fear) plus a strong and active constituency or industry, and a leadership to emerge and operate for a long enough time in the same direction. The availability of financial resources commensurate with the initial or development investment needs is obviously not superfluous. But money used without proper direction does not help.

To summarize, most LDCs have:

(i) too many (and pressing) legitimate fears to be able to seriously pay attention to the risk of domination through information,

(ii) information industries which are not sufficiently rich to severely disrupt the overall socio-economic balance or impose a direction,

(iii) few good examples to imitate, (iv) excessive exposure to forced or inspired policies, (v) seldom the proper combination of fears, strengths and lead-

ership.

Finally, it should be recognized that in many cases successful information policies and programmes have resulted from the continuing efforts of a few individuals who kept the reaction going and moving in a single direction for long enough. Perhaps the major weakness of the less developed countries is precisely their shortage of talented leaders and the constant changes of people in command, and of direction. Discontinuity is the single most serious hazard in human endeavours.

4. THE NEED FOR AN APPROPRIATE REFERENCE FRAMEWORK

The debate over the scope of information policy does not yet seem to have reached any clearcut decision. It deals with the following questions:

(i) should there be a single policy or rather a set of, hopefully, closely connected policies for the various types of information activities?

(ii) should the policies be related to particular information concerns/constituencies or to more or less comprehensive groupings

56 M. J. MENOU

of such concerns, like libraries, library and information services, library-archives and information services (NATE), scientific and technical (and economic) information industry(ies), information sector or the “informationalization” of society?

Since, to some extent, they are all struggling for recognition or a more prestigious status, and a share in the power structure, all the information related trades (librarians, archivists, documentalists, publishers, AV producers, journalists, extentionists, advertisers, computer and telecommunications specialists, statisticians, etc.), tend to be vocal about “information being power” and claim that their chunk of the information business is the whole thing. This results in a predominance ofspecialized approaches. Integration appears only when the respective industries realize that a trade association may help solve their problems and they set up “information industry associations”. Only the more advanced among the LDCs are likely to reach this stage in the fore- seeable future.

The claim that information, unconsciously equated to the recording of data and handling of the records, is a necessary ingredient of socio- economic development has not yet convinced many high level decision makers in the less developed countries who are confronted with more obvious challenges. In retrospect, it appears unfortunate that in its quest for identity, the field of information for professional use chooses to call itself “scientific and technical information”, since this wording establishes close links with education and research which are not necessarily dominant sectors, and seems to exclude many other types of current information activities which are far more important and better perceived. It is even more sad to note the continued cultivation of this obsolete concept among the scholarly and professional groups who should have been the first to communicate their views, like the “information science” community. The above mentioned claim not only remains to be demonstrated but tends to isolate information as an object, having its own evolutionary process, while it should be considered as the subject of development.

Whatever importance high level decision makers may attach to special information activities, particularly libraries and information services, their main concern is increasingly with the efficiency of organizations and their ability to fulfil their mandate, which is basically to channel the resources geared toward socio-economic development. In this respect no single information activity has a particular significance, yet their combination does. That is to say that the challenge lies with information management as a basic component of a strategy toward increased productivity and competitiveness.’ A financial benefit is the


only rationale decision makers under severe economic pressure could regard seriously.

The concepts of an information economy, or information society, therefore appear to be the only ones which may offer a reference framework that is both attractive and capable of interconnecting the various areas of endeavour. Development, as opposed to natural evolution, is a steady increase of the autonomous problem-solving capacity which in turn may be characterized as “informationalization”, i.e. the ability to manage information. As Vitro pointed out,

“The ability of a society to add value to material and non-material resources is the key for generating local wealth and an important factor in contributing to a more equitable distribution of new wealth. To add value is to add to the information contents of resources”.’

The standard information policy of any country may well be coined as “a continuous effort toward the establishment in the shortest possible time of a strong, integrated and balanced information sector”.

The problem is that the information professions, especially the library-archive-documentation one, tend to ignore these concepts,’ when they are not simply rejected for arbitrarily aggregating definitely distinct activities.g Further, they are pleased with a justification of their existence as contributing to the common welfare, eventually for the future generations. This is not to argue that books and periodicals are not useful; the question is with which money do you buy them, what do you do with them, and what do you get back? In any case, the library-documentation-archives conglomerate, which is still far from consolidated, only represents a minimal slice of the information industry” and could hardly compete by its size, value or image among decision-makers and the public in general, with other segments of the information sector such as computer and telecommunications or advertising industries.

Some may argue that the LDCs have still to undergo a long evolution before they enter the information age. Although too few studies have yet been carried out, the existence and growth of the information sector in such countries has been evidenced for quite some time.” This point also neglects the globalization of socio-economic development patterns and their dynamic nature. No society lives fully in a given age at any point in time, but several ages co-exist and interfere. It is only because they have to struggle for survival in a world dominated by information- based societies, that the LDCs themselves aspire to enter the information age.‘*

5. SCOPE 0~ AN INFORMATION POLICY

An information policy has to consider:

58 M. J. MENOU

(i) the information sector as a whole, that is to say all the information industries and quasi-industries (information functions within the other sectors;13

(ii) the communication or information cycle as a whole, which encompasses the roles of government, potential users, authors, publishers, information services, actual users and other countries. I4

Even though there is no commonly agreed classification of the related activities, roles and functions, it is essential to define a systematic framework before embarking on the analysis of the information situation and formulation of policy, at least in order to limit the risk of mixing up a distinct phenomenon as a result of the pervasive nature of information. A matrix specifying where each function of the information sector is considered, is indispensible in order to focus on the discrete subjects being considered in formulating and implementing a policy. An information policy has obviously to encompass many different subjects, which all have their particular background, requirements and functions. It is thus a mosaic of lower level specific policies. The very problem of an information policy is precisely to make all the pieces of the mosaic fit together and offer a clear and meaningful picture.

Within such a matrix, a number of issues have to be considered, according to the particular conditions in each country. Although there has been some effort, e.g. in Mr Hill’s recent study,15 to collect them, a systematic inventory still needs to be complied. Nick Moore has suggestedI four broad categories:

(i) Legislative and regulatory issues, which include copyright, data protection, privacy, freedom of information, information as a tradable commodity, legal liability for information, international trade in information services, transborder data flows, self-regulation by industry, standardization;

(ii) Macroeconomic issues, which include defining and analysing the information sector, measuring the size and growth of the information sector, international comparisons, infrastructural investment, knowledge centres as determinants of economic growth, investment in human capital;

(iii) Organizational issues, which include use of information as a management resource, relationship between information and productivity, need for new approaches to management, new skill requirements for managers, division of labour and the emergence of new information specialists;

(iv) Social issues, which include the requirement to provide information to consumers, reliability, objectivity and quality of infor-


mation, extent of unmet needs, ways of meeting the needs, levels of literacy and numeracy, educational requirements, alter- natives to print, role ofinformation and advice services, division between the information rich and the information poor.

6. THE NEED FOR BACKGROUND DATA

In addition to the lack of a commonly agreed reference background, a major cause of the prevalent fuzziness of information policies is perhaps the non-availability of reliable data.

This is still true for most developed countries, with the exception of one time studies of the information economy, the production of specialized indicators and possibly the EEC information market observ- atory. In the LDCs, data have to be specially gathered each time a planning or policy formulation exercise is attempted.

Meanwhile, micro-level data are eventually compiled in the form of internal statistics or ad hoc surveys (often in the framework of academic assignments or individual research projects). But, without established standards and procedures, these discrete data collections can hardly be compiled into a meaningful set.

The same methodological limitations, added to the scarcity of published literature, the scatter of published and grey literature and weakness of bibliographic control, the unsystematic search for and use of previous studies by most authors, result in the majority of monographic studies (often in the form of project formulation reports for technical co-operation agencies) being far from comprehensive or reliable and contribute more anecdotes than hard facts. A recent report,’ for instance, quoted an earlier one mentioning that a predominantly agricultural country from West Africa had made no effort at organizing agricultural information about two years after a national specialized network had been successfully set up.

Such lack of awareness may have far reaching conseqences to the extent that expatriate advisers, not necessarily familiar with the local scene, have to play a decisive role in the formulation of information policies and plans.

The need for the continuous provision of significant data was soon recognized18 and reaffirmed.lg Some attempts were made in this direction in the early 80s e.g. by CLADES,*’ UNESCO (IUP and ST1 statistics),14’*l IBICT in Brazil (SISSI programme)22X23 or ENSTINET in Egypt. 24 It seems that this commitment did not resist the pressure of material difficulties for its fulfilment. Where the recent UNESCO guidelines25 gave some emphasis to this question, Mr. Gray’s book on

60 M. J. MENOU

national information policie? ignored the issue. Some may feel more comfortable with general ideas in their plea for

an information policy. However, unless its subject is clearly defined and its objects are sufficiently quantified, even though in this matter more than in others data may be nothing more than rough approximations, the likelihood of effective action remains minimal.

7. THE PRE-EMINENCE OF ACTION

Even if it were accurately described with well organized basic facts and figures, the information scene, especially with the mushrooming of information technology applications, is changing very fast. Further- more, policy is a dynamic process in which action is far more significant than theoretical constructs or make up.

Yet, most documents on information policy seem to pay more attention to its scope, the activities to be considered or the parties to be involved, the formulation of a policy document and the administrative set up for its possible implementation than to ways and means ofputting it into practice. The latest UNESCO guidelines4 for instance, devote only five out of 180 pages to the implementation of a national information policy. All strengths and imagination are apparently exhausted by the enactment of an information policy.

Although the contents of such a policy document should preferably be sound, it is relatively irrelevant as long as the mechanisms for its preparation and further implementation function well and get more effective along the years. What really matters is the way the game is played. This in turn requires that the key players, at least, are well drilled. Who should be on a national information policy board, or who is actually a member, and what are its terms of reference matter far less than whether those members who do want this body to arrive at some kind of information policy know the tricks which will make it happen.

Even if their number is still small, there are now enough people in the less developed countries who do have such a practice and may share it, under suitable arrangements. These are clearly not stories to be written, but Gordon-like conferences may provide an answer, if properly prepared. Meanwhile reference papers would be well inspired if they gave all the required space and emphasis to explaining clearly how to score the touch-down rather than to topological models of players’ positions.

8. THE APPROACHES TO EDUCATION

The above discussion now leads us to consider who needs education in information policy, what such an education should cover and how it could be offered.


Another long-lasting problem of the information specialists is the distinction they make in the population among the so-called users and themselves.27 Users are in fact producing, organizing, storing, disseminating information as much as, if not more than, the information specialists. Now that information technology has pervaded all activities this is more important. Both categories share responsibility for the overall operation of the information cycle. Furthermore, information specialists are not always available, especially in LDCs, and their functions have to be taken care of by the so-called users.

It is therefore essential that all segments of the population receive an appropriate education in information handling techniques and information management, as part of their basic professional education. Information policy matters may need to be taught only to those who are more likely to become involved in such issues because their respective trades belong more closely to the information sector.

To the best of our knowledge, professional education of people, whether information specialists or not, has up to now either ignored information functions, or considered them from a specialized, isolated point of view. Concerning the so-called “information specialists”, the school of Information Studies at Syracuse University, USA, is the only one to have offered courses on information policy. Except for general overviews, e.g. in comparative librarianship or information and society courses, large scale problems, i.e. national information policy and plans, are not addressed in any practical fashion as part of the current Library and Information Science programmes.

This may be all right in developed countries, where one is not likely to be directly involved in such matters until having reached senior levels after many years of professional experience and possibly direct exposure to, or suffering from, macro-level decisions. In the LDCs in turn, anyone with a masters degree is likely to become a player in such games from his/her first appointment. Proficiency in descriptive cataloguing is far from providing the required asset when it comes to negotiating a nation- wide plan for health information.

One may well object that having contended that practice prevails over theory, a plea for specialized educational programmes in this area sounds somewhat inconsistent. Such programmes can obviously not provide all the necessary skills, but they can certainly offer a minimal preparation or at least avoid the total ignorance which is commonly found.

Education in information policy should in the first place seek to impart the right perceptions, attitudes, motivations and behavioural skills which are required in order to play this kind of game, It should further provide a basic understanding of the structure and operation of

62 M. J. MENOU

policy-making mechanisms, a comprehensive view of the information sector, its interfaces with other sectors and its potential role in development. It should equip people with the basic techniques of planning, programming and budgeting, data gathering and analysis, report writ- ing, communication, group dynamics and negotiation. It should make sure that the significant aspects of the respective information roles or functions are clearly perceived in themselves, in their relationship with the others and with the overall development process. A major goal for such an education would be to eliminate, or at least reduce, the parochialism of each information trade and to help build a broad common vision.

Since expertise is scarce, it may sound appropriate to consider the holding of a series of seminars, with policy-makers, national information systems managers and educators, in order to outline the desired profile of players in the national information policy and planning games and the resulting requirements for educational programmes. Model programmes could then be worked out and tested in short courses, before being offered by educational institutions, either within their own faculty or with the assistance of visiting professors, as part of basic and continuing education programmes. Similarly, Gordon-type conferences may help to disseminate hands-on experience for both practitioners and educators.

For basic or continuing education and current information to be possible in this area, it would further be necessary to devise mechanisms by which a knowledge base could be accumulated. This would involve inter alia some standardization of monographic studies, joint efforts toward the compilation of hard data, declassifying report literature, setting up suitable secondary and tertiary (e.g. reviews and readers) services, or strengthening existing ones, with a view to providing a better focus on these issues and alleviating the excessive and increasing scatter of the literature. This latter fact again may only be inconvenient for people in developed countries, but it is simply prohibiting access to information for those in LDCs who can not afford to subscribe to that many journals and acquire so many publications whose relevance is hard to assess beforehand.

This paper would look even more nonconformist and inconsequential without a call for supporting research on the development of the information sector, national information policies and plans. A limited effort is continuing in the developed countries, though far less significant than the one geared toward the many technological developments in the information field. But almost nothing is done for the LDCs. Many years ago we submitted a proposal about LDCs to a major European funding agency for information science research. It was rejected because, “we


do not fund research which does not relate to our country’s concerns”. We would therefore welcome any indication of whose concern it is to fund such research (except IDRC, which in principle can only support research teams from developing countries, while the latter hardly exist in this area). We would also like to see a list of more than a dozen funded research projects on LDCs information policy for the last thirty years.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

REFERENCES

Mitterand, F. (1990). Interview on the occasion of the Bastille Day. Paris, TFl and A2, July 14, 13 h. Hill, M. W. (1989). National information policies: a review of the situation in seventeen industrialized countries with particular reference to scientz$c and technical information. Study undertaken for the UNESCO General Information Programme. The Hague, International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID), p. 107. (FID 678). (p. 2 in draft version). Adams, S., Madkour, M. A. K. and Slamecka, V. A. (1981). Proposed National Information Poliqy of Egypt. Atlanta, GA. Georgia Institute of Technology, p. 33. Montviloff, V. ( 1990). National informalion policies. A handbook on the formulation, approval, implementation and operation of a nationalpolicy on information. Paris. UNESCO, p. 180. (PGI-SO/WS/ll) (Annex D, p. 153). Saracevic, T. (1980). Perception of the needs for scientific and technical information in less developed countries. Journal of Documentation 36, pp. 214-267. Menou, M. J. (1990). Information management: a new paradigm for information development in the Less Developed Countries. International Seminar on Information Man- agement: Practice and education. Budapest, Hungary, 24-27 April, p. 12. Vitro, R. A. (1988). Towards a knowledge-based development strategy. National Development 29 (8), pp. 4-5. Hayes, R. (1984). Issues in developing the infrastructure of national information systems. In: The infrastructure of an information society, B. El Hadidy and E. E. Horne (Eds) Amsterdam. Elsevier, pp. 139-148. Anderla, G. (1973). Information in 1985: a forecasting study of information needs and resources. Paris, OECD. Cronin, B. (1988). Post-industrial society: Some manpower issues for the library information/profession. Reprinted from Journal of Information Science, 7 (1983) in Cronin & Davenport. Post-professionalism: transforming the information heartland. London. Taylor Graham, pp. 286299. Karanaratne, N. D. and Cameron, A. (1981). A comparative analysis of the information economy in developed and developing countries. Journal of Information Science 3 (3), pp. 113-127. Menou, M. J. (1986). Information development: the third frontier for the survival of Latin American countries. In: The transfer of scholarly, scient$c and technical information between North and South America. V. Rosenberg and G. Whitney (Eds) Metuchen. Scarecrow, pp. 2733286. Porat, M. U. and Rubin, M. A. (1977). The information economy. Washington DC, U.S. Department of Commerce. Borko, H. and Menou, M. J. (1983). hdex of If n ormation Utiliration Potential (I.U.P.). Paris, UNESCO, p. 114. (PGI-l-83/WS/29). Hill (1989). Ibid.

M. J. MENOU

Moore, N. (1990). Information policy. A discussion Paper on the scope of the Policy Studies Institute Information policy programme. London, Policy Studies Institute. 6 p. Sent, H. (1988). Les ressources humaines comme facteur de dkveloppement du secteur de l’information documentaire en Afrique francophone. In: Papers resulting

,from the meetiys to develop an information strate<u for IDRC for Africa. Ottawa, Intcr- national Development Research Centre, pp. 68-85. Slamecka, V. (1979). Implications ofmodern information technology for national information policy and planning. Main issues discussed. 4th Unisist meeting on the planning and implementing of national information activities in science and technology. Warsaw, Poland, 23-26 January 1979. Paris, UNESCO, p. 18. Glen&n Declaration. (1988). FZD News Bulletin 38 (5), pp. 37-38. Ccntro Latinoamericano de Documentation Economica y Social (CLADES). ( 198 1) La infraestructura de information para el desarrollo. Informe de diagnostic0 regional,

America Latina y Caribe. Santiago de Chile, Comision Economica para America Latina (CEPAL), p. 286. UNESCO. (1984). Guide to statistics on Scientific and Technological Information and Documentation. Paris, UNESCO. Barreto, A. dc A. (1988). 0 conhecimento do setor de informa+o: condiTQo basica para o scu planejamcnto. Revista de Biblioteconomia de Brasilia 16 (l), pp. 55-64. Menou, M. J. (1985). An information system for decision support in national information policy-making and planning. Information processing and management 21 (4), pp. 321-361. El Haddad, M. 11981) The information sector in the national economy. A prc- liminary picture of some of its indicators in Egypt. Cairo, Institute of National Planning. Montviloff. (1990). Ibid. Gray, J. (1988). National information politics. Problems and Progress. London, Mansell, p. 143. Menou, M. J. (1972). Science et conscicncc dc l’information: quelques rtflcxions sur la formation des utilisateurs. Documentaliste 9 (4)) pp. 15 I 156.

64

16

17

18

19 20

21

22

23

24

25 26

27

Documents

National information policy in the less developed countries: an educational perspective