Reading this article by Ian Sample of the Guardian reminded me of a conversation that I held with a professional economist who studies competition policy. I asked about his most recent research area and he mentioned to me that like many other micro-economists, he was concerned about the cost of academic journals in the discipline. In his view, many of them received the input of working professionals at low cost and then charged well above the marginal price. Going ahead, he asserted that this state of affairs would only get worse because the main journals in the subject of economics were each a monopoly in its area and therefore had no incentive to charge as close to the margin as possible.
Coming down several years later, it seems that the market power of major academic journals has persisted and that the academic institutions are reacting to the overall cost in addition to the relentless rise in prices every year. Harvard University's Librarian, has issued a memorandum to its staff suggesting that they ought to reconsider and possibly cut their relationships with leading publishers of academic journals. It takes the power of a a top university with other clout of its own to bring his issue to the fore.
In my view, the fact that universities and scholars contribute most of the content alone does not mean that the pricing policy by publishers must favor them. The really interesting part for a student of economics is the realization that these institutions are using their understanding of their contribution to journals to try and bargain for lower costs. I also think that it is not enough to merely withhold association with the publishers. It would be a far more interesting point if they brought to fruition the idea of open access to academic knowledge. this would force a tactical response from the publishers and the competition would without lead to a reduction of the price of knowledge towards the margin.
No comments:
Post a Comment