|
"an activist organisation that examines issues of censorship, freedom and ethics amongst library and information workers..." |
|
|
ISC 14. The Corporate Takeover of Libraries
Ruth Rikowski 1. Introduction The expansion of capitalism is rapidly accelerating throughout the world. This is 'global capitalism'. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) need to be seen within this context. These areas have been explored in other articles in this journal. GATS functions to open up public services to corporate capital. This has direct implications for libraries and information, which I shall explore in this article, focusing in particular on public libraries (although many of the arguments can be applied to other types of libraries as well). As Angela Watson in the Best Returns report on Best Value in public libraries says:
Where will the logic of global capitalism take us? It would appear that it leads to the commodification of all that surrounds us. Within this context, the privatisation and commodification of libraries and information will be a small part in the overall trajectory; yet a vital part nonetheless. I have been a librarian/information professional for many years and have always held that libraries, books and information are an essential ingredient of a civilised life. I imagine most people concur with this sentiment. As IFLA state in their position document on the WTO:
Yet, libraries as they are currently constituted are now under threat from the GATS. The other main agreement being established at the WTO, that will effect and threaten libraries and information provision is TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property). As Shrybman said:
TRIPS will not be discussed in this article, but a thorough analysis of TRIPS is also required in order to consider fully the consequences of WTO agreements for libraries and information.
1.1 The history of the public library service in Britain: a 'settlement', not a 'God-given right' Before considering further how the public library system that is in existence today in Britain is seriously under threat, it is useful to have an appreciation and some understanding about how our current, free public library system first materialised. First of all, we need to reflect upon the fact that the population of Britain has only been widely literate for just over 100 years, following the 1870 Education Act. The concept of free libraries available to all was first developed in the Public Library Act of 1850 (Pateman, 1999). As stated by the British Council:
Furthermore, Chris Smith, British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote in The Bookseller, 29th May 1998 saying:
Further legislation for developing a public library system followed with the 1855 and the 1919 Public Library Acts (the former Act raising the rate levied for libraries to a full penny). As Manley said:
Manley also noted the confusion over the word 'free' in these acts. As he pointed out:
Andrew Carnegie, however, was clear about the necessity of 'free libraries'. He stated:
Furthermore, as David Bennahum has noted:
Sarah Ormes also emphasised that '...Carnegie's libraries encouraged literacy for free...' (1996, p.3) With the 1964 Public Library and Museums Act it became compulsory for local authorities to provide a public library service, and today public libraries are a taken-for-granted aspect of social life in Britain. Referring to the local authorities and the 1964 Act, the British Council said that:
Interestingly, the recent Local Government Act 1999 has placed a duty on local authorities in regard to Best Value (see below for further information on Best Value). Best Value is affecting our libraries substantially. However, there was much opposition to the idea of a publicly funded library system when it was first introduced in the 1850s. As Manley points out:
Similarly, people today expect a free education system and the length of the working week to be limited (the European Union 48-hour working week directive). Yet these are not laws of nature; they are not 'God-given rights'. Virtually all of the 'rights' that ordinary people have today have been hard fought for in the past. As Karl Marx said in regard to the length of the working day and the health of the labourer:
Continuing his argument, Marx concludes that:
Interestingly, Manley (2001) also refers to the long hours worked in the mid-nineteenth century, and relates this to libraries noting that:
Thus, all these so-called 'rights' have been hard fought for, in various ways by the working class. The suffragettes, the Chartists and the trade union movement are all clear examples of the struggles that the working class have undertaken. Furthermore, if it seems that ordinary people need to be contained then so-called 'concessions' are sometimes made. John Pateman (1999), for example, has pointed out that public libraries were largely set up to act as agents of social control originally, and quotes Adonis and Pollard (1997) who noted that the Victorians and Edwardians:
Interestingly, it seems that many ordinary people did not actually want a public library service in the nineteenth century. As Manley wrote:
Many working class activists and leaders were concerned to establish social spaces where they could think and read and develop their ideas independently of the influence and outlook of both employers and the State. Working class people were establishing various institutions such as the Mechanics and Miners Institutes, and libraries were being created in these institutions for working class learning. As Baggs noted in reference to the South Wales valleys:
Furthermore, many of these institutions did not want to open up their libraries to the general public. As Baggs indicates:
Workers feared that their capacity for independent thought and learning would be compromised by state-funded libraries, whilst at the same time costing them more money as they paid for their own libraries and also those run by local authorities through local taxation. Later on Baggs also tells us that:
Thus, it was thought that these Institutes and their libraries could have been one of the breeding grounds for socialism. For the Establishment, this could not be allowed to happen and gradually the system was reformed such that these 'dangers' were contained. The Institute libraries suffered from increasing and debilitating financial problems. The State could have tried to assist them with these problems, but instead was more interested in forming a public library service that dulled radical, creative and independent impulses. For a while the Institute libraries tried to operate alongside the public libraries in a spirit of 'co-operation'. However, by 1939:
However, Baggs noted that this came at a severe price - the loss of the 'community sense' that had been established long and hard by the Institutes and their libraries, along with the hard work and money that they had invested in it all. From an Establishment perspective, material in the public libraries could be carefully selected, and in this way people's reading habits could be 'adjusted' and policed. This probably became more important after the 1870 Education Act, as ordinary people became increasingly literate and the threat posed by socialism had to be more carefully contained. Thus, interestingly enough it is the struggles of working class people that brought about changes in their conditions - in this case the setting up public library services - that eventually came to divert struggles for further progressive social change. Yet all this resulted in the setting up of the public library service that we all now take for granted which many of us benefit from and appreciate. This historical analysis demonstrates two vital points. First, it is clear that our public library service does not arise from some 'natural God-given right' to information and reading (but from struggle and contestation). Secondly, our public library system emerged from attempts at independent working class learning and politics that had to be suppressed and diverted into safe arenas. This is the nature of the settlement founding our public library service in Britain.
1.2 Global capital infiltrating libraries and information; the national faces of the GATS and accusations of scare mongering Today, however, the historic settlement over the role and significance of the UK public library system is under threat from neoliberal modernisation: the opening up of public libraries to corporate capital and international trade. The commodification of information and knowledge are currently being ratcheted up several notches as businesses seek out new avenues for profit making. This article focuses on uncovering these developments that herald a new horizon for all those concerned with information and libraries: the horizon of capital. This article incorporates themes, such as micropayments, Best Value, the People's Network, and the position of various national and international library associations on the WTO and the GATS. However, the essential point is to demonstrate how the logic of capitalism leads to the corporate takeover of libraries and information. What is crucial is to illuminate on why the logic of the GATS will engender the commercialisation, commodification and privatisation of information and library services globally. Thus, the GATS can be viewed as an element of the global capitalist agenda. This is why the quote below from Richard Caborn MP, which was an endeavour to reassure us, is in fact no reassurance at all. Caborn, the then Trade Minister, wrote to the Library Association Record on 8th March 2001 saying that:
Of course, there will be no forced privatisation of libraries in the name of the GATS. There will be no GATS Libraries Bill or White Paper here in Britain. Rather, the argument here is that for each WTO member nation, and for each public service, there will be national faces of the GATS - legislation and mechanisms that facilitate the opening up of public services to corporate capital. The key task is to show what these are for public libraries in contemporary Britain. This is what I outline in this article, focusing on Best Value, Library Standards and the People's Network. However, it is concerning that attempts are continually made to criticise, belittle or denigrate those of us who are critical of mundane capitalist development. The Caborn quote is one such example, suggesting that GATS critics are scare mongering. But in many ways the case against the GATS is being understated, and this is clearest when links are made between what the GATS stands for and the national mechanisms for facilitating and embedding corporate penetration of public services. In relation to libraries, this point can be illustrated with reference to Angela Watson's Best Returns report on Best Value, where she notes:
Best Value becomes a Trojan horse for the national reconfiguration of a public service for the interests of corporate capital: in this case, libraries in England. With access to official statements like this, scare mongering becomes a non-issue; we are being asked to consider a future where library services become a commodity in an information market and where libraries operate in this market place. Of course, it could be argued that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with developing an information market in this way. Indeed, some would say - such as Christopher Roberts, Chairman of the Committee on Liberalisation of Trade in Services, London (BBC, 2001) - that the GATS helps to strengthen world trade in services and hence increases prosperity for UK service exporters and wealth creation generally.1 The GATS might be beneficial for certain businesses in particular countries, but this misses the point. It is founded on the expansion of capital accumulation; not on human information, education and recreation needs for social justice and sustainable development. On the latter considerations, libraries are a 'public good' (IFLA, 2001b). I was recently on a BBC Radio 4 programme, You and Yours (BBC, 2001), talking about the GATS and libraries, where I spoke about the threat the GATS poses to our public library service. However, the examples I gave to illustrate this were omitted in the broadcast, and only a general statement about the privatisation of libraries was included - giving the impression that perhaps I had no evidence to back up my claims, and that I was creating a scare story. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the day before the programme (on 16th October) Tony Blair spoke at the British Library about the public services. He referred to the possibility of the voluntary sector moving into some areas of our public services, saying:
Thus, Blair seems to be suggesting that critics are scare mongering and that really, the route opened up by the GATS gives everyone lots of choice and is going to provide wonderful opportunities. It is very doubtful whether this would be the outcome, but even if it was, this misses the point. As already stated, the motivation behind the GATS is to facilitate the development of markets and competition. Improving public services, if it were to happen at all in the short-term, would just be a by-product - used as a tool to encourage people to happily accept privatisation. Providing a service for the public good would lessen as the private sector takes a stronger hold and the profit motive increases in importance. Also, in referring to the voluntary sector in this way, accusations that the private sector will 'take over' our public services can be undermined - as indeed, this statement implicitly undermines what I said on the 'You and Yours' radio programme (BBC, 2001) the day after. I argued that, at the end of the day, private companies are likely to be running our libraries in order to make profits (and I did not mention the voluntary sector). Initially, the suggestion that the voluntary sector could play an active part is a powerful and perhaps, an appealing one. However, voluntary organisations, trusts and charities can easily change and become private companies, as I discuss in an article that I wrote on the GATS for Managing Information (Rikowski, 2001). Such organisations could easily become private companies if it was thought to be to their advantage at a later date, and they can hit adequate profit levels. Indeed, the private sector will only move in when it is seen to be to their advantage and some private companies have pulled out of public service projects when they have decided that it is not commercially viable. The Heart Hospital in central London, for example, was re-nationalised and sold back to the government because it was in financial difficulty (Allison, 2001). Once again, this expresses the essence of the workings of the capitalist system. It is important to uncover the ideological force that is driving particular situations.
1.3 The GATS and the interpretation of 'Services' How then, can we illustrate that the corporate takeover of libraries is on the agenda and indeed, is already taking place? The corporate takeover of libraries can be placed within three distinct categories: - commercialisation, privatisation and capitalisation, and these will be considered below. All three areas can help to fulfil the fundamental aims of the GATS - which in essence, is the opening up the public services to capital (see the articles under the section on the GATS in this issue, for further information). However, some would argue that our public services are not covered under the GATS. Lord Newby, for example, argued in the 'You and Yours' radio programme (BBC, 2001) that our public services are not covered under the GATS, and he said that:
However, if one reads the GATS (1994) document carefully, it is very ambiguous, to say the least, as to whether public services are included or not (Rikowski, 2001). 'Services' are defined in the GATS Agreement in Part 1 Article 1, on Scope and Definition' and in point (b), in the following way:
Furthermore, Part 1 Article1(c) of the GATS Agreement indicates:
But this includes almost all public services; few public services have no element of competition today. In a document issued by the Trade Policy Directorate on 7th March this year it was argued that:
Under this statement it appears that we are reliant on interpretations of what 'services' means under the GATS. Yet one possible interpretation could be that virtually all our public services would be included under the GATS. It is, to say the least, ambivalent.
2. The corporate takeover of libraries: commercialisation, privatisation and capitalisation There are three interrelated aspects of the corporate takeover of libraries in England as driven by the GATS: commercialisation, privatisation and capitalisation. Sub-divisions within these can also be identified. All this will now be explored in some detail, followed by examples of where these developments are already occurring in libraries and information. First, there is commercialisation. This can be broken down into four distinct sub-divisions. First of all, there is the creation of markets or quasi-markets in libraries. A second aspect of library commercialisation is that the library is viewed as a site for selling products and services, and this process is already well underway, with notions of income streams and income generation already well established. The third sub-division is where libraries are viewed by private enterprises as sites for the promotion of their products: advertising, public relations exercises and product promotions are the primary mechanisms here. Private companies could rent out a small part of a library, for example, provide a 'service' and in this way advertise themselves. This third aspect of commercialisation links with the first, and the creation of a library service market means that individual libraries or chains of libraries, even library services within a still public library field, are forced to compete. This last element of competition points towards 'library league tables' as with schools and now hospitals and police services. As already indicated, this competitive environment is already being created, under 'Best Value'. Libraries are being forced to compete against each other (like schools and colleges) and an inspection regime (i.e. Best Value Inspections) will enforce competition as a core value. The aim within the library standards, for example, is to get all public library services into the top 25%, although this is clearly a logical impossibility. There are four 'Best Value' principles enshrined in the Best Value Guidance for librarians in England known as the '4Cs', and one of these '4Cs' is 'Challenge' and,
Under 'Compete' (another of Best Value's '4 Cs') it refers to the creation of a market:
The '4Cs' will be expanded on under the section on Best Value, but what is clear at this stage is that a market in library services is being nurtured by the Best Value regime. This market is a necessary condition for the opening up of public library services to corporate capital. The overall vision for this is GATS-inspired. Making these links is crucial. The fourth form of commercialisation involves 'extraction'. Here, libraries can be used as sites for extracting money (and this money can then be distributed to various private companies), which in turn helps to provide investment and thus to ensure the continued success of global capitalism. Micropayments (small payments for Internet use) will be discussed later in this context. The second aspect of the corporate takeover of libraries is Privatisation - and this and this can be sub-divided into three main forms. Firstly, libraries can be run for profits directly, with up-front charges for core services. This could involve privatisation of a complete library service, or parts of a library service. This will not happen in any significant way in the short-term, as not enough money can currently be made out of libraries, but it could happen in the long-term, when the 'market is ripe'. This would occur after various changes have taken effect. For example, voluntary organisations running public library services in the short-term and turning themselves into for-profit organisations in the long-term and the introduction of micropayment schemes on the Internet, when it is possible to obtain significant amounts of money from people undertaking transactions in libraries on the Internet. A second form of privatisation involves companies making profits out of running libraries at a lower cost than the price they are contracted to run them. They might also develop new product lines, and engage in outsourcing and sub-contracting in order to make profits. This is the Government's preferred form of privatisation at the current time, as they can then still claim that library services are basically in the 'public' sector. The third form is where the private sector takes over and runs capital projects, such as the building of a new central library or a service-wide ICT system. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) comes under this category. The third category of the corporate takeover of libraries is Capitalisation. Here, libraries are viewed as sites of capital accumulation and profit making. The capitalisation of libraries means that the other two processes - commercialisation and privatisation - are brought together to ensure that libraries and library services and operations become commodified (they can be bought and sold) and library services are established with profit making as primary directive and goal. Secondly, library enterprises become traded and enter into the humdrum world of the stock and futures markets. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, capitalisation involves a process whereby labour comes to take on a specific social form such that it is geared up to creating value and profit, with consequences for de-professionalisation and the recomposition of skills and responsibilities. This leads to endless library reviews and re-designation of jobs that function to smooth the way for the various forms of commercialisation and privatisation of library services. The three aspects of the corporate takeover of libraries, with examples, are addressed in detail below. Collectively, they add up to a new library experience - for library and information users and library and information workers. This is an experience shaped by the forces of capital: the value form of labour, markets, library enterprises and the profit making process.
2.1 Commercialisation - examples a. Market research approaches to library users and the creation of markets The market research approach falls under the first form of commercialisation referred to above - the creation of markets or quasi-markets. In this scenario, library users are transformed into 'consumers' and market research is undertaken in order to gather information on library and information consumers' wants, needs and their potential future wants and needs. Capitalism is also excellent at persuading people that they want things that they had never even thought about before. Helen Weiss provides a powerful example here, when she discusses the development of strategies to obtain more information about borrowers wants and needs in the Library Association Record (August 2000). She describes how management information systems can help libraries adapt commercial marketing techniques to revolutionise their service. She speaks about supermarket loyalty cards, which are used to analyse spending patterns and then suggests that, perhaps, borrowers lending cards could be developed in the same sort of way. Southwark Council is using TALIS to generate management information that will help them to identify the characteristics of users and predict their future needs. Adrian Olsen, Head of Southwark Council's Library Service noted that:
Thus, there could be information about the borrower inserted on their library card, outlining some facts and characteristics about the user that could provide indicators about their future product wants and needs. Users' library cards could contain information similar to that currently included on supermarket loyalty cards. Of course, some may argue that this mechanism is benign and gives librarians more information about user needs and desires. However, once this is in place its purpose can easily be shifted into a competitive market scenario, particularly if, in the future, the library supplier is a private company and not the local authority. In this situation, library users would then become 'consumers' (or customers), and could be treated similarly to supermarket customers. For example, information about business students in the local community could be obtained and the central library could then purchase business journals, textbooks and databases that are applicable to their particular needs. A separate business section could be established in the central library and business students could then be "invited" into this section for a small fee. This form of commercialisation could also occur even if the library was still under local authority control. The model could be extended if the information was sold on to third parties, and they might then use it for mail shots and other marketing initiatives. Of course, the Data Protection Act curtails the passing on of this information. Yet once a private operator is running the library (or a chain of libraries) then the temptation to find ways around the data protection laws increases as the profit motive, rather than public good or public service values, becomes the dominant drive underpinning the service's operations. Once such a scenario is operational efforts could then be made to try to anticipate business students future wants and needs and, indeed, to help to shape and create these wants and needs. They could be persuaded, for example, that belonging to a nearby law library for a small fee is crucial to their needs. This law library could happen to be run by the same organisation running the business library (whether this be a private company running the two libraries on its own, or a private company running them in conjunction with the local authority or with a voluntary organisation etc.). In this way, the private company starts to expand its business. b. Income generation Income generation falls under the second aspect of commercialisation in libraries, as described above. Income generation has been in existence for a number of years, and is gathering pace. Most librarians are very familiar with this. It includes selling items such as postcards, memorabilia, bookmarks, pens and other stationery items. Certain materials are also hired out for a fee (such as videos, cassettes and CDs). This was certainly happening when I was working in the London Borough of Newham, particularly in the early 1990s. However, the recent Education Bill indicates how much further the process could go. Estelle Morris, Education Secretary, supports clauses in the Education Bill that aim to set schools up as post offices and sellers of a range of stationery products. In turn, with the creeping privatisation of post offices we witness profit-making operators taking over increasing areas of floor space. My local post office, the Ilford Post Office, for example, has taken on Partners to operate a stationery outlet. A similar fate for libraries can be readily envisaged. c. Companies 'benevolently' investing in libraries? On first consideration, it might appear that there are no examples of private enterprises advertising and promoting their products in libraries. Companies are not currently allowed to advertise blatantly in places such as libraries and schools. However, this is starting to happen in a subtle way. Bill Gates, for example, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given £2.6 million to UK public libraries for the creation of ICT learning centres in deprived areas. This is being used to expand the People's Network. (Resource, 2001c). Bill Gates does not need to display big Microsoft posters in these ICT learning centres in order to promote Microsoft. Microsoft and Bill Gates are well known too much of the population already. This will place Bill Gates in a very favourable light - Bill Gates giving money to deprived areas, Bill Gates wanting to help the poor people, Bill Gates wanting to do something about the digital divide - the 'haves' and the 'have nots' in the IT world. Thus, Microsoft, a large business corporation is being promoted in our public libraries. Secondly, in some of our public libraries IT centres are being set up by private companies within the libraries themselves and some are running training courses in IT - they can be allocated a small room within a large central library, for example. There will be no big posters on the door advertising the company, but there will be a small sign outlining who is sponsoring the centre. In this way, the company is being advertised. Library users will probably find the centre very beneficial, thus providing the opportunity for the company to expand and develop this at a later date. It is also interesting to note that private companies are moving into schools in this way as well. Victor Rikowski, in his article in this issue describes how the HSBC is involved in his school. HSBC has sponsored the school and is now able to try to persuade children at the school to join the bank. d. Micropayments Micropayments can become another form of library commercialisation, and this is in the form of extraction. For some time now, various parties have been trying to think of ways in which money can be made from searching and undertaking transactions on the Internet. Micropayments is seen to be the solution. Basically, this means that people pay small amounts of money (which can be as little as 0.1p) for undertaking transactions on the Internet. There are various definitions of micropayments. W3C (und.), for example, refers to micropayments, noting that: 'Micropayments have to be suitable for the sale of non-tangible goods over the Internet' (p.3). However, there have been various problems with bringing in such payment systems (see Shirky, 2000 and Crocker, 1999 - Crocker was one of the founders of CyberCash which was a micropayment system that failed). Mechanisms for payments are complex, and there are problems such as security and trust that have, so far, been prohibitive. However, the White Paper on Micropayments drafted by StorageTek (2001b) is a significant and revealing document. It says that most of the problems have now been overcome and that various options are now being set in place to make it easy for people to pay for undertaking searches on the Internet. David Slater, the Marketing Manager of StorageTek spoke about the White Paper saying that:
Note, in particular, the 18-month time scale here - the hope being that mechanisms for making money through transactions on the Internet will be in place within this period of time (by the end of 2002), so that it coincides with the GATS timetable. The GATS timetable has been laid out clearly by the World Development Movement (adapted from Sinclair, 2000). The timetable shows how the GATS 2000 negotiations began in Geneva in February 2000. In December 2000 the US started to request service liberalisation from various other countries and in March 2001 trade negotiators in Geneva started work on a package with the aim of subjecting more services to WTO rules. The end of 2002 is when the US hopes to conclude all these GATS negotiations. What implications, then, does micropayments yield for libraries and information? The concept of micropayments directly runs counter to the concept of the free flow of information. As stated in 'Rethinking Micropayments':
Another possibility is that people might use libraries less, because if they have to pay for their transactions on the Internet, wherever they are, then they might choose options other than libraries. Worden (1998) outlines this scenario, and he says:
If people use libraries less in this way it could clearly have many repercussions. For example, it may lessen the availability of books and other sources of information for users. Library users would lose the benefit of the rich range of information sources that are available in the library but are not present at home. However, at this juncture I do not wish to go into the debate about whether people would be more likely to use the Internet at home rather than in their library, in the future. Significantly, what is implicit in Worden's quote is that libraries will be paying for transactions on the Internet and these payments will probably be made by the library service (be it private sector, voluntary sector or local authority) rather than individual users. Certainly, companies operating micropayments systems will not be happy with people paying to use the Internet at home, yet exempt from such payments in libraries. If such exemptions could be introduced then the opposite scenario to the one envisaged by Worden might materialise. That is, people might use the library for their Internet transactions rather than stay at home and surf. In which case, all the hard work that has gone into trying to introduce micropayments would be undermined, with predictable complaints to the Department of Trade and Industry from companies hit by this outcome. At a deeper level, it would seem that exemptions for libraries from micropayments constitutes a 'barrier to trade' under the WTO's GATS Agreement, and private corporations could seek to overturn such exemption rules as the GATS-inspired trade liberalisation regime takes increasing hold of the service sector. If library services are forced to engage with micropayments then they will need to recoup their money in some way, either through local authority subsidy for micropayments (which in theory also contravenes GATS rules) or by user subscription, or user direct payment. In my radio interview (BBC, 2001) I hinted at direct payments, but in reality this mechanism would probably be too cumbersome, so the subscription option may be the preferred choice - with all the consequences for differential payments and exemptions for those on benefits or low incomes. More generally, micropayments poses a significant threat to information flowing freely, one of the main components for an open and democratic society. Access to information and an informed public are vital checks on the operations and power of governments and corporations. The importance of public scrutiny regarding corporate and government policy cannot be overstated. Both require constant monitoring if the notions of public good and public interest are to have real and substantive meaning. Micropayments, viewed as opportunities for profit making, entail the limitation of access to information on condition of payment. As StorageTek (2001b) note:
This last point from StorageTek heralds a situation where some vital information will only be available when accessed by micropayments. This sets up a new digital divide between those who can afford some of the more expensive items that can only be accessed by micropayments and those that cannot. This overlays the conventional definition of the digital divide between those who have access and know how to use information technology and those that do not. Hence, micropayments brings with it a double digital divide. Amusingly, both micropayments and Best Value have '4 Cs' as underpinning principles. In micropayments there are four key elements that are essential to achieving net profits. These are:
Collection is involved in particular with new innovations in e-payments and convenient online payment methods. Traditional online payment providers, such as banks and credit card networks are losing their share of the market to Person-to-Person (P2P) payment providers. Convergence implies that payment service providers (PSPs) are becoming the next generation of banks. The traditional banking sector will become virtual telecommunications companies, and telecommunications companies will become banks. Thus:
Convenience refers to considering and developing a range of convenient online payment methods. In particular, the concept of convenience focuses on new technologies and payment models that would change consumer-spending habits. Credit cards are not seen as being very convenient payment methods. They cannot handle very small payments, for example, and are not available to under-18 year olds. Thus, different payment methods are being explored such as smart cards and methods through mobile devices (such as mobile phones). Sally Rumsey (1999) alerts us to some of the experiments and trials that are being undertaken in this field. She reports on the TOLIMAC - Total Library Management Concept - an electronic documentary delivery service that uses a smart card for enabling users to pay for secure access to specific articles on the Internet. In the micropayments world it is held that 'convenience will drive business' (StorageTek, 2001b, p.3.). Content is significant to the extent that it enables and generates micropayment opportunities. Thus, content that either cannot be charged for, or for which customers are unwilling to pay, is unacceptable in the world of micropayments. Furthermore, high quality content that generates payment encourages customers to click onto the next page - for which an additional charge can be made. Thus, for StorageTek: 'The more clicks, the greater the number of transactions, the more revenue will be generated' (2001a, p.3). Micro-payments will be introduced, first stealthily as proponents fear public backlash to such payments, and then (if such backlash is muted) with significantly greater speed and force. Currently, EU legislation is being standardised which will ease the process. Furthermore, the UK's eventual entry into the Euro will address many of the tax and standardisation of payment issues generated by micropayments. Dealing with a large number of different currencies clearly complicates the matter and makes it more difficult to implement micro-payments effectively. This is another reason why the current New Labour government is so enthusiastic about introducing the Euro. Furthermore, efforts are being made to make micropayments user friendly and easier to deal with. Microsoft has been developing work on this with a smart card initiative. As Worden writes:
Worden notes that companies like BT and Digital Equipment Corporation have invested millions in micropayment trials. However, many of these various micropayment systems have not been very successful so far, but now the situation is starting to change, particularly as different technological forces converge, such as web TV, cheap network computers and smart cards holding digital cash. There are also many examples of where micropayments have been introduced and used. A number of these have been outlined by StorageTek in its White Paper. The New York Times, for example, has implemented a micropayment solution to charge small fees to enable users to access past articles from the newspaper online. Also, FT.com (the online version of the Financial Times) has changed its position in regard to free access to its content and Napster, the music service, has been forced to introduce a micro-payment system after a court ruling prevented the free distribution of copyrighted music on the Internet. Cybergold (Crocker, 1999) and MyPoints, interestingly, offer 'reverse' micropayments. With this scheme the customer is rewarded with points that can be exchanged for products and services for viewing content, responding to advertisements and reading articles. On the evidence available, it appears that micropayments will become a feature of Internet access in the near future and this will have direct implications for Internet use in libraries. Our libraries will become profit-generating centres for Internet companies. The key issue will be how libraries pay micropayments: whether users pay directly, by subscription to a library or whether libraries or local authorities become the payment provider with users paying indirectly through council taxes. Consideration of these options may well politicise the micropayments phenomenon, but the possibility of seeking micropayment-free zones for public libraries may offer the most equitable solution. This scenario potentially runs up against the GATS though, as a 'barrier to trade'. The labyrinth that is developing before us functions to cut off solutions that incorporate social justice. 2.2 Privatisation - arguments and discussion Three distinct forms of privatisation can be discerned, as described above. The third form has been happening for some time now in the library world. This is where the private sector takes over and runs capital projects, such as the building of a new central library or a service-wide ICT system. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) comes under this category, and various examples of PFI in libraries are given below. However, there are fewer examples of public libraries being privatised and run as profit-making organisations, as such - either with companies running the complete library service, or parts of the library service, or companies making profits out of running libraries at a lower cost than the price they are contracted to run them (the first two forms of privatisation). Instead, various arguments are put forward to suggest that this is not on the agenda at all. The first argument is that there is no evidence to suggest that privatisation of public libraries is happening. The proposition is that this first argument rests on scare mongering. The second argument is that the GATS has not so far affected libraries and will not do so significantly in the future. The third argument, and most persuasive, is that corporate capital cannot make profits out of public libraries. This argument rests with the view that people would be reluctant to pay to borrow books and other media and those that can afford it would more likely buy their own from retailers. Let us consider these arguments in turn. In regard to the first point - there is some evidence, and this will be outlined below. The second argument is incorrect; there are many examples where the GATS has, and is, affecting libraries and some of these examples are illustrated throughout this article. See the Best Value section below, for one example of this - where I show how the GATS is formulating and shaping the Best Value agenda. The examples are subtle though, and are not immediately obvious. It is clearly not the case that the GATS leads to forced, immediate privatisation, as Richard Caborn was keen to point out when he wrote to the Library Association Record on 8th March 2001, saying that:
However, this does not mean that the GATS is not effecting libraries and information, but just that the GATS are effecting libraries and information in subtle, seemingly unobtrusive ways. In fact, this is what makes the GATS and the whole global capitalist agenda so powerful and so apparently impenetrable and unstoppable. If it was more up front, there would probably be far more objection to the agenda - people do not usually like to see their way of life suddenly disappearing before their very eyes. They do not like to lose what they have come to accept as their 'rights' - which in this case is a free public library service. Moreover, in order to enable the GATS to take effect it requires the work and willingness of those currently working in the library service, to help to bring about this scenario. If private companies just suddenly 'took libraries over' they would not receive this type of assistance. The third argument appears more persuasive. Who would be interested in trying to make money out of loaning out a few books; surely, there is no money to be made from that, many would argue? However, I am not suggesting that significant amounts of money definitely can be made out of libraries, either now or in the future (although it could well be possible - given the right situation). What I am illustrating, though, is the direction in which the whole situation is moving. The environment is being created which will encourage, indeed entice private corporations to see the benefits to be gained from moving into libraries. These conditions are largely being established willingly, albeit probably naively, by librarians, information professionals and other library workers under various mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms are discussed in later sections of this article - these are Best Value, Library Standards and the People's Network. Once the conditions are 'ripe', then private capital can move in. But perhaps some will say - the conditions will never be 'ripe'. Such arguments are also irrelevant, even if they are proved to be true, in the short-term. They can never be proved to be true in the long-term, because capital's drive is infinite - it will never be satisfied, it will never stop. If it fails in one area, then it will try again in another, or try in the same area but in a different way, with different mechanisms. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) failed, for example, but this has now been largely incorporated within WTO agreements.2 Furthermore, quotes from various seemingly pro-business books also show clearly the direction in which we are all being pushed. Business folk, in their efforts to understand what is going on in the world - which they need to do in order to respond to changing economic situations - often use terminology and describe situations that provide poignant starting points for analyses of contemporary capitalism. Concepts such as 'human capital', 'intellectual capital' and 'value' that are used repeatedly in much business literature are significant concepts in today's capitalist world as they help to describe the direction in which this latest phase of capitalism, the 'knowledge revolution', is moving. For example, Boyett and Boyett note in The Guru Guide to the Knowledge Economy, that:
Making money out of libraries seems a simple and feasible aim compared to making money out of 'emotional markets'. There are other examples that illustrate the extent to which everything is starting to become commodified today. The beaches are one clear example here. Patti Waldmeir (2001) wrote an interesting article about the privatisation of many of the beaches in America. She said:
The article also quotes from Kerry Kehoe, who is on the general counsel for the Coastal States Organisation, which supports access to the beaches. He said:
Thus, it appears that part of the earth that we thought belonged to 'the people' is now being sold and commodified. What next? What other parts of the Earth can, and are, to be commodified? To conclude this section: I am illustrating the direction in which we are all being forced along. I have several examples below to illustrate various aspects whereby privatisation is already infiltrating libraries, but in a sense, even if I did not have these examples, this would not alter the direction in which we are headed or lessen the general argument. The processes described are in their infancy, but are developing rapidly.
2.3 Privatisation - examples a. Libraries run directly for profit The first form of privatisation I described previously is where private companies are running libraries (or parts of libraries) directly, for profit. There are some subscription libraries that would fall under this category, but they are small in number. There are also company libraries that function to augment the capacity of the firm to make profits (e.g. libraries in law firms) and media libraries that generate revenue (e.g. newspaper libraries). But I will not pursue these examples further as the focus here is on corporate capital moving into public sector libraries and electronic libraries setting up in competition with mainstream public and academic libraries, operating on a for-profit basis. There are now IT centres/Internet projects that are being set up in public libraries by private companies. Ormes (1996) describes such projects in detail. She indicates that an Internet project called Cybercity is situated in Bath Central Library. The area is screened off and houses a number of PCs that offer Internet access. It is used by the public, and is very popular. The council could not afford to run such a project, so it is being run for profit by a local company called GlobalInternet. As Ormes (1996) notes:
Another company that is working with public libraries is called Input/Output. It has 10 centres in public libraries across the country. Marylebone Library was the first of these. As well as providing Internet access, it also provides access to software packages such as word processing and spreadsheets and runs computer-training courses. South Ayrshire council started a South Ayrshire Cyber Project in 1996. The intention was to open a number of Cyber Centres in libraries across the county, providing the public with access to the Internet, software packages and CD-ROMs. Questia (Fox, 2001), netLibrary and ebrary (Crane, 2001) are all electronic libraries:
So Questia, for example, is an Internet company aimed at serving students in an academic environment, providing online information from books, encyclopaedias and journals in the humanities and social sciences for fees (Fox, 2001). Questia:
Fox also refers to some other companies that have launched similar products aimed at both students and faculty staff. These are Proquest Academic Edition's Xanadu, and Jones's e-global Library (ibid.). Many other examples could be given, but what they indicate is that the private sector is either moving into public sector and academic libraries or setting up alternative operations with the aim of making profits. This is a process that is still at an early stage of development.3 b. Private companies making a profit out of running libraries at a lower cost than the price they are contracted to run them The second form of privatisation is where private companies make a profit out of running libraries at a lower cost then the price they are contracted to run them. This has just started to happen in England, in the London Borough of Haringey. The September 2001 issue of the Library Association Record reported in one of its news items that: Consultants have been called in to run a local authority library service. This is a first - although the move is temporary. (LA Record, 2001f, p.515) Haringey received a very negative report by the Best Value Inspectors and this has resulted in Instant Library Ltd, under its co-founder Diana Edmonds, being given the 'opportunity' to turn the Haringey library service round. The library service was criticised in a number of ways in the Best Value report. The criticisms included poor opening hours, low staff morale and poor management, especially stock management. However, Haringey was one of the first councils to do a Best Value review, and so were 'guinea pigs', in this respect. As explained in the Best Value section below, some authorities have not entered into the 'spirit' of Best Value. Some librarians and library workers have naively thought that the main purpose of 'Best Value' was to provide a good library service, serving the needs of the local community, whereas the main purpose of it is to enable the GATS to take effect. This is probably what happened in Haringey. So, this has provided an ideal opportunity, to enable the private sector to move in. The fact that it is being run by 'Instant Library Ltd' eases the process as well, because this company is quite well known in the library world (particularly as a recruitment agency). As the former head of Haringey library service (who retired in 2000) said of Instant Library Ltd: Some people may be suspicious, but I see it as a positive thing. They seem anxious to work with the staff, and are being very approachable and open. (LA Record, 2001f, p.515) There would be far more suspicion, I feel sure, if a completely unknown private company had moved in, and particularly if it had been a foreign company. By this gentle-gentle approach, capital hopes to make further inroads. Instant Library Ltd is on a 6-months trial, and an assessment will be made on the work that they have undertaken after this period. If 'progress' (in line with Best Value) has been made, then I am sure that they will continue to run Haringey libraries. At some point Instant Library Ltd will probably take over Haringey libraries completely. At some more distant point Instant Library Ltd will probably then be taken over themselves by a larger corporation. There we have it - the start of corporations moving into libraries. Am I being cynical? Why then was the local authority in Haringey not given the chance to 'improve' under the Best Value imperative, rather than just allow Instant Library Ltd to move in? The LA Record explains how Maria Stephenson, a middle manager in Haringey said that they were not given guidelines on how to undertake Best Value and that they 'didn't have the skills'. They were one of the first authorities to undertake a Best Value review, so surely they should have been given more help and guidance. Yet, we can speculate why that did not happen: it would not have provided the opportunity for the private sector to start to run our public library services. Furthermore, if no examples materialised from 'Best Value' in this way - providing the opportunity for alternative suppliers, then the Best Value regime itself would be seen to be a waste of time. It is a mechanism that has been established in order to enable the GATS to take effect, so it must be seen to be doing its job. Best Value would not be being implemented, as intended, if all the Best Value Inspection Reports concluded that all the local authorities were providing a good public library service, or at least, a service that could be improved whilst remaining in the control of the local authority. 2c. The private sector running capital projects The third form of privatisation is where the private sector takes over and runs capital projects, such as the building of a new central library or a service-wide ICT system. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) comes under this category, and there are various examples of where PFI has been adopted in libraries. PFI is often portrayed as being an opportunity to get investment into our public services in general, although George Monbiot in his book The Captive State (2000) has shown PFI to be an expensive, inefficient and undemocratic way of providing public services. Others, such as Dexter Whitfield have also shown this (Whitfield, 2001) (See also Labour Left Briefing, 2000). In regard to library examples of PFI, Richard Sibthorpe (2001) describes the first PFI to incorporate construction and IT solutions, which was undertaken in Bournemouth. It provided Bournemouth with a new central library and ICT (information and computer technology) facilities across its whole branch network. A 30-year contract between the Council and Information Resources (Bournemouth) Ltd was signed to build and facility-manage a new central library. This is a 'pathfinder agreement' and was one of 29 pathfinder agreements around the country. Pathfinder is an official government scheme and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DTER) gave nearly £15 million towards the new library. Linda Constable (Bournemouth Council Library Officer, and Manager for the ICT element of the project) said: A great partnership has been developed between the council, Information Resources, Allied International and TALIS information, all working to deliver Best Value and service to both the other organisations involved in the deal and the library users in Bournemouth. (Constable in Sibthorpe, 2001, p.236) The library needed to ensure that it remained technologically advanced throughout the 30-year period of the contract. It was difficult for them to know, or predict, what new technologies would develop, so the Council got guidance from the DETR's newly published Treasury Task Force ICT Guidelines which introduced Technology Refreshed. Bournemouth Council then went on to implement a series of Change Control Agreements. Change Control is an essential element of the PFI contract process, and is particularly important when implementing hardware and software ICT projects as things change so rapidly. Sibthorpe notes in regard to PFI that: The initiatives also provide private investors with valuable exposure to new markets. (2001, p.237) Thus, PFI fits in closely with the GATS agenda. Furthermore, Sibthorpe says that: The Local Government Association acts as a facilitator between local government and the PFI process, focusing on Pathfinder projects, such as the Bournemouth deal. It is these initiatives which are seen as examples of the potential scope of PFI, and they are more than likely to serve as models for future schemes. (Sibthorpe, 2001, p. 237) Sibthorpe concludes by adding that: Private Finance Initiatives enable the public sector to effectively purchase a service from the private sector, allowing them to avoid the need to fund the infrastructure that the service provision would require. They utilise the efficiency and expertise that the private sector has to offer. PFIs look set to be the blueprint for the way in which this, and probably any government, will be aiming to do business with the private sector for the foreseeable future. (Sibthorpe, 2001, p.237) It is interesting how Sibthorpe notes the Government's keenness to continue to do business with the private sector in the future, in this respect. There are other examples of PFI in libraries. Hackney Technology Learning Centre, which includes a new central library and museum, has used the PFI initiative to build its new library, which is due to open in April 2002. (LA Record, 2001a) Kent County Council is operating a PFI contract for the provision, financing and operation of the council's IT system. This includes the library system and a public information network of over 1000 terminals. Also, Brighton is developing a new central library through PFI (LA Record, 2000e).
2.4 Capitalisation - further observations The capitalisation of libraries and library services is a process; a process that deepens over time with libraries becoming sites for capital accumulation and profit making. There are three aspects to this. Firstly, the other two processes - commercialisation and privatisation - feed off each other such that libraries and library services become increasingly commodified. This implies that library services are increasingly ruled by the goal of profit making. Notions of income generation, income streams, marketing, library products, the user as 'customer' or 'consumer' and the market, competition and cost-effectiveness and efficiency become the yardsticks for success. This implies a 'culture change' regarding the ways library staff are encouraged to view what they are about. The capitalisation of libraries implies its businessification - the library and library services as businesses, bathed in business values and outlooks. Secondly, as the commodification and business takeover of library services increases then library enterprises become traded, bought and sold. The companies running library services start to figure in stock markets, and international capital - aided and abetted by the GATS process - starts to take hold of national library services. This process can be seen more readily in what is happening to schools in contemporary Britain. Some of the companies taking over the running of schools and Local Education Authorities are traded on the stock market. Indeed, as Bernard Regan (2001) points out, the average share prices of these 'education businesses' have outperformed the overall level of share prices in the last few years. Thus, it can be envisaged that the business takeover of library services may have similar outcomes and effects as to what is happening in schools, with profits made from running services at a lower cost than contract price. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, at the heart of the capitalisation of libraries is a particular form of labour: the value form. Capital, as Karl Marx (1867) reminds us, is a social relation, not a "thing" (i.e. a commodity), though is appears as a "thing" as it is incorporated in commodities. As workers (labourers) we have a social relation with a process (the value-creating process in the labour process) and with the substance of capital's social universe itself (value) (McLaren and Rikowski, 2001). In terms of labour, the value form is based on the fact that workers produce more value (i.e. surplus value) than that represented by their wages (the value of their own labour-power, their capacity to labour). Surplus value arises when workers produce more value incorporated in commodities than that incorporated in their wages: surplus value. Profit is a part of this surplus value (other elements leaving the enterprise as tax, rents and so on), and it is this that drives on the managers of capitalised libraries to restructure services continually to maximise profits. This form of labour, the value form, is antithetical to outmoded and 'traditional' forms of labour resting on notions of public service or the public good. It rests on the notions of value, price, profit and competition (markets). It should be emphasised that the capitalisation of library labour is typically a drawn-out process, certainly not something that is carried out overnight. This is because it is developed as the other two processes - commercialisation and privatisation - are being nurtured. All this has tremendous implications for restructuring library workers' labour, and the forces and motivations driving it. The labour of library workers changes its mode; it becomes a different form of labour, the value form. The concept of the capitalisation of libraries addresses these momentous changes that are currently taking place before our eyes. The capitalisation of libraries and the imposition of the value form of labour imply a whole raft of 'softening up' processes. Library workers' labour is reconfigured so that it becomes more flexible, adaptable and adequate to the facilitation of libraries being turned into businesses. Reviews of library services, modernisation programmes and redefinitions of 'professional' duties become apparent necessities. Furthermore, professional values and jobs that appear to stand in the way of the capitalisation of libraries become at risk. This is because the process of turning labour into value-creating labour that is the source of surplus value out of which arises profit is antagonistic to professional values and attitudes that place 'service' and the needs of library users above all other values - including commercial ones. Many library services have witnessed decimation of their professional staff as the way is being cleared for further capitalisation of library services. In the London Borough of Newham Library Service where I worked up to 1995, a Library Review held in the early 1990s had the effect of clearing out swathes of professionally qualified staff (my own post as training officer was eventually abolished). Another review has just been completed in Newham. Such continual reviews also has the effect of making staff feel more insecure and it is less likely that staff will join trade unions and take industrial action. The workforce becomes fragmented and disjointed, particularly with the increase in the casualisation that accompany such reviews. In Newham, staff were either not replaced at all, or replaced with unqualified staff. This process was not unique; many other library services suffered and are suffering a similar fate. Thus, on data compiled by Loughborough University by 1996-97 the number of professional librarians per 10,000 of the population was at 1.1, whereas in 1991-92 it had been 1.3 (British Council, 1999, p.1). But the capitalisation of libraries does not just threaten professional posts; it undercuts the service ethos as it reconfigures the prevailing values and goals of library services in terms of value-creation, cost-effectiveness and profit. It changes the whole face of library work as it takes hold and seeps into the everyday operations of library services. Professional values and the service ethos can act as barriers to the businessification and capitalisation of library services, and those pushing through the business reforms cannot tolerate that. Fundamentally, the profit ethos becomes far more important than the service ethos.
3. Mechanisms, Facilitators and Enablers for the Corporate Takeover of Public Libraries In this section, I shall outline some of the mechanisms that are in place which will enable the GATS to take effect, thus enabling the corporate takeover to develop through the three main modes outlined above. Thus, Best Value, for example, is a mechanism that will enable the commercialisation, privatisation and capitalisation of libraries and information to take place within the public sector. I will focus on three main mechanisms - Best Value, Library Standards and the People's Network, all of which are having profound effects on our public libraries today.
3.1 Best Value Best Value had been defined and described by Angela Watson in the Best Returns report in the following way:
The four 'best value principles', the '4Cs' are described in Section 5 of the report, 'Best Value Returns'. The '4Cs' are: Challenge - why, how and by whom a service is provided Compare - performance with others, including the private and the voluntary sectors Consult - with local taxpayers, service users, partners, the business community and the voluntary sector Competition - use fair and open competition, wherever possible, to secure efficient and effective services Thus, the concept of 'Best Value' might sound promising in itself, but even just by glancing at the above definition and the '4Cs' it quickly becomes apparent that all is not as promising as it might initially appear to be. There is no clear reference to what the aims and goals of the public library service should actually be within the Best Value guidelines - not from a philosophical perspective. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), in contrast, has a clear view about this. It says:
Furthermore, Paul Whitney who was the IFLA representative at the WTO meeting in Seattle (see the IFLA section below) says that:
Secondly, returning to Best Value, the reference in Best Value to continual improvement is very tied up with capitalism. Why do we need to continually seek improvements - the latest brand of this, the latest brand of that? This is because 'innovation' is an essential drive within capitalism: accumulation of capital demands constant reorganisation of production and of social life. This is a de-humanising process. Libby Brooks referred to Paul Robinson's views about the capitalist system in The Guardian, emphasising that Robinson views capitalism as:
Referring to Robinson is enlightening because he was a library worker at the University College London library, who was involved in the anti-capitalist protests at Gothenberg, and was subsequently arrested and then imprisoned. Finally, all the '4Cs' expose clearly the main purpose behind Best Value - such as, compare performance with other sectors - the private and voluntary sectors; use fair and open competition and consult with others, such as the business community. The 'hidden', or not so hidden message here is clear: local authorities should no longer be free to organise and run their public library services as they see fit, and in line with the needs of the people in the local community. Instead, there are a set of higher priorities - consulting, competing and opening up the service to other possible suppliers, which in the long-term will mean consulting, and then competing with the private sector. We are fed rhetoric, such as the idea that this is necessary in order to provide an 'efficient public library service'. However, from a social justice perspective 'efficiency' should not be the main aim within our public libraries: values such as creating a sense of community and belonging should surely override 'efficiency' considerations; as should the service ethos in general. Best Value is one of the clearest and most transparent mechanisms for enabling the GATS to come to fruition in the public library sector - it is one of the national faces of the GATS for UK public libraries. The Best Value process is also being implemented in other public service sectors, but it seems to be particularly virulent in the public library sector. Many people working in public libraries seem to see 'Best Value' as worthwhile on the surface, and would probably be rather surprised that I make critical statements about where Best Value is leading. The concept of Best Value sounds appealing. Best Value sounds like a way of providing an efficient, effective and worthwhile public library service that fulfils the wants and needs of the local community. But this is not essentially what its purpose is. We must be wary of the use and misuse of words. For example, we witness Tony Blair talking about 'modernising' our public services and bringing about radical change in their delivery. Being 'radical', traditionally, has been associated with many socialist approaches to reorganising society. Certainly, in the United States the concept of 'radical' is akin to socialism in many political and academic discourses. However, this is certainly not what Tony Blair means when he talks about 'modernising' our public services and bringing about radical change. So what is the main purpose behind Best Value? In essence, Best Value is a mechanism for enabling the public library service in England to be opened up to different suppliers, rather than library provision just residing within the orbit of local authorities, thereby creating a market environment. As Angela Watson notes in Best Returns:
Thus, here it appears that local authority library services are being instructed and guided in bringing about their own demise. For Watson, they should do this 'in good spirit' and with a good will. The strategy for the marketisation and privatisation of public libraries and the role of Best Value in this enterprise is so clearly outlined by Watson that little further comment is required. The intention behind Best Value is to create competition and a market environment that will thereby facilitate the corporate takeover of public libraries in line with the GATS agenda. Obviously, the process will take time, and there could be backlashes to the process - from either public library workers or library users, or both, that will slow or terminate the strategy. Furthermore, some library services may try to subvert Best Value for truly community centred and social justice goals, either intentionally or unintentionally. They might not play the Best Value game in the correct competitive spirit. I feel sure that many local authorities, when implementing Best Value for their library services, have been and will be implementing it in ways that they believe is to the ultimate benefit of the local population. Furthermore, some will think that this is what Best Value is about anyway. The main purpose of Best Value is not made very obvious. Locating the Watson quotes in the 'Best Returns' document that clarified the main purpose behind Best Value was not easy, for example - they were hidden within a weighty document. Thus, such people are innocently assuming that the purpose of Best Value has admirable aims and objectives. They may, and some have, driven through progressive programmes and innovations that will indeed have such outcomes. This must be frustrating to those with a marketising agenda for public libraries. It slows down the process and strategy as outlined by Watson, costs money and 'wastes time'. As it was reported in the Library Association Record in October 2001:
We only have to look at the North East Lincolnshire Best Value Inspection to find a clear example of a local authority trying to make the best of Best Value. At the very beginning of this document, in the Summary and Recommendations section (Audit Commission, 2000, Section 1, point 7, p.5), it was noted that:
The real 'fundamental change' required of North East Lincolnshire was to move rapidly towards market solutions for its public library services. The Best Value Inspectors there saw insufficient evidence of this. As was reported in the Library Association Record (2001c):
If there is any doubt about the underlying purpose of Best Value in North East Lincolnshire we only need to look at the recommendations on the very next page (ibid., p.6). The recommendations do not focus primarily on providing a better service for the local community but highlight other issues (Audit Commission, 2000). There are four main recommendations (covered in Point 9 of the Recommendations section). Point 9 does refer to improving the public library service, but within the context of providing better value for money - and this is the key, and most seductive point. To attain value for money, it is recommended that the Council should promote joined-up working across departments and 'accelerate the development and implementation of key corporate policies' to deliver enhanced customer services. However, Point 9 also stresses that this must take place within the context of a revised Best Value Improvement Plan aimed at achieving 'greater value for money'. The speed of change should be greater and the Best Value Improvement Plan should include 'costed options for service points' - making for alternative scenarios in service delivery. From here, the recommendations in Point 9 go on to emphasise inter-agency and cross-departmental working in order to maximise use of premises, to improve locations (of libraries) and opening hours to increase service take-up, and to improve access to ICT and lifelong learning opportunities. On these issues, library professionals could readily concur. However, Point 9 ends with a recommendation that all of this must take place on the basis of evaluation of each service using the 'principles of performance management' constituted by the Audit Commission. Thus, we are driven back into the labyrinth of Best Value, value for money and the marketisation of public library services with the spectre of privatisation haunting the whole process. Those wishing to develop library services on the basis of social justice, inclusion and social equality have to negotiate a Best Value process that incorporates another world for public library services. This is a world where value for money, costed options, competition, and markets facilitating the corporate takeover of public libraries provide the centre of gravity. In North East Lincolnshire, the library service did not seem to be playing the Best Value tune with the requisite enthusiasm and vigour. In response, Lincolnshire (as a whole) has wanted to reinvent itself as a modernising and innovative environment for libraries. In Coult and McInroy (2001), some of the problems Lincolnshire faces were highlighted. It is the fourth largest rural county in England, which has resulted in a poor transport infrastructure with pockets of rural deprivation and substantial numbers being socially excluded. Furthermore, Lincolnshire as a whole lags behind in the implementation of telecommunications technology. Rob McInroy, who is operations manager for library support services in Lincolnshire County Council, is particularly concerned with improving the IT and telecommunications infrastructure. He says:
McInroy then refers in some detail to the implementation of the People's Network (p.48) and of the some of the funding problems they have had.3 The point to emphasise here is that the People's Network is another mechanism for enabling the GATS to take effect within the context of the public library service in England. North East Lincolnshire has not been so successful to date in the implementation of Best Value as GATS facilitator. Perhaps though, they can remedy this to some extent by focusing on the People's Network. Lincolnshire is in a very disadvantageous position regarding IT and telecommunications. If they can be seen to be surpassing other local authorities that do not have such disadvantages on the implementation of the People's Network and other IT strategies then this would be a considerable achievement for them in relation to official priorities. There are other local authorities where Best Value Inspectors praise library services for developing on the basis of marketisation and privatisation agendas with greater effectiveness, clarity and enthusiasm (e.g. in Hounslow, see Audit Commission, 2001). In Hounslow the management of the libraries is being undertaken by a Trust, the Community Initiative Partnerships (CIP), which is a Not-for-Profit Distributory Organisation that has been set up by the council for a 10 year period, which started in May 1998. As Geoff Allen, the Assistant Chief Executive of Community Initiative Partnerships said in the Library Association and ex-Principal Librarian at Hounslow:
CIP was managing statutory services and a variety of services - not just libraries. These included museums, tourism, leisure centres and open spaces. Thus, the local authority is starting to lose some control of its public libraries. Since the launch of CIP the council in Hounslow has been able to reduce its revenue budget support by over £2.5 million. There was also recognition in Hounslow of the need to further exploit different income generation opportunities and to improve the marketing of their services. It hopes to meet the target for the People's Network, which would mean that all their libraries would be linked to the Internet, by the end of 2002. The proposal was that CIP would meet the funding for the People's Network by means of a loan from the bank. It is also interesting to note that CIP is advertising posts in the Library Association Appointments supplement of 4th January 2002 and words such as 'business planning process' and 'performance targets' are used in the advertisement (LA Record, 2002). There was particular interest in Hounslow, as it was something of a testing ground, to see how well a 'trust model' could perform under Best Value. As Allen said:
Hounslow performed favourably under Best Value and as Allen said:
Thus, in essence, authorities such as Hounslow are leaders and beacons in the movement towards a library environment dominated by markets and the law of money. At the same time, it is important for those officials driving Best Value that the purposes and values informing the process are not made too explicit, otherwise professionals and other library workers in the public library services might question their engagement in instituting the Best Value regime. The willingness and co-operation of library workers is important (see Resource, 2001a - a consultation paper on Best Value). Official obfuscation about the aims and purposes of Best Value is necessary so that it can function effectively as one of the national faces of the GATS. On the other hand, given that there is such a smokescreen regarding the real nature and purposes of Best Value many might be innocent of what the real game and real stakes are. The Library Association, as a body, might be one such example of this. In Best Returns (Watson, 2001), under section 2 (Introduction, p.1), Angela Watson writes:
Furthermore, as was noted in a news item in the Library Association (LA Record, 2000e) the LA itself has produced a 42-page guidance booklet for local authorities called 'Best Value Guidance for Library Authorities in England', and in the document the LA notes that "BV requires a fundamental cultural shift." In the same news item (as LA Record, 2000e, p.489) readers are alerted to a more critical perspective on Best Value. It refers to a booklet entitled Best? Value - a critical guide to Best Value, the government's new regime for local authority services published by the Centre for Democratic Policy Making.4 In referring to Best Value, the booklet says:
The overall implications of Best Value and its place in relation to the global trade agenda set by the WTO and the GATS needs to be at the heart of an appreciation of its true significance. Because of the official requirement to mask these issues, it is quite easy to view Best Value as a technicist, neutral mechanism, or even as an innovation that can be a vehicle for addressing community needs. However, the undercover face of Best Value - as GATS facilitator and enabler in the public library sector - needs to be viewed in order to ascertain its nature. The neoliberal project kick-started in the Thatcher/Reagan era has been pushed forward by the WTO/GATS in the international trade arena. This pinpoints the real significance of the intrusion of the Best Value regime into public library services in England. The New Labour government (less so the Labour Party) is an enthusiastic supporter of this project, but needs all the friends it can get to push the thing through with sufficient speed, depth and effectiveness for the interests of British capital.
3.2 Library Standards Library Standards need to be approached with extreme caution. Who can argue, theoretically, with the idea of 'library standards'? Sounds very good - to ensure that our libraries are maintained to certain standards. However, if we examine the standards in more detail a different picture emerges, and it becomes clear, once again, that standards are being established that fall in line with the GATS. The Library Association itself, says that Best Value and the mandatory standards for public libraries must have a 'clear' relationship and 'both inform each other and complement each other' (LA Record, 2000a, p.7). Similarly, in the LA Record of June 2000 it reported that:
In the LA Record, August 2000, it describes how there are areas of standards in three sectors, and that one of these areas is Best Value, illustrating how the two areas are intertwined (LA Record, 2000b) The LA Record of March 2001 (2001b) reported the fact that the full standards were published in February 2001 (See also Lashmer and Oliver, 2000; and see DCMS, 2000a - for further information about library standards). The LA Record (2001b) noted that there were 19 standards in the final document, although there had been 24 standards in the draft. The central aim expressed in the standards is that all libraries should try to match the performance of the top 25%, and they have three years in which to achieve this. No reference is made to the inherent contradiction in this statement - that there can only ever be 25% in the top 25%. If two new authorities move up and into the top 25%, then logic dictates that two others must move out of the top 25%. So be it. What is more concerning is what the standards include, and, even more significantly, what is not in the standards. There was a standard for qualified staff in the draft (25% or 29%), but this was removed in the final document. Now, services only have to show in their Annual Library Plans that they are employing "appropriate" numbers of qualified staff. In this LA Record news item it says that:
Hence, it seems that we are left to play with the word 'appropriate', as we were left to play with the word 'interpretation' in regard to the meaning of 'services' when applied to the GATS (Rikowski, 2001). To any professional librarian this would surely seem bizarre: whatever reason can there be for removing professional standards from the document? All becomes clear again, when we refer back to the GATS document, where it becomes evident that professional standards can be seen to be a barrier to trade. This topic is addressed under Article 7 of the GATS on 'Recognition' under the 'General Obligations and Disciplines' section. In Article 7 (v) it says:
Note that it refers to Members of the WTO setting up "standards", but does not indicate which members will be involved. Professional bodies are not mentioned here at all, but presumably large corporations will be heavily involved (for they tend to have far greater representation at WTO meetings - see Dodds's article in this issue, which refers to this). Where no such international standards exist then existing qualifications could be deemed to be a 'barrier to trade' if corporations are denied access to libraries on qualifications grounds. Fiona Hunt also made this point in her article in this issue. If a foreign supplier took over one of our public library services, for example, and brought staff with them from their own country, these staff might not have the requisite British library qualifications (or their equivalent). Not allowing such staff to work in this particular public library service could be interpreted as a 'barrier to trade'. As it was pointed out in the LA Record, even heads of libraries are concerned about this. It says:
(See also British Council, 1999, p.1 - which shows that the number of professional librarians is decreasing.) Other omissions in the Standards (as explained in LA Record, 2001b) are also illuminating. There is no Standard on spending for stock (although it does specify the number of items to be purchased). Defining the quality of stock was deferred pending further work (the Audit Commission was to come up with some "quality measures"). There was no standard for floor space (although there had been one in the draft) and there were no ICT standards specifically, except for ICT qualifications for library staff. The latter is necessary, because the People's Network has to be fully operational by 2002 (to coincide with the GATS timetable, as described above). All the four points above can be linked to the drive towards the commercialisation, privatisation and capitalisation of libraries. There will be a growing trend towards paying for information provision in libraries through micropayments, as I have already described. Hence, there is no apparent need to be greatly concerned about the quantity or quality of stock, or floor space, as the aim is to get more people to use the Internet, and so there are no clear commitments to the traditional book stock or shelf space. The lack of commitment to floor space can be explained by the fact that there is, as yet, uncertainty about how many people will want to use computers, and if and how gaining access to the Internet will be paid for (such as through micropayments). The Government wants more people to use computers, but will people (or at least enough people) respond? It is an uncertain future, in this respect. So, for the time being there are no standards for these areas. Standards no longer appear to be such worthwhile aims. We must approach all such schemes with a clear head. The 'bread and butter' of any worthwhile public library standards would surely be standards for stock and staff, and yet these areas are not being adequately considered at all. This is because the aims of the standards are not as we would be led to believe. Instead, standards are another mechanism, another facilitator to enable the GATS to take effect - library standards are another national face of the GATS.
3.3 People's Network Similarly, the Peoples Network is also another mechanism to enable the GATS to take effect. Many people might be even more shocked that I should make such claims here, as many think that the People's Network is wonderful, and means that poor and disadvantaged people can have access to computers in the same way as the rest of the population. We hear much talk about the digital divide, whereby those who do not have a computer at home, or at least have access to a computer, will be disadvantaged (See also Shimmon, 2001). Yet, does not the People's Network solve this problem? Sadly not. Even the term itself, the 'People's Network' sounds as though it is 'for the people'; for the 'ordinary people'. It is very enticing; it is almost a rallying cry; in fact, it almost sounds radical. Yet this is far from the case. First of all, the People's Network is being driven forward at a tremendous pace. The aim is to ensure that most public libraries are online by the end of 2002 (in line with the GATS timetable). As Benjamin said in The Guardian (G2) on 13th June 2001:
Significantly, Bill Gates himself has given some money to the People's Network. Resource announced on 20th July 2001 that both Resource (the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have given £2.6 million to UK public libraries for the creation of ICT learning centres in deprived areas. This means that each library will be able to install an extra 2 to 12 terminals, thereby ensuring that there are ICT learning centres in all 4,300 public libraries. The People's Network project can be seen to be a partnership between Resource and the New Opportunities Fund, but the money given by Bill Gates was an additional bonus. As the Libraries Minister, Tessa Blackstone said about Bill Gates's contribution:
Many rejoice at the apparently 'free' money that is being poured into the People's Network. Stephen Dunmore, Chief Executive of the New Opportunities Fund said:
Similarly, on the 30th August 2001, Dunmore said that:
Resource speaks about the joys of free Internet access and notes that:
Thus, a considerable amount of finance is being poured into the People's Network. The funding was described in some detail in 'So what is the People's Network?' (People's Network, 2000). It said that there are over 4,000 public libraries altogether in the UK, and the People's Network project will connect all public libraries to the Information Superhighway by the end of 2002. It described the three funding programmes for the Peoples' Network, under the New Opportunities Fund. £20 million was to be allocated to the training of all library staff in the use of ICT. £50 million was being allocated for Content Creation and public libraries could bid for this and £200 million was allocated for the creation of the Lifelong Learning Centres and Grids. Furthermore, the DCMS gave a £9 million cash boost that was to be spread over 3 years (starting in December 2000), in order to get UK libraries online by 2002 (DCMS, 2000b) (See also NOF, 2001 - for more information about the New Opportunities Fund). It all sounds like such a great opportunity. Not only does it offer help to the disadvantaged, but also it (apparently) provides libraries with a real opportunity to move forward into the 21st century and to be at the forefront of what is happening. Now, this is a tempting bait for libraries, as they are too often seen to be a backwater, the 'forgotten sector', the sector that gets 'left behind'. We are too often perceived as 'Cinderellas', whilst other departments and other experts often seemingly take the glory and the credit. Chris Batt, the Director of the Learning and Information Society Team at Resource and writer of a column in the Library Association Record on the People's Network, speaks enthusiastically about the need for the public library service to move forward and the great opportunity that the People's Network can provide. As he said in the 'Library Association Record', in October 2001:
Batt is very enthusiastic; yet there is a hidden message even here. The picture is only 'vaguely visible', notes Batt. But it is not a picture that many wish to see! We may see the landscape more clearly if we explore it together, but that is just like seeing the executioner clearly before he chops off your head! There were similar, enthusiastic tones in the June 2001 issue of the Library Association Record from Batt, who opined that:
Chris Batt spoke about the People's Network in some detail to Sylvia Simmons in the Library Association Record of January 2000, when he became the Library and Information Commission Chief Network Advisor. He referred to a need for a balance between traditional library provision and the opportunities provided by the Network. As he said:
Note here, also, the way that Batt uses the word 'customer'. He then said that over the next 3 years the Network would be viewed as:
In some authorities, such as Leeds (LA Record, 2001e) the People's Network has already been connected to schools and other learning organisations, as well as to the libraries themselves. Children are then able, for example, to log on to their school site in the library. Batt also sees a role for the People's Network in providing education and life-long learning. As he argues:
Batt also spoke to Simmons about the People's Network in the Times Higher Education Supplement. This demonstrates how important he thinks the impact of th |
