Re: End of Free Access in Bangladesh

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Jean-Claude did not say it was a cartel but rather "close to a 
cartel." I would not call it a cartel myself, but it certainly 
satisfies the definition of an oligopoly, as a sector of the 
economy controlled by a very small number of dominant firms. To 
be a cartel, there would have to be some kind of explicit 
agreement among the companies, and it is no doubt that which Joe 
is questioning.

Sandy Thatcher


>No comment on Jean-Claude's remarks on the workings of the market
>or its desirability, but I do want to say that the phrase "close
>to a cartel" is overheated.  I have never seen anything even
>vaguely resembling collusion among publishers--not now, not ever.
>I simply don't think it's appropriate to throw out words like
>"cartel" without some evidence.
>
>Joe Esposito
>
>On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jean-Claude Gueson
><jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
>>  Like David, I am very much saddened by this piece of news; but
>>  I am not surprised. In fact, I have been expecting something
>>  like this for quite some time. I have always been doubtful of
>>  "charitable" moves: they can be arbitrarily and swiftly removed
>>  for any pretext. This is the reason why, while commending the
>>  efforts of the Hinari people who work hard on behalf of poor
>>  countries, I could never feel completely secure and happy with
>>  this programme. I also saw the Hinari approach as a way, for
>>  publishers, to explore beachheads for a later commercial
>>  landing: Hinari uptake allows for a precise monitoring of the
>>  state of uptake in a national market. The intent is to
>>  transform it into an operational commercial market at the first
>>  opportunity. In this perspective, the process of scholarly and
>>  scientific communication is viewed as necessarily embedded
>>  inside a commercial, market driven agenda. The need to finance
>>  scientific and scholarly communication is never imagined in any
>>  way other than a market mechanism. And to make things worse,
>>  the market is dominated by a few, powerful players acting
>>  together as an oligopole close to a cartel.
>>
>>  Scientific communication is an infrastructural element of
>>  scientific research and education. Like roads, it has to be
>>  financed, but not necessarily according to market conditions.
>>  We all have an inherent right to access and use roads, and,
>>  likewise, scientists and scholars should have a right to access
>>  all the validated research results of their colleagues.
>>  Presently, we have a financing system that grossly distorts
>>  this objective, all in the name of market fundamentalism. Toll
>>  roads that are sometimes mentioned in an effort to disprove the
>>  above, do not change the issue, even when run by private
>>  companies: there are always alternative itineraries to reach a
>>  particular destination. Not so with journals, unless their
> > articles are archived in OA depositories.
> >
> > There is a deep lesson in the Bangladesh story, and we should
> > heed it. It underscores the fact that Open Access is needed
> > more than ever. With it, charitable attitudes will become
>>  superfluous, and the humiliations accompanying such charitable
>>  moves will be a thing of the past.
>>
>>  Jean-Claude Guedon