Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Behiye Çavuşoğlu and Mustafa Sagsan
The main purpose <strong>of</strong> information policy is to show appropriate targets and <strong>the</strong> ways to <strong>the</strong> decision
makers, politicians, scholars, researchers, managers and citizens how to provide data and current
information timely and reliably (Çapar, 1997: 17). We need to determine real information users to
direct information policy in terms <strong>of</strong> qualification, quantification, identification, distributions, and user
surveys for <strong>the</strong> nations. The standards and regulatory on information should be considered by
designing strategic plan at <strong>the</strong> national level on information policy. Manpower planning should be
carried out by <strong>the</strong> politicians who are responsible for constructing national information policy within <strong>the</strong>
information sector. Technological infrastructure, s<strong>of</strong>tware and hardware industries are o<strong>the</strong>r related
issues while making information policy. We need to corporate institutions which also operate within
<strong>the</strong> information industry and eventually cost and benefits should be analyzed in providing, distributing,
creating, organizing and auditing information at <strong>the</strong> national level (Sagsan, 2000).
2.1.4 Knowledge assets
“Stocks <strong>of</strong> knowledge from which services are expected to flow for a period <strong>of</strong> time that may be hard
to specify in advance” (Boisot, 1998: 3) is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most popular definitions in knowledge assets. It
differs from physical assets and requires understanding in terms <strong>of</strong> quality and content <strong>of</strong> performance
outcomes (Malhotra, 2003: 3).
According to Malhotra (2000, 2003, 2004) knowledge assets can be thought <strong>of</strong> as a subset <strong>of</strong>
dispositions to act, or ‘potential for action’ embedded in individuals, groups or socio physical systems
with future prospects <strong>of</strong> value creation. National knowledge assets are <strong>the</strong> ‘intangible assets <strong>of</strong> a
country that have significant implications for future national growth and future value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country to
various stakeholders. There is growing realization about KM as <strong>the</strong> enabler <strong>of</strong> innovation and learning
as well as national gross domestic product (GDP).
2.2 The variables <strong>of</strong> knowledge economy
In <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se explanations, it is not possible to make NKMS without implementing <strong>the</strong> variables
<strong>of</strong> knowledge economy. In <strong>the</strong> literature <strong>the</strong> main variables are listed as: ICT readiness, electronic
government index, <strong>the</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong> Internet infrastructure and usage, investment on R&D for
organizations, etc. The OECD economies are increasingly based on knowledge and information
(OECD, 1996). Knowledge is now recognized as <strong>the</strong> driver <strong>of</strong> productivity and economic growth.
While constructing <strong>the</strong> NKMS for TRNC, <strong>the</strong> main criteria for <strong>the</strong> knowledge economy are also taken
into consideration, such as gross domestic investment to GDP ratio, trade to GDP ratio, higher
education enrolment ratio, telephone main lines, <strong>the</strong> mobile subscribers and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Internet
users. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, TRNC, which is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> small island economies, also helps us to understand
<strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se indicators on economic performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country. Small island economies are
sharing <strong>the</strong> main characteristics; NKMS for TRNC will be an important research for small islands as a
general.
2.3 Small island economy
When defining <strong>the</strong> small island economies, it is needed to understand that <strong>the</strong> island economy itself
does not necessarily imply a small economy. Smallness can be defined in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> physical size
(land area), population and GNP (GDP) or a combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se variables (Taylor, 1969: 183-202).
According to Kuznets (1955), population <strong>of</strong> ten million as <strong>the</strong> economically significant border between
small and large economies. However, in literature most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arguments favor to use national income
to identify <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> economy. Shand (1969: 3) systematic classification is also identified that
<strong>the</strong>re are three size indicators which diffuse <strong>the</strong> countries in debt classification such as small, very
small and micro categories. To make better analysis on small economies, we have to consider <strong>the</strong>se
three measurement criteria <strong>of</strong> smallness toge<strong>the</strong>r.
Kakazu (1994: 4) mentioned that smallness is a relative and not an absolute idea and those small
economies present unique development problems as a general characteristic. To understand <strong>the</strong>se
small island economies better let’s look <strong>the</strong>ir general characteristics and problems:
Due to <strong>the</strong>ir narrow range <strong>of</strong> human and nonhuman resources and market, economic activities
are less diversified than large economies (Kindleberger, 1968).
For economic development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country, <strong>the</strong>re are not many choices; domestic market is very
small, limited arable land and limited population. Marshall (1927: 25) stated that a small country
192