Redistribution of intellectual wealth

I don’t know how many intellectually wealthy people will read this, but I am sure each of us will relate to it: I like to believe we are all intellectually wealthy though one may not like to talk about it. I would also like to warn readers not to take this article literally to mean intellectuals can change the world. Remember, Noah’s ark was built by common people while the Titanic was built by professionals (intellectuals).

Intellectualism refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems. According to the Collins dictionary, intellect is the capacity for understanding, thinking, and reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing. It may be correct to assume that Knowledge and it’s practice is central to any form of intellectualism.

Going further, I like to think of intellectual wealth as a combination of knowledge, skills and experience, which is manifested in problem solving. And the holder of that wealth – the Intellectual as a “person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of that society, and, by such discourse in the public sphere, he or she gains authority within the public opinion.”

Intellectualism is not of today. Some 3200 years ago (BC) someone invented the wheel. Fire was first used some 1.5 Mn years ago. Both of these are critical to the evolved human of today. And both these are in the “free to use” domain, or “open source” as we may like to call it.

However today, the free domains are few and far in between. Today, our society is supposed to be a knowledge society. Which essentially means we are a society driven by knowledge. But what is knowledge. I like this simple one-line definition by Webster – “knowledge is an understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education”.

This knowledge is used for creating wealth for ourselves. Today, there is a premium on “knowledge”.  The more knowledgeable I am perceived to be, the higher is the premium. And if  branded by some “Knowledge institution” that’s even better. With more skills and experience, we create for ourselves “intellectual wealth” , intellectual property and laws to protect the same.

When the world came about, all animals and all humans had access to food resources as maybe available. There were no exclusive “rights”. They may have practiced the principle of “first finder – first eater”, but once their needs were met what was left was for any others. Today, the food and fruit of nature are out of bounds for animals and most other fellow world citizens. Of the 7 Bn people in this world, 50% live below $ 2.5 per day while 1% of families own 46% of global wealth, leading to a gross inequality of resources. Sadly, the evolution of human kind has led to and “ownership” regime. So now, we have to resort to concepts like redistribution of wealth, giving, social equality, practiced by the worlds 1% for the worlds 50% !

Redistribution of wealth, as a form of social justice is fine. There are arguments for and against it – some to do with ethics, some to do with societal conflicts, revolutions etc. And there are enough “wealthy” people who want to “give back to society”. I do not mean to mock them for they provide an outstanding gift – money. Its that cliched term of ‘giving back to society” that seems to indicate (at least to me) some guilt about being successful and perhaps an indirect apology for making money. There is nothing wrong in being successful and making money (the right way of course). Wealth is not simply collected. It is earned the hard way. But what does bother me about the term and the concept is the inequitable consumption of resources. Can anyone “give back” the resources they have consumed?

As a short observation – the wealthier a nation / individual is, the higher is the consumption of resources. As an example, consider consumption of Milk. The world average is 108 Kg per person per year; USA stands at 253.8 Kg; India at 68.7 kg !

These resources are meant for the whole world, to be used sustainably and equally. However, this is not the case since world resources are mostly owned and “monetized” and hence not available to all. However, no amount of wealth given away can permanently change that. What can possibly change this equation is the “redistribution of intellectual wealth”.

The difference between the two is simple: Money can change a day in the life of a beneficiary. Knowledge can change his life forever. Since (unfortunately), the world resources are monetized, the ability to “earn” is key to “survival”. Today, a financial donation can start one off, but what can sustain is ability to earn and survive.

Which then brings me to my point: In the Knowledge economy of today, the (intangible) knowledge assets, or intellectual wealth, is as, if not more, important as physical wealth. The volume of the intellectual wealth, created by the creation of knowledge determines the wealth of the nations. It is therefore critical to share or redistribute intellectual wealth consisting of knowledge and skills with those in need. This is to enable them to “learn”, “earn” and survive. It is not necessary that one does it directly- that is direct to beneficiary, it can also be done through or to, the scores of NGOs who have dedicated themselves to the task of enablement.

But, in fact the trend is the very opposite. We try and put a protection on our intellectual wealth through IP laws etc. This needs to change. Protection of Knowledge which cannot benefit anyone but the inventor is fine. But Knowledge which can benefit people and their right to learn and earn is wealth which needs to be shared.

At this point I would like to refer to  a column by David Brooks in the New York Times titled "The Protocol Economy" :

In the 19th and 20th centuries we made stuff: corn and steel and trucks. Now, we make protocols: sets of instructions. A software program is a protocol for organizing information. A new drug is a protocol for organizing chemicals. Wal-Mart produces protocols for moving and marketing consumer goods. Even when you are buying a car, you are mostly paying for the knowledge embedded in its design, not the metal and glass.

I agree some “protocols” are bound to be un-shareable or unusable by anyone barring the inventor. However some are shareable, for use by society and as a tool for equalization.

Allow me to explain: Say a person X is really good at marketing communications, well trained and experienced. If X helped a social organization to create a better and more meaningful outreach through powerful communications, X has not only helped the said organization but also the scores of beneficiaries they support. It cost X nothing but time but brought a huge value to the social organization and contributed to their impact.

This is not to be confused with traditional forms of volunteering. Here the individual may not even have stepped out of his office / home to deliver the benefit.

A real life example is in the Agriculture sector in India, which employs 50 % of the workforce but contributes not more that 15% to the GDP ! That indicates (very obviously) the sad state of affairs in the lives of the majority of farmers. The sector needs a lot of external help in terms of professional knowledge, experience, innovation, unique business and operational models etc. Can farmers afford or have easy access to all these ? The answer is a big NO. However, I know of at least one organization – the India Society of Agribusiness Professionals (ISAP) – who believe that that capacity building of small and marginal farmers' agricultural practices would help enhance their livelihoods and income, and thereby result in better quality of life for rural communities. They provide farmers with linkages to markets, innovation, knowledge resources from all over the world. Today they work on enhancing livelihood opportunities for more than 4,00,000 farmer households, 5,000 agri-preneurs, 10,000 youth, and 15,000 women in about 5000 villages, 250 blocks, and 100 districts in 18 states of India.

Yes, organizations like ISAP do need financial support – but equally they need the involvement of Agri professionals and networks to be able to bring in the necessary linkages and knowledge from all over the Globe.

In conclusion, I think we need to dovetail monetary equalization measures with intellectual wealth sharing strategies, for a permanent solution and a deeper impact.

In closing, we all enjoy sarcasm and jokes on the legal fraternity. But do we know that world over, most lawyers and firms of repute as well as associations, offer their expertise (and intellectual wealth) through free legal aid to people in need. They call it Pro Bono.