**5.3.2 Case study: Approaching the future of UNESCO**

UNESCO, a specialized organization of the UN has been the symbol of cultural progress and dialogue since its foundation in 1945, as "antithesis" to the war. In the past decades it has contributed significantly to the dissemination of basic civilizational values, it has helped raise awareness regarding the universality of the cultural heritage, has launched several successful projects aiming at the preservation, popularization of this heritage, as well as at ensuring the accessibility of the same. It has established (more than fifty) institutions of long-lasting impact, has helped achieving significant scientific results, has tried, with steadfast policy and dedicated action, to balance differences in the development of groups of countries. All these have probably contributed to the fact that, in a world burdened with fear, insecurity and mutual distrust, it managed to become a highly supported trans-national institution, and could maintain its crucial role in the long run7.

However, in case we wish to scrutinize UNESCO regarding the importance of its role in key areas (natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, public education, and the world of culture and information and communication networks) and compare it to the goals set in its Mission Statement, we see that apart from its success at emblematically successful areas, its position has been increasingly weakening, the organization has been losing its reputation and significance in almost every respect. We witnesses a process

 7 On the latest goals, programs, organizational structure see UNESCO's exemplarily well maintained website at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/

Transcending Knowledge Management, Shaping Knowledge Governance 239

the realization of local projects. These, however, amount next to nothing, no matter how important they seem for "poorer" countries that always make sure to apply for the help of "donor" countries. In the meantime, in the past ten-fifteen years a certain takeover has occurred, since dynamic and effective civil organizations, NGOs and foundations are supporting hundreds of progressive projects independently of UNESCO, with funds way

The real obstacles, the ones which have to be overcome independently of the management and apparatus of the organization, are to be found elsewhere. If we wish to understand the root of the increasing anachronism of UNESCO, we have to start analyzing the problem from a different perspective. In the last third of the 19th century capitalist "center-countries" found themselves in a curious position. In the well-developed territories the overall success and transformation power of big industry lead to a crisis of management in economy, society, and politics (or control crisis in James Beniger's widely spread words), which could be overcome by the massive and creative use of modern information and knowledge technology (Beniger, 1986). The nature of the solution was similar in all sub-systems. The management and competitiveness of companies and of the administrative "industry" of states were based upon systems using almost identical solutions, and the same applied to modern systems of public education as well as institutions of academic management and academic organization. Relying on James Beniger's model we can say that the revolution of bureaucratic control took place in the scope of just a few decades, and it proved highly successful. This control revolution contributed most significantly to the realization of the civilizational change which was launched before the First World War, continued during the interwar period, and was completed in the decades succeeding the Second World War – while the industrial period

The success of the industrial civilization, however, was much shorter than what may be deducted based on history coursebooks or the statistics of "developed industrial countries". As opposed to the agrarian sector and parallel to the rise of industry already at the end of the 19th century, the service and the information-knowledge sector started increasing its share regarding both production and consumption. The success of the bureaucratic control revolution not only revived the industrial civilization, but it also gave birth to informational society as well, which soon put an end to the world dominated by traditional industries. In other, slightly simplified words, the next civilizational change, the birth of information society took place in the sixties in the United States, at the beginning of the seventies in Japan, and at the beginning of the nineties in Western-Europe, while for developing countries somewhere around the turn of the millennium. Still, the bureaucratic control revolution was so successful that the structures of the industrial era could be well maintained within the context of the information society. In the schools of the information society the order that has to be followed by teachers and students alike has been formed to match the objective functions of the bureaucratic control revolution of the industrial era. The science of information society is financially bound by national and ideological interests, as well as business and commercial commitments that – regarding the logic of management and distribution – have been inherited from the industrial era. The industrial era, optimized for nation states, created the organizational and institutional structure of transnational coordination, and this system tries to cope with coordination of information society at a global level with the old,

beyond the ones at UNESCO's disposal.

tried and tested algorithms of bureaucratic control.

was flourishing.

during which the unsustainability of the organizational model is clearly revealed, pointing towards the need for redesigning the future, the essence and the whole organizational structure of the institution, replacing the present practice of debating scrupulously minor amendments to the budget. The time has come that we state clearly and firmly, beyond the context of standing receptions with their background noise, that everything has to be rebuilt from the base, since the success of minor reforms only delays the unavoidable fundamental reform.

Only little can be felt from all the above – both from the inside and the outside. An increasing number of people acknowledge that the compulsions of the diplomatic context that are officially and legally governing UNESCO are too tight. In the labyrinths of the offices career diplomats, as representatives of national interest, delegated by member states pass the time trading with memberships and positions. Instead of acting as sites for exchanging ideas, the biennial General Assemblies and their sections are generally about communicating presence; while ceremonial greetings and the formal approval of minor opinions takes more time than anything else. Such contributions are combined with lengthy and completely ineffective debates about the meaning of prepositions included in the documents. The single *pro forma* goal of these strenuous meetings is the legitimization of the budget and of the related circle of planned activities. The process is seemingly democratic and seemingly launched from the grassroots level, since member states have the opportunity to make remarks and give recommendations regarding the quotas and priorities. However, unchanged conceptual frames, the significant divisional separation of large fields of activities and the documents that are prepared by officials – who are biased towards the program structures of previous terms – predetermine the discussions, and member states have very little scope to contribute significantly to the forming the future. For a considerable time now UNESCO has been merely *capable of following talks, but cannot create, launch or initiate discussions*. The organization is increasingly lagging behind "stateof-art" situations, and *cannot reflect adequately on the latest problems of global scope*. Such a structure has both an illusion and a rhetoric: from the point of view of the sociology of organization it would be possible to understand the preference of the staff towards minor changes, however, officers in the position of making decisions are interested in the exact opposite of what can be interpreted as progressive, brave and pioneering initiatives. The more long-term these ideas are, the more they hurt various national and business interests, and thus any undertaking can be aborted very quickly by referring to "diplomatic correctness" in its bad sense and interpreting the principle of *paritas* mechanically.

The reason for this, on the one hand, is that the main directions, the basic activities and the possible interventions are not formed by "cases" or the nature of represented areas, nor by recommendations of experts or communities, but by the compromises of cultural diplomacy set by the 193 member states. The scope of activities, the norms and compliance to these norms are defined by the interstate and international legal context. Professional initiatives can be realized only vis-à-vis this pact system of *Realpolitik*. On the other hand, the reason is that the amount of funds at disposal restricts all activities in the first place. UNESCO is not able to solve, nor to moderate contradictions deriving from unequal development. Even challenges that can be interpreted as cultural are too big to be affected by the choice of the organization between several programs. This is why UNESCO has never been, and cannot ever be a development agency, at the same time its activities would seem incomplete if it had not offered "traditionally" direct resources for

during which the unsustainability of the organizational model is clearly revealed, pointing towards the need for redesigning the future, the essence and the whole organizational structure of the institution, replacing the present practice of debating scrupulously minor amendments to the budget. The time has come that we state clearly and firmly, beyond the context of standing receptions with their background noise, that everything has to be rebuilt from the base, since the success of minor reforms only delays

Only little can be felt from all the above – both from the inside and the outside. An increasing number of people acknowledge that the compulsions of the diplomatic context that are officially and legally governing UNESCO are too tight. In the labyrinths of the offices career diplomats, as representatives of national interest, delegated by member states pass the time trading with memberships and positions. Instead of acting as sites for exchanging ideas, the biennial General Assemblies and their sections are generally about communicating presence; while ceremonial greetings and the formal approval of minor opinions takes more time than anything else. Such contributions are combined with lengthy and completely ineffective debates about the meaning of prepositions included in the documents. The single *pro forma* goal of these strenuous meetings is the legitimization of the budget and of the related circle of planned activities. The process is seemingly democratic and seemingly launched from the grassroots level, since member states have the opportunity to make remarks and give recommendations regarding the quotas and priorities. However, unchanged conceptual frames, the significant divisional separation of large fields of activities and the documents that are prepared by officials – who are biased towards the program structures of previous terms – predetermine the discussions, and member states have very little scope to contribute significantly to the forming the future. For a considerable time now UNESCO has been merely *capable of following talks, but cannot create, launch or initiate discussions*. The organization is increasingly lagging behind "stateof-art" situations, and *cannot reflect adequately on the latest problems of global scope*. Such a structure has both an illusion and a rhetoric: from the point of view of the sociology of organization it would be possible to understand the preference of the staff towards minor changes, however, officers in the position of making decisions are interested in the exact opposite of what can be interpreted as progressive, brave and pioneering initiatives. The more long-term these ideas are, the more they hurt various national and business interests, and thus any undertaking can be aborted very quickly by referring to "diplomatic correctness" in its bad sense and interpreting the principle of *paritas*

The reason for this, on the one hand, is that the main directions, the basic activities and the possible interventions are not formed by "cases" or the nature of represented areas, nor by recommendations of experts or communities, but by the compromises of cultural diplomacy set by the 193 member states. The scope of activities, the norms and compliance to these norms are defined by the interstate and international legal context. Professional initiatives can be realized only vis-à-vis this pact system of *Realpolitik*. On the other hand, the reason is that the amount of funds at disposal restricts all activities in the first place. UNESCO is not able to solve, nor to moderate contradictions deriving from unequal development. Even challenges that can be interpreted as cultural are too big to be affected by the choice of the organization between several programs. This is why UNESCO has never been, and cannot ever be a development agency, at the same time its activities would seem incomplete if it had not offered "traditionally" direct resources for

the unavoidable fundamental reform.

mechanically.

the realization of local projects. These, however, amount next to nothing, no matter how important they seem for "poorer" countries that always make sure to apply for the help of "donor" countries. In the meantime, in the past ten-fifteen years a certain takeover has occurred, since dynamic and effective civil organizations, NGOs and foundations are supporting hundreds of progressive projects independently of UNESCO, with funds way beyond the ones at UNESCO's disposal.

The real obstacles, the ones which have to be overcome independently of the management and apparatus of the organization, are to be found elsewhere. If we wish to understand the root of the increasing anachronism of UNESCO, we have to start analyzing the problem from a different perspective. In the last third of the 19th century capitalist "center-countries" found themselves in a curious position. In the well-developed territories the overall success and transformation power of big industry lead to a crisis of management in economy, society, and politics (or control crisis in James Beniger's widely spread words), which could be overcome by the massive and creative use of modern information and knowledge technology (Beniger, 1986). The nature of the solution was similar in all sub-systems. The management and competitiveness of companies and of the administrative "industry" of states were based upon systems using almost identical solutions, and the same applied to modern systems of public education as well as institutions of academic management and academic organization. Relying on James Beniger's model we can say that the revolution of bureaucratic control took place in the scope of just a few decades, and it proved highly successful. This control revolution contributed most significantly to the realization of the civilizational change which was launched before the First World War, continued during the interwar period, and was completed in the decades succeeding the Second World War – while the industrial period was flourishing.

The success of the industrial civilization, however, was much shorter than what may be deducted based on history coursebooks or the statistics of "developed industrial countries". As opposed to the agrarian sector and parallel to the rise of industry already at the end of the 19th century, the service and the information-knowledge sector started increasing its share regarding both production and consumption. The success of the bureaucratic control revolution not only revived the industrial civilization, but it also gave birth to informational society as well, which soon put an end to the world dominated by traditional industries. In other, slightly simplified words, the next civilizational change, the birth of information society took place in the sixties in the United States, at the beginning of the seventies in Japan, and at the beginning of the nineties in Western-Europe, while for developing countries somewhere around the turn of the millennium. Still, the bureaucratic control revolution was so successful that the structures of the industrial era could be well maintained within the context of the information society. In the schools of the information society the order that has to be followed by teachers and students alike has been formed to match the objective functions of the bureaucratic control revolution of the industrial era. The science of information society is financially bound by national and ideological interests, as well as business and commercial commitments that – regarding the logic of management and distribution – have been inherited from the industrial era. The industrial era, optimized for nation states, created the organizational and institutional structure of transnational coordination, and this system tries to cope with coordination of information society at a global level with the old, tried and tested algorithms of bureaucratic control.

Transcending Knowledge Management, Shaping Knowledge Governance 241

through which UNESCO can become a decisive and accepted actor of a new control

Research on Knowledge Governance has a two-way future. The theoretical clarification and the development of everyday practice are interactively and mutually influencing each other. Similarly, the national and global actors can learn a lot from the consolisated experiences and best practices of the corporate arena. In the same way, scientists, consultants, policy experts and CKO's can start a fruitful conversation about the Knowledge Governance basics

From a "disciplinary and theoretical perspective" (Foss & Michailova, 2009), *region, culture and business sector-specific research programmes* are very important to aggregate field experiences, supporting the formation of general statements, methods and next generation research questions. The Knowledge Governance Program of the Center for Development Research at University of Bonn, led by Hans-Dieter Evers is currently in its fourth project phase. This comparative research is simultaneously studies the practice of large corporations and small and medium enterprises in South-East Asia and Africa. Their results successfully demonstrated, that "*Asian nations differ greatly in their success in closing the gap between local and global knowledge*"8. The fresh, sustainability-oriented Knowledge Governance program of the transdisciplinary Canadian POLIS Project on Ecological Governance explores "*complex philosophical, ethical, legal and political issues*" in the context of academic and indigenous knowledge, concentrating to the "*collaborative knowledge creation and sharing of associated rights and responsibilities beyond the corporate partnership model*"9. The Knowledge Governance Fora of KEI (Knowledge Ecology International)10 joins with the

From a "methodology perspective", knowledge governance experts have to find convincing and standardizable solutions for the most painful organizational challenges: how to develop new methods to reengineer the channels of knowledge aquisition? How to insert the culture of knowledge building into the center of strategic thinking? How to design new, effective knowledge environments for decision makers, and how to make them *abductive*? It would be easy to produce far longer question lists and more dense keyword maps, but detecting the

Beniger, J. (1986): The Control Revolution. Technological and Economic Origins of the

Beer, S. (1972): Brain of the Firm: Managerial Cybernetics of Organization, Allen Lane Beer, S. (1985): Diagnosing the System for Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Birkbeck, D. (2012): Global Knowledge Governance and the World Intellectual Property

dynamics is currently more important than providing full analytic descriptions.

Information Society, Harvard University Press

<sup>8</sup> http://www.zef.de/606.html 9 http://polisproject.org/researchareas/knowledgegovernance 10 http://keionline.org/fora

Organisation, Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming)

revolution in the governance of global knowledge and literacy.

**6. Conclusion and further research directions**

main global representatives of the legal field.

and specialities.

**7. References** 

It is increasingly clear, however, that the technologies used fruitfully by bureaucratic control have started successfully to restructure society, economics, and even culture. As it has been noticed by many, we are heading towards a next control crisis, and the way out of it is a next control revolution: networks instead of hierarchies, human technology next to machine technology, cooperative and "multistakeholder" management instead of single-center organization, sustainability and humanization instead of profit-oriented growth function, as well as local and global coordination based on reciprocity, voluntarity and solidarity.

This perspective shows clearly the nature of the multiple trap in which UNESCO is caught. The organization (with its goals, mission, networks of interest and its organizational structure) is a (top) product of the industrial era. The organization has moved forward from its past rooting in the industrial era with the fact that not so long ago the area of "information and communication" has been integrated into its main scopes of activities as the fifth pillar, and thus the rhetoric of information society have also been included into its documents. In order to reach a civilizational change, the organization should go beyond its restrictions in information-age science, in information-age education, and should think along a radically innovative logic regarding the production, consumption and the geography of culture. It has to perform this task in a way that it also takes into consideration that countries of crucial importance – let us just think of the BRIC group (Brazil, Russia, China and India) – are still fighting for the industrialization and modernization of their own country, and are very far from patterns of employment, consumption, stratification of society and culture typical of information society, but enjoy all the advantages of up-to-date information technology. And we have not mentioned yet agrarian countries that are in a pre-industrial stage… All this does not contradict the idea that norms and relationships typical of information society should be taken as guidelines for action: in a concrete information society an urgent task in development is bridging the gap between areas and social groups at different levels of development, and similarly, it is important to keep on the agenda that nations that are seemingly the furthest from the global information society are included into its network.

*As long as UNESCO functions as the rear-guard of the industrial era, it cannot act as vanguard of information society* in order to replace bureaucratic control via creating social control structures and alternative value chains. If it cannot and does not wish to be a "laboratory of future", which supports the future control revolution relying on systems of producing, distributing and consuming knowledge, and which is based upon a model of culture and society or world-view that is typical of the information age, if it does not face conflicts with the monstrous interest relations of the industrial age, then it will deteriorate rather quickly into an empty display of a declining era.

Luckily, there is still potential to fulfill. Despite all its problems, UNESCO is an authentic "brand". It managed to address and keep working with several dedicated, well-prepared experts who have a mission, as well as to build a network of cooperation with NGOs, and its activity has always been formed along the lines of preserving and fostering values. Thus, it has a significant amount of opportunity points and trust capital that it can still turn towards a change of philosophy and organization required for solving global problems that are included into its mission statement, instead of maintaining the organization as an end in itself. If this effort is successful, the moulds and paths will be formed almost automatically, through which UNESCO can become a decisive and accepted actor of a new control revolution in the governance of global knowledge and literacy.
