{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026136363636363635, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0003787878787878788, 'mean_word_length': 4.804395604395604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Culture

This paper is focused on the social sciences and the more 'social' of the humanities (SSH), from a point of view grounded in Australian public policy, and in the context of the global knowledge economy. It is also informed by a particular take on the relation between the national and the global. After reviewing constructions of the global knowledge economy, the paper argues that the SSH create three broad kinds of goods: private goods, national public goods (the 'nation-building' functions of the SSH), and global public goods. The paper discusses issues and problems in relation to each kind of good. It concludes that relative to potential capacity, the goods produced by the SSH are 'under-produced'. The frame of reference of the paper is external: in attempting to imagine the SSH in terms of public policy - and thereby contribute to their survival and potential - it analyses the social, economic, cultural and political benefits or values produced by the SSH as these values appears from outside the university. This is a little difficult to do from inside the university, but I submit that it is a useful exercise. Further, those values are understood in terms of political economy. These starting points shape the argument, and both need to be explained. First, externality. The SSH disciplines are Janus-like, facing both inwards and outwards. They are at one and the same time self-referencing, shaped by disciplinary communities and academic traditions; and also externally referenced, shaped by their various applications and the parties affected by them, and by the larger cultural world. In every SSH discipline we find this tension between internal and external identity. It is a tension that varies by discipline, but it is necessary to all of the SSH. If the tension is resolved too far in one direction, something is lost. If an SSH discipline becomes solely scholastic, so that the discipline as an end in itself becomes the only end, in losing external engagement the discipline also loses its purchase (and ultimately, its funding as well). If an SSH discipline becomes solely instrumental, it loses the independent capacity for critical reflection and for certain kinds of social and individual reconstruction. In looking at the SSH in terms of their meanings in public policy, I am not arguing for the negation of disciplinary identity. Rather, from outside the university, the inner life of the discipline appears as a means to an end. This end is the social, economic, cultural and political values created in the discipline. Arguably, governments in Australia have 1