Dynamics of Cultural Management, Artificial Intelligence and Global Regulation: The Values of the “Business Intelligence Culture” Model

Dynamics of Cultural Management, Artificial Intelligence and Global Regulation: The Values of the “Business Intelligence Culture” Model

Chapter And Authors Information

George Gantzias

Hellenic Open University, Greece
From the Edited Volume
Edited By:
Professor John Metselaar
Download Chapter
Dynamics-of-Cultural-Management-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Global-Regulation-The-Values-of-the-Business-Intelligence-Culture-Model.pdf 1360 Downloads
Content

Abstract

Global regulations mechanisms, digital transactions in the artwork, artificial intelligence (AI) and robots have opened new opportunities and challenges in cultural management and administration systems. In the third decade of the twentieth century, digital cultural management and public interest are very important issues in protecting cultural products and services both locally and globally. The most important and widely debated issues in the areas of digital culture are the protection of the cultural diversity, freedom of expression, digital transactions, public interest and ethical standards in the info-communication globalization. This chapter outlines the artificial intelligence technology, the 5th generation mobile phone, the role of the big tech firms and the dynamics of cultural management exacerbated by the pandemic crisis. It introduces the Business Intelligence Culture, or B.I.C, framework representing the four core values as basis for developing self-regulatory mechanisms in cultural organizations.  They are 1) values of cultural production, 2) values of cultural process, 3) values of cultural transactions, and 4) values of public interest and ethics.  Together they help cultural institutions navigate through the new age of digital transformation and info-communication globalization in a principle- and values-based manner, protecting the local diversity while leveraging the benefits of the new world’s capabilities.

Keywords: Cultural Management, Digital Transactions, Surplus-Value of Regulation, Cultural Business Model, Artificial Intelligence, Cultural Goods, Public Interest.

1. Introduction: Dynamics of Cultural Management and Administration Systems in the Info-Communication Globalization

Cultural management and administration systems depend on the way we think; If we think in a traditional way, ignoring digital transformation, our cultural management and administration system will be traditionally constructed. Dependent on the way we think, we live in respective different cultures. Cultures in which cultural management and administration systems are traditionally constructed, will be totally different from cultures in which cultural management and administration systems are digitally constructed both locally and globally. Cultural management and administration systems based on digital transformation will be very competitive and sustainable dynamic systems in the pandemic crisis.  The COVID-19 crisis has drastically challenged the management and administration systems of cultural institutions, non-profit organizations and cultural activities. The pandemic has led to a dramatic reversal of the overall planning of each cultural activity i.e., new cultural activities were cancelled and museums openings were postponed in 2020. For example, Rijksmuseum, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna and Stedelijk, had lost between 100.000 Euro and 600.000 Euro per week in 2020 (ΝΕΜΟ, 2020). Cultural institutions and non-profit organizations have recorded financial losses of more than 4 billion dollars. (American Alliance of Museums, 2020, April 16). ‘Social distancing’ and ‘physical distancing’ have challenged irrevocably our cultural management systems and self-regulatory mechanisms together with the decision-making systems in the info-communication globalization (see also, Fang, Wang & Yang, 2020; Greenstone & Nigam, 2020; OECD, 2020; UNESCO, June 2020; Gantzias, 2021a; UNESCO, April 2020). Nowadays, according to the Economist, the pandemic is changing the cultural management of art in the USA,

“MUSEUMS HAVE shut their doors. Theatres on Broadway have put away their props and sent their performers home. Sports tournaments, concerts and the Tribeca Film Festival have been postponed; South by Southwest was cancelled; Coachella has been (rather optimistically) pushed back to the autumn. But lovers of the arts need not despair. As state governors across the country impose mandatory social-distancing measures to slow the spread of covid-19, Americans, like other discombobulated isolators, are being presented with new ways to keep entertained. In this, the internet plays a huge role…Many more museums feature parts of their collections online in scrollable photo galleries or digitized archives. Clicking through pictures or documents on a website may be less thrilling than exploring labyrinthine galleries, but the potential to discover and connect with new artists, forms and history remains”.(The Economist, 18th March 2021).

Recently, cultural management and administration systems are digitally transformed by using digital technologies and smart networks. In a digital world, the Greek concept of “being” will be replaced by relation, thought by thinking, image by numeric data and algorithms, analogous transactions in artwork by digital transactions in artwork, etc. Dynamic digital management system is one of numeric data and algorithms in the era of digital transformation. Within this context, artificial intelligence (AI) and robots together with digitized strategies of cultural organizations have changed irrevocably the mechanisms of decision-making process and cultural production in the info-communication industrial platforms[1]. The digital culture has become today of much higher importance due to the increasing internationalization – globalization of the economy, which continuously undermines the national economies and cultures of many countries in the fourth industrial revolution (see also Hoofnagle, 2009; Gunningham & Grabosky, 1998; Anderson, Rainie & Luchsinger, 2018; The Economist, 15 February 2018; Hare, 2019). The info-communication globalization emerges as a result to the domination of mobile phones, broadband connections, wireless applications, cybercommunities, cyberwars, e-commerce, e-marketing, digital culture, e-democracy, e-learning: these are some of the info-communication globalization applications that have come to describe the info-communication industrial sectors which are subject to the domination of digital technology in the 21st century. Cultural management, artificial intelligence and robots deserve a new attention in the third decade of the twenty first century. Why?

2. Cultural Management in the 21st Century: Artificial Intelligence and Robots Challenge Cultural Organizations and Regulations

In the third decade of the twenty first century, when referring to the dynamics of cultural management and artificial intelligence, we mean the digitization of cultural management and dynamic regulation mechanisms in the info-communication globalization. Cultural management and administration systems are very important structures in creating cultural goods (products and services) both locally and globally. The most important and widely debated issues in the areas of cultural management and administration are: a) the protection of the cultural diversity, public interest, ethical standards etc. b) the role of digital transactions in the artwork and c) the creation of global regulation mechanisms in recent cultural, economic and pandemic crisis.

In the fourth industrial revolution, the big tech companies are creating oligopolies in global markets to challenge local and global cultural production.  For example, the Google and NASA are developing research labs i.e., Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab and research projects to explore using our computer for AI applications and to investigate a set of managing and learning problems in creating cultural products and services. Recently, the big tech firm, artificial intelligence the blockchain mechanism in the transactions of artwork is challenging the power of regulatory systems to protect fair competition, public interest and ethical standards in cultural markets. According to The Economist, ‘oligopolistic competition could benefit consumers in several ways. It could boost choice as more firms compete to offer an expanding range of services: 11 American firms have over 100m digital subscribers. It could raise standards as platforms differentiate themselves by trust’ (The Economist, 27 February 2021, p.9).  Within this context, ‘the share of the five American giants’ revenues that overlaps with the others has risen from 22% to 38% since 2015. Microsoft and Alphabet are taking on Amazon in the cloud. Amazon is, in turn, the rising force in digital advertising’ (The Economist, 27 February 2021, p.9).

In Europe, to gain a better understanding of digitized process in cultural management and administration systems, it is essential to understand how the 5th generation of mobile phones, artificial intelligence and robots are creating a new global reality in European countries.  For example, the Digital Economy and Society Index in 2020 in Figure 1 shows the ranking of European Member States and it points out that Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands have the most advanced digital economies in the EU followed by Malta, Ireland and Estonia. Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Italy, which have the lowest scores on the index (p.14).

[1] The Info-communication industrial platforms are composed of 5 pillars:

  • The info-communication devices is to access the information content
  • The info-communication content is to create and manipulate the information
  • The info-communication networks function is to transmit the content
  • The info-communication services use the strength of info-communication content to build up the info-communication globalization
  • The info-communication security handles the communication both between people and the artificial intelligences robots and the security between the information, communication and technology tools.

The info-communication five pillars can be found in every corner of the digital cultural management and administration systems. The info-communication handles the artificial intelligence platform between people and robots and also the communication which based on regulation and public interest process. The link between a robot and regulation is realized at the info-communication industrial platforms. When the manager or administrator gives a direct order to robot that is called info-communication. The info-communication level is only reached if entire administration process – from the management generated by human brain to control administration task – is examined as a whole (see Gantzias, 1998, Gantzias, 2019).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Digital Economy and Society Index, 2020

 According to DESI (2020) report,

“until the end of March 2020, 17 Member States assigned spectrum in the 5G pioneer bands. Germany, Finland, Hungary and Italy assigned at least 60% of the 5G spectrum already. The following countries have not assigned yet any 5G spectrum (according to the above conditions): Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia… the number of 5G trials being monitored in Europe and shown in Figure 2 is based on the publicly available information on pre-commercial 5G trials and pilots launched in Member States as part of the industry’s 5G trial roadmap” (p. 34-35).

Figure 2. Numbers of 5G cities and reported 5G trials in EU Member states, January 2020

At a global level, artificial intelligence and robots are emerging in cultural business organizations. Robots are programmable machines that have the capability to assist humans with a variety of tasks and have much higher degree of autonomy based on artificial intelligences smart systems. According to I. Wagner (2019) the growth of the global market for robots compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 26 percent will reach more than 207 billion dollars by 2025 (see figure 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Size of global market for industrial and non-industrial robots between 2018 and 2025 (in billion U.S. dollars).

Artificial intelligence and robots introduce automatic mechanisms to create cultural capital and strategies. Therefore, digital strategies and automatic mechanisms together with global public interest principles are important factors in developing dynamic cultural management and administration systems. According to ‘Dynamic of Public Interest in Artificial Intelligence: Business Intelligence Culture and Global Regulation in the Digital Era’ (p. 272)

“…it is likely to be very difficult to create global public interest principles and ethical standards to regulate effectively the big tech companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Intel, Arm and so on. Within this context, legislation on tax in the United States, such as the ‘Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act’ (FACTA), and law in European Countries, such as ‘General Data Protection Regulation’ (GDPR), are very complicated to be implemented effectively both globally and locally. How should regulators react?”

Nowadays, national legislation constitutes a very important factor in challenging the oligopolistic power of the big tech companies in info-communication globalization. According to the Economist, ‘…the antitrust subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee….in 13 months of investigation of big tech firms, intended to provide the basis for proposals on how to reform America’s antitrust law, it collected hundreds of hours of interviews and waded through 1.3m documents, mostly emails’ (The Economist, 30th July 2020). Regulatory arrangements in the big tech companies and cultural markets do not arise in a vacuum, but evolve over a period of time and within the context of a particular set of public interest principles together with cultural, organizational and strategic determinants. Within this context, the big tech companies’ global regulations are likely to challenge anticompetitive behavior, the handling of use data and the policing of speech…the winds of tax are shifting from favorable to, with luck, no worse than fair (The Economist, 9th January 2021, p. 56). As a result, the big tech as craftier innovators are likely to develop self-regulatory mechanisms by using the B.I.C model to handle the use of digital content and big date in their info-communication content platforms. A final uncertainty around digital transactions in cultural markets and the role of big tech companies is their role and influence in the field of artwork. Within this context, we suggest the development of global regulatory mechanisms to control cultural markets and the content-algorithm ‘Culture Info-Cash’.  According to the research ‘The DNA of Culture, Cultural Management, Artificial Intelligence and Info-Communication Globalization’ the content algorithm, Culture Info-cash’ (CIC) is part of the digital transaction algorithm, ‘Global Info-cash’ (GIC) in the info-communication globalization (see more information in the under-construction web site, www.globalinfocash.com, Gantzias 2014b; Gantzias 2013; Gantzias 2012). The CIC can change the balance of cultural economy and the transaction power in cultural markets by using the values of the B.I.C model. It is also likely to help art workers to protect their cultural rights and their freedom of expression together with their “philotimo” in contributing to cultural capital in real (physical) and digital ecosystems. Within this context, artificial intelligence and robots cannot produce culture as in the unique way humans can create cultural goods, but they can contribute to support and verify the flow of information and transaction process in cultural markets globally.

3. The Values of the ‘Business Intelligence Culture’ Model: A Surplus-Value of Cultural Management and Administration

Diversity has long been an important goal of cultural policy and cultural management in many countries, although often under other names such as pluriformity, pluralism or multiculturalism. Its origins are generally to be found in democratic social and public interest theories and in the critique of the big tech policies and digital democracy, especially in the years of domination of social media and fake news in the info-communication globalization[1].  According to the research ‘The DNA of Culture, Cultural Management, Artificial Intelligence and Info-Communication Globalization’ the values of the B.I.C. model are very important as a methodological tool to examine cultural management and administration mechanisms and to analyze the surplus-value of public interest and ethical standards. As a result, the conceptualization of dynamic cultural management and administration mechanisms depend to a large extent on the exchanges that take place between the management of cultural products and the administration of cultural processes. To define dynamic cultural management, we start from the management value of cultural products. To define dynamic cultural administration; we start from the administration values of cultural processes. The value – whether it is expected or perceived; produced or processed; regulated or deregulated – is the key construct at the basis of each cultural management mechanism to develop cultural goods in the digital transformation era. (See also Gunningham, 1995; Hancher & Moran, 1989; Herring, 1936; Miner, 2005; Li, Mobley, & Kelly, 2013; Parker, 2014; Latane, 1986; Stigler, 1971; Bernstein, 1985; Black, Muchlinski, & Walker, (eds.)., 1998; Black, 1995). The model of ‘Business Intelligent Culture’ (B.I.C) is a dynamic model to introduce cultural management product and cultural administration process as a self-regulatory mechanism to protect public interest and ethical standards in cultural organizations.  It also contributes to create a surplus-value of regulation and public interest to manage and organize cultural products and transactions in the era of digital transformation.

According to the research ‘The DNA of Culture, Cultural Management, Artificial Intelligence and Info-Communication Globalization’ the values generated and exchanged by the B.I.C model as surplus-value of regulation and public interest are very important to digitalized cultural management and administration systems. The four kinds of values generated and exchanged by the B.I.C model contribute to create a new organizational culture in self-regulatory mechanisms are (see figure 4):

  • Management Values of Cultural Production (MVCP). The first, basic type of management values generated by the model B.I.C can be viewed as surplus-value of cultural management systems in the fourth industrial revolution. These values are contributing to organize cultural production and manage self-regulatory mechanisms in cultural organizations. Empower cultural managers to be digitally active and transparent. It can, therefore, be the values of cultural production to manage the regulation mechanisms of cultural goods (product and services) and decentralized digital transactions in the era of digital transformation.
  • Administration Values of Cultural Process’. The second kind of values, which does not replace but adds to the previous one, are values of cultural processes in administration systems which empower the cultural administrators’ ability to be a dynamic mechanism for managing the process in cultural organizations. In more general terms, organizing, planning, leading, regulating and evaluating cultural products and activities are part of digitized cultural organizations systems which are responsible for creating administration values of cultural process in the info-communication globalization.
  • Strategic Values of Cultural Transactions’ (SVCT). Strategic values of cultural transactions empower cultural managers to create competitive strategies in their administration systems and implement digital transactions in the artwork both at national, regional and global levels. The strategic values of cultural transactions primarily concern digital transactions which are creating the content algorithm ‘Culture Info-Cash’ (CIC) in the digital transaction algorithm ‘Global Info-Cash’ (GIC) (see Gantzias 2014b, Gantzias 2013, Gantzias 2012). The main objective of this value is to provide some practical solutions on how and in what areas CIC algorithm could be utilized to change the cultural economy, including making digital transactions and tracking the ownership of artwork in info-communication globalization. Within this context, the CIC may shift the balance of powers in creating a new order in digital transactions.

‘Public Interest and Global Ethical Values’ (PIGEV). The final kind of values relates to public interest and global ethical principles in cultural organizations.  Almost two decades ago, the studies of dynamic of regulation and public interest attracted the interest of scholars worldwide as the main goals in developing global regulatory mechanisms. Since then, public interest and regulation theories have become the key issues to be considered when designing dynamic cultural management and administration systems in the fourth industrial revolution. Public interest is common in everyday experience, but difficult to define at global level (see also Gantzias 2019; Wilson, & Rachal, 1977; Wilson, 1980; Yeung, 2010; Schwartz, 1994; Held, 1970; Collins, 1999; Cranston, 1979). The public interest in cultural management is very important factor to protect ethical standards and local culture.

[1] The info-communication globalization is a dynamic process where there is transformation through digitalization of cultural goods – and attempts to encapsulate the present stages of the new technologies, concurrently with issues of management, policy, regulation, public interest and participatory freedom in cultural and economic crisis. (Gantzias, 2017, p.17 ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. The values of the ‘Business Intelligence Culture’ Model

The above values, however, concern the role of cultural management, the digital transactions of artwork, artificial intelligence and robots in our cultural markets. Given the intensification of digital transformations across cultural sectors, cultural organizations and institutions on the frontier of value are looking constantly for developing new values of digital transactions in cultural markets by adopting digital currencies or tokens and the tax payment culture methodologies i.e. ‘Global Info-Cash’ (GIC) and the model ‘Digital Tax Payment Culture’ (DTPC) in cultural economy (see also Gantzias, 2013; Gantzias, 2014b; Gantzias 2012; Schuster, 2006; Webley, 1997; Yeung, 2010; Wheelen, & Hunger 2008; Wright & McMahan, 1992; Whittington, 1993; Wijkman, 1982; OECD,2020).

Nowadays, cultural organizations and institutions together with the art workers, as part of the info-communication globalization for creating, producing and managing cultural products and services, are placed into a new cultural content paradigm, which I have called “info-communication (info-com) content paradigm”. So, the public interest and ethical standards should be valued at national, regional and global levels.  The richness of the four values of the model B.I.C set out above confirms why public interest principles and ethical standards must pay considerable attention to the proper definition and development of global regulatory mechanisms to control cultural goods in the liquid capitalism. Within this context, the digital transactions of the artwork are a new reality in info-communication globalization. For example,

“…a famous institution is embracing a controversial new genre. On March 11th Christie’s sold a digital collage of images called “Everydays—The First 5,000 Days” for a cool $69.3m. The sale elevated the work’s creator, Mike Winkelmann, aka Beeple, to the august company of David Hockney and Je Koons, the only two living painters to sell at such prices.  Christie’s sold the artwork as a “non-fungible token” (NFT), a craze for which has gripped Silicon Valley’s elite. An NFT is a secure, blockchain-based record that represents pieces of digital media. Invented a few years ago, it can link not only to digital art but also to text, videos or bits of code” (The Economist, 20th March 2021, p. 59).

Digital transactions in artwork create a radical uncertainty by using digital token in cultural markets both locally and globally. According to the Economist,

“The bumper Beeple sale, plus the arrival of ever more creators, means a mania that has been largely confined to crypto and techie circles could move mainstream. The global NFT market grew from a few tens of millions of dollars in annual sales a few years ago to over $300m in the past month alone, according to Andreessen Horowitz, a venture-capital firm. NFT mesh with the massive network effects of social media and meme culture, notes Sam Hart of the Interchain Foundation, a Swiss backer of blockchain infrastructure. There has been little time to educate buyers, he says” (The Economist, 20th March 2021, p. 59).

Dynamics of cultural management and administration systems depend on the way we create regulations and digital transactions in our society; If we create them in a traditional way, ignoring public interest principle and ethical standards, our self-regulatory mechanisms will be traditionally constructed. Dependent on the way we regulate, we live in a chaotic regulatory system. The framework for self-regulation in digital transactions is not considered sufficiently developed in most countries to deliver proper safeguards against abuses without statutory backing in the era of digital transformation. A self-regulatory culture, in which cultural managers and administrators are traditionally thinking, will be totally different from self-regulatory culture in which public interest principle and ethical values are globally constructed in the era of the digital transformation.

4. Conclusion: Dynamics of Cultural Management in the Era of Digital Transformation

The world is changing, and with it all the ideas about management and administrations in cultural organizations. Digital technology, together with the new waves of artificial intelligence and values of cultural organizations, has introduced o new order into local cultural markets and digital transactions. Global regulation mechanisms and digital transactions in the artwork are challenging the management and administration structures in our society. In the third decade of twenty-first century, it is useful to consider values of the Business Intelligence Culture, or B.I.C, model as surplus-values of cultural management and administration within a common framework of public interest principle and ethical standards at national, regional and global levels. Powerful states need to reconsider their national-oriented transaction policies and strategies by developing a content algorithm i.e., “Cultural Info-Cash” (CIC) and digital cultural economy structure to manage and regulate the digital transactions in the artwork.

According to Arthur Watt: ‘Power carries responsibilities, and even the sort-sighted must see that the alternative to rule of law is anarchy and disorder, even chaos’ (as cited in Gantzias, 2019, p. 325). The strategic values of cultural transaction together with the digital technology are challenging the power of self-regulatory mechanisms in the era of the digital transformation. Therefore, each cultural organization should be able to develop a self-regulatory mechanism to develop a consistent digital strategy by reforming their traditional management and administration production structures. This chapter takes into account the digitalization transactions in artwork by endorsing the four values the B.I.C model as surplus-values of cultural management and administration in the fourth industrial revolution. Even the strongest cultural organizations need to reconsider the existing cultural strategy and develop digitized cultural management and administration systems. According to the research ‘The DNA of Culture, Cultural Management, Artificial Intelligence and Info-Communication Globalization’, the focus on values clarifies that the B.I.C model should pay great attention to maintain, develop and explain statutory regulation and self-regulation mechanisms as a surplus-value of regulation and public interest. If one limits attention to the main areas of regulation mechanisms, public interest and artificial intelligence, the following potential effects of the digitization of cultural management and administration come to mind:

  • Developing ‘public interest’ and ‘ethical standards’ values at national, regional and global levels.
  • Creating self-regulatory systems and values based on transparency, trust and safety.

Empower cultural managers and administrators to be digitally effective and accountable.

References

‘A corporate survival guide. The crisis will change the world of commerce’. (2020, Apr. 8). The Economist.https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/04/08/the-crisis-will-change-the-world-of-commerce

American Alliance of Museums (2020) COVID-19 Resources & Information for the Museum Field. [Online] Available: https://www.aam-us.org/programs/about-museums/covid-19-resources-information-for-the-museumfi eld/

Anderson, C. (1997) Values-Based Management, Academy of Management Executive vol. 11, pp. 25-46.

Anderson, J., Rainie, L., & Luchsinger, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans. Pew Research Center. Baron, D. P. (2010, September).

Andrews, K. R. (1971) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S. and Kirchner, L. (2016) Machine Bias, ProPublica 23/5/2016. i

Bernstein, M. (1985). Regulating business by independent commission (pp.  74–102). Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Black, J., Muchlinski, P., & Walker, P. (Eds.). (1998). Commercial regulation and judicial review. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Black, J. (1995). Which arrow? Rule type and regulatory policy. Public Law, 94–117.

Black, J. (1996). Constitutionalising self-regulation. Modern Law Review, 59, 24–56.

Charlemagne Europe’s vaccine race, Europe. (2021, January 23). The Economist, p.21

Collins, H. (1999). Regulating contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cranston, R. (1979). Regulating business: Law and consumer agencies. London: Macmillan.

DESI Report (2020) Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020: Methodological Note, European Commission, 19/06/2020, [online]. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_ id=67082

Fang, H., L. Wang, and Y. Yang (2020, March). Human mobility restrictions and the spread of the novel coronavirus (2019-ncov) in china. Working Paper 26906, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Franz, W. (2014). Dynamic corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies in oligopoly. OR-Spektrum, 36(1), 229–250. doi:10.100700291-013-0319-6

Fitzgibbon Marian and A. Kelly (eds.) (1997), From Maestro to Manager: Critical Issues in Arts & Culture Management. Oak Tree Press, Dublin,

For artificial intelligence to thrive, it must explain itself, Science and Technology. (2018, Feb. 15). The Economist. [online]  https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/02/15/for-artificial-intelligenceto-thrive-it-must-explain-itself

Greenstone, M. and V. Nigam (2020). Does social distancing matter? University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper (2020-26)

‘Google Chief Sundar Pichai warns against rushing into AI regulation’ The Financial Times, September 20, 2019. Available: https://www.ft.com/content/b16e6ee8-dbb2-11e9- 8f9b-77216ebe1f17, Last call 02.09.2019.

Gantzias, G. (1998) The Info-Communication Industry: Digital Services, Global Markets, Zeno Publishers, Louizou Publications, London.

Gantzias, G. (2016). Collective Will Democracy: Cultural crisis, digital communication and public interest. In Political Communication, Vol. 3, pp. 473–497, Sideris Publisher, Athens.

Gantzias, G.K. (2014a). Cultural Policy, Administration, and Info-Communication Landscape: The Cultural Management Model, Info-Communication Cultural Management (ICCM). International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, Vol.5, pp.30-42.

Gantzias, G. (2017). Cultural Management and Cultural Activities: The Model “Dynamic Perception of Cultural Activities”. In Korres, G. M., Kourliouros, E., & Michailidis, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Policies and Practices for Sustainable Economic Growth and Regional Development (pp. 15-24). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2458-8.ch002

Gantzias, G. (2019) The Dynamics of Regulation: Global Control, Local Resistance -Cultural Management and Policy: A Case Study of Broadcasting Advertising in the United Kingdom, Routledge, UK https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315196497

Gantzias, G, (2020) ‘Cultural Policy, Sponsorship and Corporate Social Responsibility: Digital Transformation, Administration and Cultural Economy, Papasortiriou Publisher, Athens.

Gantzias, G. (2021a) Dynamics of Public Interest in Artificial Intelligence: Business Intelligence Culture and Global Regulation in the Digital Era, in Seung H., Gonzalez-Perez M.A. και Floriani D.E. The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in the Digital Era, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 259-281

Gantzias, G. (2021b) Governing by Humans, Not by Robots: Regulating Humans and Artificial Intelligence in the 21st Century in Christiansen B. και Škrinjarić T. Handbook of Research on Applied AI for International Business and Marketing Applications, IGI Global, Pennsylvania, pp. 116-134.

Gantzias, G. (2013). The Greek crisis & CODTRA (code of digital transactions): Mobile payments and the global info-cash. In E. Carayannis & G. Korres (Eds.), European socio-economic integration: Challenges, opportunities and lessons learned (pp. 85–95). New York: Springer.

Gantzias, G. (2014b). Info-communication globalization and digital tax payments culture: The Greek crisis and the global info-cash. In N. Petropoulos & G. Tsobanoglou (Eds.), The Debt Crisis in the Eurozone: Social Impacts (pp. 481–509). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.

Gantzias, G. (2012) Info-Communication Globalization and the Global Info-Cash (GIG): A Practical Way for Greece to Emerge from Crisis in Liargovas P., (Eds.)  Greece: Economic, Political and Social Issues, Nova Publishers, 2012, Washington D.C., pp. 222-235.

Gunningham, N. (1995). Environment, self-regulation, and the chemical industry: Assessing responsible care. Law & Policy, 17, 57–109.

Gunningham, N., Kagan, R., & Thornton, D. (2003). Shades of green: Business, Regulation and Environment. California: Stanford University Press.

Gunningham, N., & Grabosky, P. N. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Clarendon.

Hancher, L., & Moran, M. (1989). Organising regulatory space. In L. Hancher & M. Moran (Eds.), Capitalism,Culture and Economic Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Held, V. (1970). The public interest and individual interest. New York: Basic Books.

Hare, S. (2019). We will define ethics of AI in law. The Wired World in 2020, The Wired, Security, p.14.

Horn, S. (1997) Cyberville: Clicks, Culture, and the Creation of an Online Town, Warner Books: New York.

Hoofnagle, C. J. (2009) Beyond Google and Evil: How Policy Makers, Journalists and Consumers Should Talk Differently about Google and Privacy. First Monday, Vol. 14(4), pp. 4–6.

How the coronavirus is changing arts and entertainment in America, (2021, 18 March), The Economist, [online]  https://www.economist.com/prospero/2020/03/18/how-the-coronavirus-is-changing-arts-and-entertainment-in-america

Herring, E. P. (1936) Public Administration and the Public Interest, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Miner, J.B. (2005). Organizational behavior I. Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc

McCain R. (2006) «Defining Cultural and Artistic Goods» στο Ginsburgh V.A. in D. Throsby Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, vol. 1, Elsevier, London, pp. 147-165.

ΝΕΜΟ (2020) «Survey on the Impact of the COVID-19 Situation on Museums in Europe». [online]. https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMO_documents/NEMO_Corona_Survey_ Results_6_4_20.pdf

Kerwer, D. (2005). Rules that Many Use: Standards and Global Regulation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 18(4), 611–632. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00294.x

Li, M., Mobley, W.H., & Kelly, A. (2013). When Do Global Leaders Learn Best to Develop Cultural Intelligence? An Investigation of the Moderating Role of Experiential Learning Style. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 12, No. 1, 32-50

Livermore, D. (2011). The Cultural Intelligence Difference: Master the One Skill You Can’t Do Without in Today’s Global Economy. New York: American Management Association.

Ouchi, W. G. (1977) «The Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control», Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 22, pp. 95-113.

OECD (2020), «Coronavirus (Covid-19) and Cultural and Creative Sectors: Impact, Innovations and Planning for Post-Crisis». [online]   https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/culture-webinars.htm

Parker, C. (2014). The open corporation: Effective self-regulation and democracy. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511550034

Payne, K. (2018). Artificial Intelligence: A Revolution in Strategic Affairs? Survival, 60(5), 5, 7–32. do i:10.1080/00396338.2018.1518374

Latane, O. B. (1986) «Responsibility and Effort in Organizations» in Goodman P. S. (eds.), Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Liu, S. (2019). Artificial intelligence (AI) worldwide – Statistics & Facts. December 4, In Statista. Retrieved 25 January 2021 https://www.statista.com/topics/3104/artificial-intelligence-ai-worldwide/

Statista. (September, 2020). Statista dossier on the online market, Global online art market (in million U.S. dollars)* [Graph]., p.2. In Statista. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://www-statista-com.proxy.eap.gr/study/58458/online-art-market/

Strum, D. (1985) «Corporate Culture and the Common Good: The Need for Thick Description and Critical Thought», Thought, June, pp. 141-60.

Schuster, J. M. (2006) «Tax Incentives in Cultural Policy» in V.A Ginsburgh. & D. Thorsby Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, vol. 1, Elsevier, London, pp. 1253-1294.

Schumpeter A tech CEO’s guide to taxes’, Europe. (2021, January 9). The Economist, p.56

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, S.C. Choi, G. Yoon, and C. Kagitibasi (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 85-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol.2, pp.3–21

Technology Betting all chips, Leader. (2021, January 23). The Economist, p.8

The dust-up: A new phase in the global tech contests is under way, Leader, (2021, February 27), The Economist, p.9

UNESCO (April 2020) «Museums Facing COVID-19 Challenges Remain Engaged with Communities». Available: https://en.unesco.org/ news/museums-facing-covid-19-challenges-remain-engaged-communities

UNESCO (August 2020) «UNESCO and ICCROM Analyze Museum Trends During and After the Pandemic». Available: https://en.unesco.org/ news/unesco-and-iccrom-analyze-museum-trends-during-and-after-pandemic

UNESCO (June 2020) «Advanced Technologies and Artificial Intelligence Must Have a Human-Rights Based Approach». Available: https:// en.unesco.org/news/advanced-technologies-and-artificial-intelligence-musthave-human-rights-based-approach

Verplanken, R., & Holland, R.W. (2002). Motivated decision-making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.82, pp. 434-447.

Wakabayashi, D. και Shane, S. (2018) «Google Will Not Renew Pentagon Contract That Upset Employees» New York Times, 1 June. Available, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentagonproject-maven.html

Wagner, I. (2019) Global robotic market revenue 2018-2025, Dec, 9, Retrieved March 12, 2020, https://www-statista-com.proxy.eap.gr/statistics/760190/worldwide-robotics-market-revenue/

Webley, S. (1997) Codes of Ethics and International Business, Institute of Business Ethics, London.

Wheelen, T. L. και J. D. Hunger (2008) Concepts in Strategic Management and Business Policy, Pearson, New Jersey.

Wright, P. M. και McMahan, G. C. (1992) «Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management», Journal of Management, vol. 18, pp. 295-320.

What’s wrong with this picture? Finance & economics, (2021, March 20), The Economist, p. 59

Whittington, R. (1993) What is Strategy – And Does It Matter? Routledge, London.

Wijkman, P. M. (1982) «Managing the Global Commons», International Organizations, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 511-36.

Williams, R. (1958) Culture and Society, 1780-1950, Chatto and Windus, London.

Wilson, J.  Q., & Rachal, P. (1977). Can the government regulate itself. The Public Interest, Vol.46, pp.3–14.

Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books.

Yeung, K. (2010). The regulatory state. In R. Baldwin, M. Cave, & M. Lodge (Eds.), Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ithenticate
google
creative commons
crossref
doi
Proud Pen is a premier online publisher of academic books. We strongly believe that knowledge makes the strongest difference when it is shared, discussed, challenged, and built upon. That’s why we publish all our books open access.

NEWSLETTER

Newsletters

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

CONTACT

This Site Uses Cookies

We use cookies and similar technologies (“cookies”) to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes Personalisation; ad selection, delivery, reporting; measurement; content selection, delivery, reporting; and information storage and access. To accept or manage the use of cookies click here. You may read more about these methods
we use by clicking Read More.