What the Markets Mean

Any up to the minute news on the markets, on the federal government's plans for the banking industry, on the presidential candidates' opinions on prospective federal plans, is inevitably met with the addendum, "What does this mean to me?" As it should. Looking at my retirement accounts definitely gives one answer to this.

But I'm choosing also to ponder this in terms of what it will mean in the long term for the institutions I'm invested in- libraries and universities. Timothy Burke's InsideHigherEd column casts some predictions in terms of contraction in higher education. These could, and most probably will, hold true for most other public-serving institutions, including most of us in the libraries-archives-museums boat.

Much of this is pretty grim- who would wish for an endowment fallout, or a drop-off in annual donations? But Burke points to some changes- er, adjustments, that could happen as a result, and they're not totally unappealing. For one, he suggests that the emphasis that research universities have placed on rigid specialization within the disciplines could soften in the coming years. He also suggests, and it may be wishful thinking, that conditions for overextended non-faculty teaching staff are going to have to improve. But his main point of interest to libraries, and perhaps the most chicken-egg obvious one, is that scholarly communication can't keep running on the huge markup model it currently does:

"Where higher education is exposed to cost increases which are potentially within its control, universities and colleges need to band together comprehensively as buyers and dictate terms to their own advantage. There’s not much that can be done about energy costs or insurance: any big employer is exposed to those at an equal base, and then to whatever extent they consume those above and beyond that base. On the other hand, libraries and information services are areas of unique exposure. There are reasons for academia to completely rethink its production and consumption of publication and knowledge that have nothing to do with cost. Open access publication is a good idea that enhances the mission of academia, regardless of its financial implications. However, it’s also insane to be exposed to escalating costs when we potentially have such massive collective leverage over the sellers. We are not only the main buyers of many forms of publication and information, we are also the main producers, and we typically give away what we produce for free and then buy it back from the people we gave it to."

In other words, journal publishers and database vendors are not going to be able to command the rates they do in boom times. Hence, potential loss of such resources are going to give alternative models, like open access and open repositories, even more steam behind them.

For those of us trying to find a hedge in our careers, these are growth areas for investment.