Introduction

1Markets, financial ones in particular, are struggling today with their reputation. The deep impacts of the continued stagnation since the USA subprime crisis and the productivity shock through the Euro zone and emerging economies is far from over. Unresolved structural threats to global stability have nourished an unprecedented skepticism of key tenants of the economic establishment. These include long-held assumptions about individual rationality and markets self-regulation.

2Continuous scandals in banking institutions formerly regarded as “too big to fail” have exposed the rigged inners of globalized financial markets. The neoclassical dogma of market self-regulation is looking increasingly as an ideological stand, removed from empirical grounds. That belief disregarded “market failures” anomalies, providing justification to those taking advantage. “The markets” have been exposed as real people playing actual roles rather than a ghostly entelechy (Wurzburg, 1998; De Long and Froomkin, 2000). That space is reclaimed by knowledge markets: value exchanges with rules made and applied by real people under transparent circumstances to achieve fair and sustainable outcomes (Kuznets, 1934; Haque, 2011; Shiller, 2012; Phelps, 2013).

3This chapter aims to show how new generations of “knowledge natives” are engaging in novel value creation and exchange modes that might herald true knowledge societies. Seldom explicit, the underlying principles of initiatives as diverse as social innovation, knowledge-intensive business, political organization and cultural creation, seem amenable to be described as knowledge markets (k-markets).

4Based on capital systems as integrated intangible/tangible value universes (Carrillo, 2002, 2014; García, 2008; Sarimin and Parker, 2012; Batra, 2012; Fachinelli, Giacomello and Larentis, 2015), the emergence of k-markets has been catalyzed by several cultural transformations. Côté (1996) identified the individual competencies and cultural transformations involved in “identity markets”. He foresaw the shift from human to cultural to identity capital as the “most advantageous social-class mobility/reproduction resources, corresponding to the Pre-modern, to Early modern, to Late-modern Social-structural periods respectively” (Côté, 1996, p. 424).

5Haque (2011) proposed an alternative business paradigm based on value balance and capital systems. Phelps (2013) provided an alternative account of the economic surge of modernity as “mass flourishing”. Haque at micro and Phelps at macro level, both refer to Aritotelian “good life” or eudaimonia to characterize good business or market of ideas. K-markets are to development what knowledge cities are to urbanism: a re-invention of the possible.

1. Approach: analytic framework

6Hayek (1945) flirted with the idea of relating knowledge and markets. Yet, he did not introduce the concept of knowledge market as standalone category. Early references to k-markets through the early 2000’s are still interplays of the separate ideas of knowledge and market (e.g., Stewart, 1997). Characterizations of transaction objects (what is traded) evolved as the understanding of the “knowledge” attribute evolved. A parallelism can be drawn with Knowledge Management (KM). Amongst “KM Generations” characterizations (Firestone and McElroy, 2002; Skyrme, 2002), one is based upon how “knowledge” and “management” are understood (Carrillo, 1996; Laszlo and Laszlo, 2002; Rowley, 2003; Wang and Lihua, 2006; Rezgui, Hopfe and Vorakulpipat, 2010). The concept of knowledge-based development (KBD) underwent a similar evolution (Carrillo, 1998; 2014).

7Similarly, k-markets concepts progressively account for object, agent and context (Flores, 2013). Object-centered conceptualization is exemplified by Hicks (2011): “… a mechanism for distributing knowledge resources”. Digital infrastructure sustains knowledge intensive markets, but is useless without agent participation (Mirghani, Murray and Mohamed, 2010). Davenport and Prusak (1998) exemplify agent-centered conceptualizations: “The knowledge market, like any other, is a system in which participants exchange a scarce unit for present or future value” (p. 25). While a community of participants is a necessary condition, exchanging knowledge units is futile without a value framework.

8Descriptions of k-markets consist so far of conjectures on formal elements and functional relationships (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Desouza and Awazu, 2003; Simard, 2006). Traditional market concepts emphasize: spatiality, buyer-seller aggregates, transactions and prices. Two alternative approaches as to how these elements interplay in k-markets can be recognized: (a) substituting transaction objects with knowledge content, caeteris paribus; (b) proposing new value transaction regimes, operating under new principles. This chapter aims at substantiating approach (b) by proposing a novel framework and typology for k-markets. Approach (a) has dominated so far, in absence of a distinctive knowledge-based analysis. The rules of traditional markets have simply been extrapolated to knowledge-based transactions. For the present study, formal system fundamentals are introduced: a demarcation criterion (what is and what is not a knowledge market), the distinctive elements (necessary and sufficient conditions) and the terms of engagement (transaction regimes).

9A third-generation definition has been proposed as: “…those value exchange systems where the quantity, quality and terms of interactions amongst agents are determined primordially by the dynamic properties of intellectual capital” (Carrillo, 2010). Such definition allows a representation of k-markets as formal systems. In a traditional market, the value exchange combinatory was constrained to a 2x2 matrix: object/object (barter), object/currency (buy), currency/object (sale), currency/currency (currency fractioning or substitution). In a k-market possibilities expand to a 6x6 value exchanges matrix (identity, intelligence, relational, financial, human and instrumental capitals). Designing k-markets involves a number of distinctive dimensions. Lakhani and Panetta (2007) identified the following features of open source software communities as basis for distributed innovation: decentralized problem solving, self-selected participation, self-organizing coordination and collaboration, “free” revealing of knowledge and hybrid organization models blending community with commercial success. Market objects correspond with capital systems main categories (Carrillo, 2002). The following agent dimension variables, have been identified: seeker, solver, broker, manager and regulator (Carrillo, Duran, Herrera and Flores, 2011).

10In order to reconstruct the market concept in a knowledge-based environment, a critical appraisal of current economic thinking is required (Carrillo, Yigitcanlar, García and Lönnqvist, 2014). David Kahnemann, summarizing his seminal work leading to behavioral economics (2002), recollects:

The focus of my research… has been the study of various aspects of experienced utility—the measure of the utility of outcomes as people actually live them… The distinction could be of little relevance for fully rational agents, who presumably maximize experienced utility as well as decision utility. But if rationality cannot be assumed, the quality of consequences becomes worth measuring and the maximization of experienced utility becomes a testable proposition. (Kahnemann, 2002, n/p)

11Hence, satisfaction, the first restriction variable, deals with experienced utility. As long as markets involve capital balance between offer and demand, the satisfaction requirement becomes apparent, even in traditional markets. Market transactions involve an understanding between agents regarding price and conditions of unilateral (e.g., gift) or bilateral (e.g., sale) value transfer. Whereas satisfaction is relatively agent-independent in traditional, material-based transactions, insofar it relies on objective physical and monetary specifications, as knowledge-intensity increases it becomes agent-dependent.

12Consciousness is a consequence of the former. Market equilibrium needs not be attributed to an invisible hand: it will be proportional to degree of awareness and quality of information of acting agents. This corresponds to the field of Information Economics (decisions relative to uncertainty and information availability). Studies on information asymmetries, closely related to behavioral economics, decision-making and game theory are of particular relevance to k-markets (Birchler and Bütler, 2007). K-markets aim at financial institutions as “stewardship of society’s assets” (Shiller, 2012). Consciousness and information asymmetries are highly relevant for k-markets, since market regulation is meant to be open, becoming the right and responsibility of agents. Self-awareness about imperfect information and bounded rationality become the basis for self-allocation and self-regulation (Birchler and Bütler, 2007). Trust becomes the core currency of knowledge-intensive transactions insofar transparency and public accountability are privileged. Alain Peyferine’s account of social trust dimensions foresaw recent assessments of Intellectual Capital of Nations (The World Bank, 2008; Lin and Edvinsson, 2011).

13Since the value of knowledge has to be ascertained by both parties along cultural and informational constraints, “The crucial issue then becomes one of trust, respect for obligations and enforcement of agreements” (Millar and Choi, 2010, p. 762). The need to agree and enforce codes of conduct has become apparent even in online gaming (Hodson, 2013). The characterization of a solidarity economy as one “based on socially responsible or ‘high road’ economic values, practices and institutions: ethical consumption, fair trade, socially responsible corporations” (Allard, Davidson and Matthaei, 2008) makes more sense from this perspective.

14Freedom determines choice conditions for market agents. Internal markets were promoted by Hallal (1996) as a means to re-establish nearly absent democracy and freedom in that most emblematic of U.S. institutions: the corporate enterprise. He foresaw the opportunity of enabling employees to mobilize their initiatives. Phelps (2013) showed how this is extensive to all agents. The socialization of entrepreneurship and innovation (Martin and Osberg, 2007) is consistent with a natural way of tackling economic behavior: time allocation. This is becoming universal currency in k-markets and welfare measures. The lives of individuals are described as time budgets allocated through everyday choices (Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi, 2009). This leads to the concept of discretionary time: “It is ‘potential spare time’, time that you are perfectly free to spend outside paid or unpaid labor or personal care if you choose to do so” (Goodin, Rice, Parpo, and Eriksson, 2008, p. 82). Choosing what one does, becomes as important as getting what one seeks.

2. A typology

15Based on the above framework, the remaining task is to make sense of the diversity of putative k-markets. A typology involves definition, demarcation (belonging criterion), taxonomy (well-defined sets), functional framework (necessary and sufficient conditions) and design (parameters for effective k-markets). Considering the distinctive properties of knowledge-based production (Carrillo, 2014; Carrillo, Yigitcanlar, García and Lönnqvist, 2014), the traditional characterization of market structures does not apply to k-markets. A market structure is conceived as the set of factors that determine buyers and sellers interactions, prices changes, as well as interaction amongst production and selling levels. The market structure determines the dynamics of value creation and distribution. The more such structure becomes knowledge-intensive, the more it becomes subject to capital systems dynamics, e.g., information asymmetries are leveled off.

16Three common market structures features are prominent: volume of producers and consumers (or seekers and solvers), type of goods and services (mostly intangible in k-markets) and degree of freedom in information flow. These three characteristics are extremely dynamic in knowledge-intensive markets. Some knowledge market categories are actually differentiated on the basis of volume of seekers/solvers (crowd dealing), type of good/service (IC markets) and free information flow (open dealing). Some other k-markets are not even considered within traditional market structures, e.g., co-operative and non-monetary dealings. Since early knowledge cities literature, the role of co-operative dealings was identified (Escribá-Esteve and Urra-Urbieta, 2002; Malone and Yoke, 2002; Laszlo and Laszlo, 2002). A decade later, k-markets seems to corroborate that: the taxonomy required a first-level category to capture the wealth of cooperative transactions (Bowles, 2011). In KBD, cooperative city networks are prominent (Passerini and Wu, 2008).

17Figure 1 compares traditional and knowledge-based markets with regard to three further criteria: knowledge-intensity (intangibles), inter-determinacy (personal engagement) and information fluidity (symmetry incentives).

18The first criterion is obvious, being the most conspicuous aspect of k-markets. By definition k-markets involve both, tangible and intangible capital exchanges, making the capital system a natural language for these realities. The second criterion, agent inter-determinacy, involves a qualitative difference. In traditional markets, the satisfaction of the parts established by the terms of contract are specified through physical and monetary attributes. The parties may be disengaged, since a third party or automaton can verify compliance. By contrast, personal engagement of seekers and solvers is bound to be substantial in knowledge-based transaction, since satisfaction is agent-dependent (Carrillo, 2010).

19The third criterion (degree of free information flow), also shows a major difference. In continued knowledge transactions, information spillovers and other positive externalities may favor transparency and trust (Carlino, 2001). Jacobs spillovers involve proximity of firms across diverse industries as a favorable condition for knowledge cross-pollination and regional innovation (Franz, 2010). The role of density and knowledge-intensity in knowledge cities constitutes a substantial line of research (Rubalcaba and Garrido, 2006; Petruzelli, Albino and Carbonara, 2009; Perry and May, 2010). Partial attempts to characterize k-markets can be identified within specific subsets. The website croudsourcing.org provides five crowd-dealing categories: funding, labor, creativity, distributed knowledge and open innovation. Geron (2013) organizes “The Share Economy” into three categories: collaborative lifestyles, redistribution and assets plus services. David and Foray (2002, p. 15) suggest three attributes of knowledge communities: extensive creation and reproduction, exchange and dissemination mechanisms and wide use of ICT.

20In their view, when these three attributes are met, communities look akin to k-markets:

• Knowledge enhancement is boosted by recombination, transposition, and synergy;
• The knowledge base is largely codified, leading to greater storage and communication and facilitating new cognitive approaches;
• Members can each reproduce, test, and criticize new knowledge, thus exercising distributed quality control;
• Since everyone has access to the knowledge produced, the same items will not end up being reinvented (static efficiency);
• Since individuals can “learn to learn” through reproducing the knowledge of others, learning productivity is enhanced;
• Since it has become less expensive to move knowledge than people, opportunities emerge for spatial reorganization and virtual communities.

21Adler (2001) developed a typology of societal forms based on market/hierarchy intensity to analyze trust in knowledge-based organizations. Arora, Fosfuri and Giambardella (2002) categorized technology markets based on relative rivalry and availability. Lam (2002) distinguishes four ideal organizational forms along two dimensions: degree of knowledge/work standardization and agent dominance. Brydon and Vinning (2006) develop a categorization of “responses to knowledge type” based on a typology of knowledge goods. Benbya and Van Alstyne (2010) identify four market types: prediction, knowledge, innovation and idea.

22The OECD (2012), in a study of knowledge networks and markets (KNMs), arrives to a synthetic characterization. The following dimensions from prior literature are disregarded as non-critical to KNMs: knowledge type, structure and financing models. Instead, the following three characteristics are considered as distinctive of KNMS: formal (governed by rules embodied in legal documents), transformative (through resources reorganization and inter-organizational relationship facilitation) and translational (capable of adding value by processing knowledge-based inputs).

23With the exception of formality as stated by the OECD, all others—including the converse properties of those disregarded, fit into the typology advanced here.

24Hence, the features to be taken as basis of the typology advanced in this chapter are:

• Capital inclusive. The most distinctive feature of k-markets, enabling its value-multiplication potential.
• Translational. A k-market generates higher-value addition to knowledge products from relatively low-value inputs.
• Formal. Only insofar as features in Figure 2 above are satisfied. Formality is kept to a minimum due to the following three characteristics.
• Flexible. Including the sub-features: low-key, rotating or even invisible leadership; self-selection by agents and self-regulation as emergent communities; role shifting or sharing; minimalist structure and high adaptability.
• Bottom-up. K-markets distinctively embrace tolerance and freedom, building decision-making from the bottom-up, keeping flat and meritocratic.
• Transformative. As per the OECD, with emphasis on adaptive self-organization.

25Based on the above characteristics, a typology of knowledge markets is deployed in figure 2.

Figure 2. Knowledge Markets Typology.

26The main categories are described next. Subcategories are just listed, given the scope of this chapter. For a more detailed description of sub-categories see Carrillo (2016).

2.1. Intellectual Capital Dealing

27Intellectual capital (IC) markets are structures for exchanging property rights over intangible assets. These are precursors to the knowledge economy by being the first kind of knowledge-intensive goods included in accountancy books and national accounts. It covers patents, licenses, trademarks and other forms of technology and IC trading. IC dealing subsumes under traditional practices, although there has been an growing awareness of the peculiarities of this trade (Franz, 2010; Perry & May, 2010). Sub-categories include: i) Intellectual Property Trading, ii) Celebrity Bonds, iii) Intellectual Capital Trading, iv) Intellectual Capital Partnerships, and v) Technology and Information Trading.

2.2. Open Dealing

28Covers a wide spectrum of trends characterized by the elimination of costs and barriers for transaction/intermediation, the free flow of knowledge and ideas and the creation and development of public goods through a collaborative legal and technical base. In this category, the parallel development of two alternative views of k-markets is evident: a transitional view where market structures remain the same as in the industrial mindset, except dealing with knowledge-intensive goods and having some pragmatic advantages; and an evolutionary view that regards knowledge as a public good and aims at establishing new rules based on the combinatory of intellectual capital and a new trade ethos (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006; Rifkin, 2014; Carrillo, 2006, 2014). Sub-categories include: i) Open Sourcing, ii) Open Innovation, iii) Peer-to-peer Dealing, iv) Customer-to-customer Dealing and v) Transparency Movements.

2.3. Crowd Dealing

29One of the most successful and rapidly evolving k-market formats. Crowd dealing involves an open call to massive participation of seekers or solvers, be it in political campaign funding, scientific research, venture capital raising, labor market, or social innovation. This approach reverses the traditional sourcing of capital, from public and private central institutions, to the public at large. It involves a reappraisal of collective intelligence (Buckley, 2016) as well as innovative methods of social decision-making (e.g., algorithmic crowdsourcing) and democratic participation (Graeff, 2016). Crowdsourcing.org offers a taxonomy of crowd dealing including: crowd funding, crowd labor, crowd creativity, distributed knowledge and open innovation. Crowd dealing sub-categories included in this typology are: i) Crowd-sourcing, ii) Crowd-funding, iii) Crowd-casting, iv) Crowd-testing and v) Crowd-working.

2.4. Cooperative Dealing

30Covers a wide spectrum of cooperative exchange mediated through a distributive platform. Cooperation is understood broadly as in biology, behavioral psychology, game theory and evolutionary economics, where a concerted action yields the best possible outcome to all participants, either in a direct (mutual benefit) or indirect (altruistic cooperation) way. This process has generated substantial theoretical and empirical work in all these fields due to its implications (Bowles & Gintis, 2011; Schwartz & Hornych, 2011). Cooperative dealing covers cooperativism, mutualism, sharing economy, collaborative consumption and specific resource co-access schemes (Puschmann, 2016). The Cooperative Dealing sub-categries included in this typology are: i) Cooperativism and Mutualism, ii) Collaborative Consumption, iii) Co-housing, iv) Co-sharing and v) Co-working.

2.5. Non-Monetary Dealing

31Social learning coupled with economic stagnation have given a fresh impulse to local economy models that are not determined primordially by, although may include, a monetary exchange. It repositions financial capital as a mean, not an end, to value balance and redefines the role of currencies (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2013). This is a distinctive k-market category insofar it tends to mobilize intangible capital and minimize transaction costs (Radjou, Prabhu, & Ahuja, 2012; Jeffs, 2015). It differs from the non-monetary economy (unpaid work) in that it constitutes a deliberately de-monetized alternative to mainstream market economy, although both eventually converge within a capital systems framework (Batra, Payal & Carrillo, 2013; Carrillo, 1998, 2014; Fachinelli, Giacomello and Larentis, 2015). Non-monetary Dealing sub-categories included in this typology are: i) Frugal and Lean Movements, ii) Self-sufficiency, Permaculture and Do-it-yourself (DIY), iii) Moneyless movements, iv) Pay-it-forward, v) Cognitive Surplus and vi) Volunteering.

2.6. Social Dealing

32One of the most active grounds for k-markets is unfolding under social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Received dichotomies such as for-profit/non-for-profit, public/private, work/capital, academy/industry, etc., become meaningless in a movement characterized by initiatives committed to solve a social need in innovative and financially viable ways. In this type of k-markets, a distinctive ethos different from traditional business models is a fundamental, often explicit component. This field has enjoyed an international expansion, becoming the object of substantial research and practice emulation (TEPSIE, 2014; Phillips, Lee, Ghobadian, O’Reagan & James, 2015; Nicholls, Simon, & Gabriel, 2015). Social Dealing categories included in typology are: i) Social Innovation, ii) Social Entrepreneurship, iii) Micro.entrepreneurship and iv) Society-led Innovation.

2.7. Alternative Currencies and Incentive Regimes

33A consequence of opening up value exchange possibilities in knowledge-based markets is the mobilization of idle capital paired with local and purpose-specific forms of representation and exchange (Lietaer & Dunne, 2013). Functional currencies are being created, while new transaction dynamics and new ways of effectively engaging actors are being discovered, as in Gamification. While the above category of non-monetary or moneyless deliberately aims at de-monetizing mediation, alternative currencies establish autonomous currencies outside of or complementary to the fiat national or international money (Pfajfar, Sgro & Wagner, 2011). In this category of k-markets, currency functions are extended beyond payment medium, appreciation unit, and value storage (James, 2016) to include incentive structures. Alternative Currencies and Incentive Regimes sub-categories included in this typology are: i) Digital Currency, ii) Local and complementary currency, iii) Barter Transactions and iv) Incentive Regimes.

2.8. Alternative Banking (also ethical, social, civic or sustainable banking)

34Another result of widening the spectrum of value categories in exchange systems is the need for new ways of intermediation capable of not just dealing with alternative contents but also serving community interests. More than a marginal sector, alternative banks are proving efficient and are challenging established banking ideas (Butzbach & von Mettenheim, 2015). The concept is extended to non-banks, i.e., institutions providing some banking service without being formally established, alhough here it applies mainly to non-financial non-banks, naturally compatible with k-markets. Included are several forms of tangible and intangible capital intermediation: pawnbroking, state lotteries, alternative assets banks, public banks, and alternative lending. Alternative banking begins by undertaking responsibility for the impacts and consequences of banking activities, such as investment and loans. It is axiologically related to economic movements like fair trade, green banking and ethical consumption, concerned with the consequences of economic behavior (Quazi, Amran & Nejati, 2016). Alternative Banking sub-categories included in this typology are: i) Public Pawnbroking and State Lotteries, ii) Alternative Assets Banks, iii) Public Banking, iv) Peer-to-peer Bankless Lending.

2.9. Open Knowledge Labs

35Not to be confused with Open Educational Resources (OER), the learning open-access platforms included in Open Dealing above. Whereas OER are digital learning resources to be used by individuals and organizations in educational activities, the Open Knowledge Labs category includes a novel set of open access environments, both physical and virtual, where people get together to apply, test, try out and experiment with novel ideas (Gershenfled, 2005). There are a number of creative settings, often public-private partnerships (PPP) conceived as communitary spaces to catalyze initiatives for social and business innovation and entrepreneurship (Serra, 2015). While there have been attempts to coherently describe this array of initiatives, such as the ephemeral Open Social Learning CrowdMap, the sub-categories included under this type of k-markets share the principles of accessibility, flexibility and collectivity as well as the hacking ethics (Himanen, 2001). Open Knowledge Labs sub-categories included in this taxonomy are: i) Citilabs, ii) Fablabs, Makerspaces and TechShops, iii) Hacklabs and iv) LivingLabs.

2.10. Emerging K-Markets

36The last category in this typology includes a set of developments that are only beginning to be recognized as novel and substantial spaces for knowledge-based value exchange. These are regarded as emerging not in the received sense of regional economies catching up on industrialized ones. These are emerging insofar they involve new ideas and processes made possible by knowledge societies, and are therefore sketchy and experimental. Unlike most of the other k-market types, that have undergone a first generation and are now being formalized and empirically studied, this last category is just taking shape. Although some of its components may be traced back conceptually or technically, the shape they are acquiring and the avenues they are following are unprecedented. Also, the nature of these k-markets seems particularly amenable to a complex systems perspective. Indeed, the whole area of k-markets might benefit from a systems re-formulation, with exercises to connect with viable systems now underway. Subtypes included within emerging k-markets are: meta-markets, social swarming and distributed self-organization. Emerging K-Markets sub-categories included in this taxonomy are: i) Meta-markets, ii) Social Swarming and iii) Distributed Self-organization.

Conclusions

37Once knowledge-seeker and solver aggregates are regarded as value systems, group behavior (e.g., participation, transparency, trust) become prominent (Brydon and Vinning, 2006). The 2015 World Bank Development Report constitutes an acknowledgment of the behavioral and social drivers of knowledge societies (World Bank, 2015).

38Perhaps the two most promising features of k-markets lie beyond modeling or efficiency. K-markets are conceptually important insofar they offer the possibility to re-edit the unaccomplished goals of socialism and capitalism, shifting the core issues from ideology to science and design (Brockman, 1995). Secondly, k-markets are important insofar untypified initiatives are blooming all over the world in most aspects of human activity. As Hayek had it: “The problem is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of control of any one mind” (Hayek, 1945, p. 527). This insight is surprisingly close to Distributed Innovation (Lakhani and Panetta, 2007) and Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003).

39By subverting value-systems architecture, k-markets overcome received organizational typologies. Business goals may interweave with social innovation, philanthropy and art. Assumptions on university-industry value clashes can be overcome through a continuum of capital bases. The university is thus re-defining its status (Ingallina, 2012; Goddard, 2013) and merging into the urban milieu through ubiquity and virtualization (Carrillo, 2012). Companies can widen their social and environmental scope beyond cosmetic environmental and “social responsibility” programs. NGOs and social programs may become entrepreneurial.

40In The New Management, Hallal defaced the typical commercial corporation —that flagship of capitalism—as lacking free markets, democracy and transparency (Hallal, 1996). He advocated internal markets with open prices, information and decision-making. Whether in corporate companies or corporate politics, the change is happening from the inside-out. The OECD finds that k-markets: “increase data, information and knowledge flows across organizations… create a more efficient division of labor, and… enable the production of new knowledge” (2012, p. 56). Desouza and Awazu (2003, p. 345) equate internal markets with strategic knowledge management: “In fact, the internal knowledge market is to 21^st Century organizational knowledge management what the campfire was to pre-historic storytellers: a place for all organizational and cultural knowledge to be preserved and promulgated”. Lakhani and Panetta (2007) answer the question “Why do people work and participate for ‘free’?” before the evidence of hundreds of thousands of participants in open source communities, contradicting the received homo economicus prejudice: “The answer lies rather in a more expansive view that acknowledges, as well as the role of economic motivations, notions of enjoyment and having fun together with identity and the social benefits of community” (Lakhani and Panetta, 2007, p. 103).