than a competitively-motivated alliance (Malone & Yeats 1987, Benjamin et al 1990, Swatman & Clarke 1990, Clarke 1991). Two important classes which can be readily identified are: industry sectors which are non-competitive, or in which competition through IT does not exist or is not feasible. This may be due to the existence of a 'natural monopoly', statutory constraints, or a company which has 'seen off' its competitors. Examples exist in such sectors as education, health, research and social welfare; industry sectors in which competition does take place, but in which competition is suspended in relation to the IT infrastructure. A variety of possible motivations exist for such suspension: oto maintain prices at a higher level than they would otherwise be, or for other purposes outlawed in some countries by anti-trust, anti-monopoly and unfair trade practices legislation; oto provide a higher level of service to the sector's clients (as occurs in the inter-operability of ATM and EFT/POS equipment); oto share large establishment costs; oto achieve something which could not otherwise be achieved; and/or oto satisfy the instructions or urgings of an influential player or coalition, often a government, but in some cases a trade or other association. The question of collaboration leads to the need to define what comprises public infrastructure, industry infrastructure and private investment, and the extent to which the responsibility for investment is public, private or dual. This issue poses particularly significant difficulties for nations whose traditions and ideology are in conflict with the very notions of collaboration and of publicly-funded infrastructural investment. Some inferences from Scott Morton (1991) in relation to IT infrastructure are summarised in Exhibit 14. Exhibit 14: Scott Morton on Attitudes to IT Infrastructure(Scott Morton 1991) Characteristic Emerging View Focus ...
