Knowledge-enabled common well-being: the dialectical logic of knowledge management, new-quality productive forces and common prosperity

Purpose The knowledge, data and algorithmic resources are increasingly becoming integral to the productive forces in the intelligent era. The paper aims to examine the role of knowledge management (KM), as a mechanism of governance, in facilitating the relationship between new quality productive forces (NQPF) and common prosperity and resolving the problem of appropriation risk posed by knowledge monopoly and algorithmic power. Design/methodology/approach This study is conceptual and theoretical development paper. The authors’ synthesis of knowledge is based on the following two sources: (i) KM studies on knowledge governance, critical KM and the knowledge commons; and (ii) the production force paradigm associated with NQPF and the policy discussion of common prosperity. The analysis is done in three stages as follows: (1) the authors define the ontological change in which knowledge is operationalized by means of data- and model-based infrastructures; (2) the authors reinterpret common prosperity in the knowledge society to encompass both cognitive abilities and access conditions; (3) the authors align these assertions with KM-focused mechanisms and governance decisions, and ultimately come up with a list of propositions and design implications. The main outputs will be conceptual tables that will help elucidate the constructs and the mechanism-based framework that can be used to inform subsequent empirical testing. Findings The authors formulate three interconnected arguments. The first one is that NQPF presupposes the ontological shift of knowledge as an objectification of it in the form of algorithms, which transforms the boundary between living labor and the means of production. Second, when knowledge is capitalized, common prosperity cannot remain just in the area of income redistribution; it must also reach cognitive justice, including knowledge capacity, access and interpretative rights. Third, KM is a governance tool rather than an efficiency tool because it organizes cognitive power. Based on how institutions are constructed, such as sharing laws and public domain principles, KM may have an amplifying effect on the risks of appropriation created by knowledge monopolies or mitigate these risks which ultimately leads to social justice and comprehensive human development. Originality/value This paper makes three contributions to the KM literature: first, this paper reconceptualizes KM as a governance mechanism with institutional and ethical attributes, thereby identifying its role in allocating cognitive power within algorithmic organizations and extending the theoretical scope of KM. Second, it theorizes KM as a mediating mechanism linking NQPF and common prosperity, moving the analysis to the macro level and clarifying KM’s broader implications for socioeconomic development by deepening its bridging function between theories of productive forces and social development objectives. Third, it proposes a set of KM-oriented conceptual tools, including cognitive justice, public knowledge infrastructure and sharing protocols, which provide theoretical guidance and a practical framework for future empirical research and governance design.