Economic intelligence: modern concept

Source: Author's owner.

It is worth noting that different disciplines have started to show a large interest in the topic and are trying to develop individually a theory of intelligence using their methods and models, thus providing a specific contribution. For instance, notwithstanding the fact the roots of intelligence are biological "[e]very animal, even a protozoan, must have a mechanism to perceive stimuli, such as noxious chemicals, and to judge whether they are good or bad for it" [18, p. 57], in the last decades of the previous century, the intelligence has also conquered a respectable position in the historical studies. That, despite the fact it has been completely ignored or treated as of little importance by academics [19]. The Italian historian Virgilio Ilari, as an illustration, remembers the contributions: of Robert C. Knight [20] about the importance of the intelligence in the Second World War; of Ernest R. May [21] on the knowledge of the enemy; and Christopher Andrew [22] about the political and institutional history of the British Secret Services [17, p. 37]. The IS has gained momentum in the realm of another discipline: international relations. The intelligence, which "Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office from 1938 to 1945 described [...] as the missing dimension of most diplomatic history" [23, p. 321-330], has started to represent, in the recent years, the essential element for "new interpretations of both the course of the Cold War and of the political dynamics of authoritarian states" [24, p. 170]. Lock K. Johnson, in particular, finds a "close relationship between intelligence and structural realism" [25, p. 57], in consideration of the circumstance that both "share a common core concern and, to an extent, employ a common language" [25, p. 57]. The importance of intelligence in the international relations dominion is also sustained by the Italian professor emeritus Umberto Gori. The academic offers an interesting and useful suggestion about the path to follow toward a new theory of intelligence within the international relations field. He states that, in the new chaotic international system, the approaches to the study of the intelligence should implement the mathematics of chaos and the fractals theory [17, p. 65]. In the same direction, the studies of Jennifer Sims, based on similar considerations about the new complexity in relations among international entities, introduce her own "theory of intelligence, lashed to the dynamics of international politics" [26, p. 158]: the Adaptive Realism. Numerous other disciplines made their contributions to the IS. Thus, the social sciences have provided intelligence with "methods of gathering data, of deducing data from other data, and of establishing the validity of data that are of particular value" [27, p. 23], although there has been, according to some scholars [28, p. 73], some moments of competition among the two disciplines. The political science, which "appears to be the natural home for researching the U.S. intelligence community" [29, p. 23], has analyzed, instead, the gap in logic between the secrecy of the intelligence, and the transparency of the democracy [30, p. 57]. The organizational theory, thanks to the contribution of Harold L. Wilensky [31], Glenn Hastedt, and B. Douglas Skelley [32, p. 112], suggests a different approach, which contributes to explain the intelligence failures as the result of the typical trade-off between coordination and flexibility. In the same direction the work proposed by Richard Betts [33]. James Sheptycky, in its place, uses the methodology of the sociology to introduce the "human security intelligence paradigm" [34, p. 167], a new theoretical conception, alternative to the international relations realism. David Kahn differentiates himself from other scholars, arguing that, other than using the historical method, intelligence can be explored using both a mathematical and a psychological approach. The advantage of the former consists in the possibility to quantify the intelligence, by dividing the information into bits [35, p. 379-423], "and so make it more precise and amenable to testable prediction" [36, p. 4]. The benefit of the use of psychology [37], instead, allows investigating the intelligence pathologies, the cognitive weaknesses [38], and the role of surprise in the IS [39]. Finally, other disciplines that in this paragraph are just cited, as the criminology [40], the pedagogic [41], the juridical science [42], and the ICT studies [43] have tried to develop the subject within their respective areas of belonging, using their methodological approaches and models to advance a definition of intelligence. Economics, also, has been "[o]ne of the most useful source of theory for the study of intelligence" [12, p. 193], and "[m]ost recently and innovatively, ethnography [44] and anthropology [45] have been applied to intelligence analysis at CIA" [12, p. 193].

In the most recent years, following the spreading of several new sub-areas of study within the multitude of longstanding disciplines, the second effect of the increasing interest of the human sciences on the intelligence studies has started to take place: the accreditation of the IS as distinctive field of research. The reason of that acknowledged independence has the origin from the idea that the "[intelligence [...] has taken on the aspects of a discipline: it has developed a recognized methodology; it has developed a vocabulary; it has developed a body of theory and doctrine; it has elaborate and refined techniques" [46, p. 1]. Nevertheless, the recognized above-quoted methodology consists, in reality, in numerous different methodologies of investigation aimed to develop a new unique area of study. Wesley Wark [47], for example, individuates eight different approaches to the IS: the research project; the historical project; the definitional project; the methodological project; memoirs; the civil liberties project; investigative journalism; and the popular culture project. Peter Gill and Mark Phyth- ian, instead, "[d]rawing on Wark, Scott [48], Kahn [49], Rudner [50], Denйcй and Arboit [51], and Matey [52], [...] identify four main areas of work: research/historical; definitional/methodological; organizational/functional; and governance/policy" [53, p. 5-17].

Methodology. It is worth saying that due to the rich literature above presented, there is an extensive ambiguity related to the concept of the EI, which is often identified with dissimilar terminologies in different contexts. Not only do different authors attribute distinctive meanings (or even contradictory) to the EI, but also different lexemes are associated with the same descriptive conceptual model. Therefore, to propose a new definition of the EI, it is necessary to take into account all the other expressions used in the literature and by practitioners. The methodology used in this article is based on two phases. In the first one, an etymological analysis of EI is conducted to discharge some ideas of the intelligence, as those that describe it as just the manifestation of high mental abilities or as an intellectual capacity of human beings. The second stage consists in presenting all the dissimilar concepts of EI offered by academics and practitioners, to identify the most significant characteristics. Those criteria are used to find a correct and exhaustive representation of a new modern concept of the EI.

Results. In the case of economic intelligence, the locution is composed of two different words: a noun (intelligence), and an adjective (economic). The noun, according to the Oxford dictionary, has origin in the Latin intellegere (understand), which could be decomposed in inter (between), and legere (choose, gather, read). Accordingly, the core etymological essence of the intelligence is linked with the idea of looking inside, or searching for a deeper or hidden meaning. The ancient people, who invented that word, wanted to describe an action, or a result of an action aimed to collect and understand the connotative sense of an object or situation. About the adjective economic, according to the Oxford dictionary, it has origin in the Greek oikonomikos (household management), which is based on oikos (house), and nemein (manage), and refers to the administrative activities of an entity in the condition of scarce resources. Allowing for the fact that, in the locution EI, the word 'economic' occupies the position of an adjective, it could have two different functions: descriptive or restrictive. Accepting the first option, that is the descriptive function of the term economic, is it possible to say that the expression EI is connected with the search and the understanding of the hidden meaning of an object or situation with the purpose to better manage the limited resources in favor of an organization. The result of that description is very important because it represents the pivotal essence of the locution intelligence, which is used in this article. Supporting, instead, the idea of a restrictive function of the adjective economic, the central meaning of the EI should be limited to the activity, or the result of the activity aimed to gather the real understanding about a piece of reality, which belongs exclusively to the economic sphere. In another world, according to that second view, the only information that has an economic nature is the object of the EI. One must admit that in case that the EI should be considered as an algebraic subgroup of the more general concept of intelligence, based on that economic topic restriction. In effect, the EI would represent just a particular type of intelligence, distinguished by the adjective economic, at the same level, for example, of the political intelligence, the business intelligence, and the military intelligence. However, as an algebraic subgroup, each theoretical consideration and propriety applicable to the more general concept of intelligence remains also valid for the EI. The different results obtained by attributing two different roles to the adjective economic do not represent a problem in a world where the economic aspect of the relationships between countries represents the main dimension of their interactions. In fact, in such a world, the EI could be considered as the most relevant and significant part of the IS. Thus, in any case, the essence of the EI consists in the activity of gathering valuable information (a scarce resource) and analyzing its hidden meaning to provide useful knowledge.

Now, having introduced those specifications, it is possible to proceed with the second step of the methodological approach used to organize the modern concepts of the EI, which is to present the different approaches to intelligence proposed by the literature. In fact, as above-mentioned, a multiplicity of expressions is used to identify the EI, although sometimes with diverse gradations of meaning. The literature, in particular, offers alternative terminologies, such as business intelligence, strategic intelligence, competitive intelligence, market intelligence, benchmarking, technology watch and knowledge management. Furthermore, diverse authors, from dissimilar fields of research, attribute slightly different meanings to the EI, which could be represented along multiple dichotomous directional lines. It is possible to accept an interpretation of intelligence, limited to the national level, which defines it as the economic activities carried out by the intelligence services of a country (Italian [54] and Spanish [55] approaches to the economic intelligence). The Italian general Carlo Jean and Paolo Savona, for example, states that the EI is part of the national security services [56]. Instead, on the opposite side of the dichotomous line, it is possible to agree with a different interpretation that considers EI as a system of collection, classification, and analysis of business data. A transversal dimension is represented by the public-private approach to economic intelligence, according to the French (post-Martre report), the Japanese, and the German academic traditions. Still, the literature is divided into other aspects, such as the economic intelligence purposes (to safeguard the "simple" national security as the EI before the Clinton reform of 1992, or, more extensively, to protect the national interest, in line with the French model of the EI); the methods of collecting economic information (exclusive use of open sources in compliance to the French definition emerging from the Martre Report [57], or also through illegal activities); the real nature of the activities carried out (only defensive, mainly achieved using the technology watch and the prevention of sharp practices by competitors, or with the coexistence of offensive activities, such as the economic and the industrial espionage). By classifying in a taxonomy several terminologies alternative to the Ei, it is possible to individuate the most relevant characteristics of the main recognized definitions, offered by scholars and practitioners, coherent (or at least compatible) with the essence heretofore determined. Furthermore, to find a correct and exhaustive representation of the essence of the EI, which has a single and unequivocal meaning, the following criteria, among those characteristics, are chosen for comparative analyses: (i) the object of the research (internal or external analysis); (ii) the time orientation (short or long term); (iii) the final users of the information (supranational and national organizations, national governments, or actors of international business); (iv) the methods of obtaining the information (legal or illegal); (v) the source of information (primary or secondary); (vi) the transparency of the information (overt or covert). About the first point, it is worth to say that the several approaches to the El have a focus on the investigation and research of information that belongs to the same organization. For example, knowledge management has a special emphasis on the data owned by an entity, without awareness of that. The technology watch, on the opposite, is interested more in the external environment. The time orientation is another important criterion to classify the most common significances of the El. The more the definition offered by the academic literature tends to use the strategic instrument, the more the time dimension is positioned toward the long term (for example the strategic management). In the cases, instead, in which the approaches to the El adopt tactical and operational instruments, the orientation is in the short term (for example the technology watch). The third criterion proposed is the final user of the information, because, as previously affirmed, the El approach and methods could be applied indifferently at different levels to all the various actors of the international relations system. Business intelligence, and competitive intelligence, having roots and traditions connected with the corporate environment, are generally implemented by multinationals. The technology watch, instead, is a typical approach adopted by governments, or industry's agencies, as a tactic to interact with other state entities. About the methods of obtaining information, it is possible to discriminate the different approaches of the El in the one group that collects data only through legal actions, one that has habits to collect information by using illegal arrangements, and another that satisfy their need of knowledge by using both kinds of activities. Thus the knowledge management, the market intelligence, the benchmarking and the business intelligence generally adopt only behaviors that are compliant to the law and the most common accepted rules; the strategic intelligence and the competitive intelligence are opened to both licit and unlawful actions; the technology watch approach to the El is instead sometimes used by some countries as a dishonest instrument to stole knowledge from more developed countries. Another criterion to identify and evaluate the different definitions is the source of information, which could be primary or secondary research. The primary research is characterized by the fact that it involves going directly to a source, for example, by visiting sites (official or unofficial); survey (mail; online; assisted by a qualified person); interviews (face-to-face; telephone; internet); questionnaires (mail; online; assisted by a qualified person); observations (hidden or opened); focus groups; ethnographic research. The secondary research, instead, involves the collection of data and information, which have already been produced, gathered, organized and published by other subjects. It includes, for example, official data offered by national and international agencies; studies produced by universities and centers of research; reports published by trade associations. All the different approaches to the El offered by the academic literature are based on both activities of primary and secondary research, in consideration of the fact that each of the two ways to collect information has some specific advantages (primary research tends to gather higher valuated data, which could be even customized; secondary research generally results to be less expensive and easier to organize). However, the strategic intelligence, the market intelligence, and the competitive intelligence, respect to the others, result to give specific importance to the primary research, to take advantage against potential competitors. Finally, the last characteristic, which can be used for a comparative analysis of the dissimilar definitions of the EI concept, is the transparency of the information. The specific kind of data, and in the process the particular technique to collect the information, allows us to distinguish three different levels of intelligence: open-source intelligence (OSINT); "grey" intelligence; covert intelligence. The OSINT refers to the intelligence generated from public or open-source information, such as articles published in the media, governmental agencies' reports, and any other piece of knowledge provided by public studies; websites; thesis; books; maps; satellite images. The fact that this specific level of information is neither closed access nor clandestine does not mean that it is free. In fact, in some cases, to gain open-source data, it is necessary to burden some of the costs (for example the price to pay the information provider for acquiring specific knowledge). In consideration of the fact, as mentioned above, that the open source can provide upward of 80 percent of the intelligence needs, its importance and relevance are nowadays increasing. With the expression "grey" intelligence, practitioners refer to the blurred boundaries between public and private information. In the specific, grey intelligence encompasses those informal data that, notwithstanding the fact they are not specifically covert by protocols of secrecy, have some characteristics of confidentiality. The collection and the use of grey intelligence are not generally considered as illegal, but could generate some specific ethical or moral concerns. Covert intelligence, instead, represents secret information, whose access is limited to possessing precise and explicit authorizations, without which the use is considered forbidden and subject to penalties. The unauthorized use of covert intelligence is considered a crime (for example spying and espionage).

All the modern concepts used as synonyms of the EI above described attribute more or less importance to specific elements of the illustrated criteria. Thus, they represent special definitions focalized on specific semantic fields, and metonymies of a greater encyclopaedic concept of EI, which encompasses all the aspects of each criterion (internal and external analysis of covert and overt information, conducted by different actors, using primary and secondary researches with a short and long term orientation). That encyclopaedic concept represents the theoretical basis of a new unifying concept of the EI. In fact, by taking into consideration the same whole semantic field, but limited to a specific actor (special supranational or national organizations) and a precise scope (to support the decision maker), a new definition of the EI can be proposed: a systematic and well-organized process of identification of information needs, implementation of research activities, data analysis, and dissemination of knowledge, conducted by national entities or supranational organizations, to create and use informative asymmetries. The result is a lexicographic definition (the essence of the significance has roots in its etymological meaning) and hyponymy of the encyclopaedic concept of EI.

Conclusions

In the last half-century, the economic relations between countries have become very complex and difficult to manage. The globalization, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the development of the ICT has shaped the social environment and obligated the countries to find new strategies to interact with foreign national entities. The EI is a discipline developed to help the actors of the international economic relations' system to operate in this intricate scenario. In this article, the analysis of the EI concept has been conducted. A new scientific theoretical approach has been used to investigate the different contributes offered by the academic literature, and in the process, to create a theoretical basis of a new unifying theory of economic intelligence. Because of a two-stage methodology, a lexicographic definition of the economic intelligence concept is proposed, which consists of hyponymy of a greater encyclopaedic concept of EI. That definition could be the basis for future researches, in consideration of the fact it encompasses all the criteria of different approaches about intelligence proposed by the literature. Thus, all the theoretical studies proposed by scholars and practitioners in specific semantic fields could be implemented in the developing models of economic intelligence. For example, social network analysis studies carried out by the strategic intelligence can be adopted by the EI (as defined in this article) to analyze the trading flow system among countries. The EI concept introduced in this article covers the whole semantic ground of the encyclopaedic notion, although limited to a well-defined actor: the national entities and the supranational organizations that operate in a more intricate network of global economic relations.

References

1. Harboulot C. La Machine de guerre йconomique, Etas-Unis, Europe. Ed. Economica.

2. Starostina A.O., Adami C. The Role of the Economic Intelligence in the Modern International Economic Relations, in Innovations in the Development of Socio-Economic System: Microeconomic, Macroeconomic and Mesoeconomic Levels, Collective monograph, Vol. 1, Izdevnieciba "Baltija Publishing, Lithuania, 2016, pp. 1-15.

3. Csurgai G., Geopolitics. Geoeconomics and Economic Intelligence, The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, Strategic Datalink n. 69, March 1998.

4. Gagliano G., Guerra Economica e Intelligence. Il Contributo della Riflessione Strategica Francese, Fuoco Edizioni, Rende, 2013.

5. Jean C., Geopolitica del Mondo Contemporaneo, Editori Laterza, Bari, 2012.

6. Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M. Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009.

7. Warner M., Wanted: A Definition of Intelligence, Studies in Intelligence, 46:3, 2002, pp. 15-22.

8. Adami C. Economic Intelligence: on the Reasons for the Lack of a Common Theory, International Scientific Journal, http://www.inter-nauka.com.

9. Laqueur W. The Uses and Limits of Intelligence, Transaction Publisher, New Jersey, 1995.

10. Marrin S. Improving Intelligence Studies as an Academic Discipline, Intelligence and National Security, 2016 Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 266-279.

11. Johnson L.K. Handbook of Intelligence Studies, Routledge, New York, 2007, p. 201.

12. Davies P.H.J. Theory and Intelligence Reconsidered, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 193.

13. George R. Z., Bruce J. B. Analyzing Intelligence. Origins, Obstacles, and Innovations, Georgetown University Press, Washington, 2008.

14. Gill P. Theories of Intelligence. Where We Are, Where Should We Go and How Might We Proceed?, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pp. 208-226.

15. Mori M. Servizi e Segreti. Introduzione allo Studio dell'Intelligence, G-Risk, Roma, 2015, pag. 19.

16. Warner M. Sources and Methods for the Study of Intelligence, in Handbook of Intelligence Studies, Routledge, 2007, pp. 17-18.

17. Caligiuri M. Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016.

18. Kahn D. An Historical Theory of Intelligence, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 57.

19. Andrew C., Dilks D. The Missing Dimension: Government and Intelligence Communities in the Twentieth Century, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, 1984.

20. Knight R.C. British Intelligence in the Second World War. Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, vol. 3, Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, 1984.

21. May E. R. Knowing One's Enemies: Intelligence Assessment Before the Two World War, Princeton U. P., Princeton, 1985.

22. Andrew C. Her Majesty's Secret Service. The Making of the British Intelligence Community, Viking, New York, 1986.

23. Andrew C. Intelligence and International Relations in the Early Cold War, Review of International Studies, 1998, 24, pp. 321-330.

24. Andrew C. Intelligence, International Relations and "Under-theorisation", Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 Summer 2004, pp. 170-184.

25. Johnson L. K. Sketches for a Theory of Strategic Intelligence, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 57.

26. Sims J. Defending Adaptive Realism. Intelligence Theory Comes of Age, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 158.

27. Knorr K. Research Monograph No. 17, Center of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, June 1, 1964: 11.

28. Arlacchi P. Intelligence e Scienze Sociali, in Caligiuri M., Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016, pag. 73.

29. Johnson L. K. Strategic Intelligence: Understanding the Hidden Side of Government, Praeger Security International, Westport, 2007, pag. 23.

30. Galli G. Intelligence e Scienze Politiche, in Caligiuri M., Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016, pag. 57.

31. Wilenksy H. L. Organizational Intelligence. Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry, Quid Pro Books, Lousiana, 2015.

32. Hastedt G. P., Skelley B. D. Intelligence in a Turbulent World. Insight from Organization Theory, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 112.

33. Betts R. Analysis, War, and Decisions. Why Intelligence Failures are Inevitable, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M., Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009.

34. Sheptycki J. Policing, Intelligence Theory and the Human Security Paradigm, Some Lessons from the Field, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M.,

Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 167.

35. Shannon C.E. A Mathematical Theory of Communication, The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379-423, 623-656, July, October, 1948.

36. Treverton G. F., Jones S. G., Boraz S., Lipscy P. Toward a Theory of Intelligence. Workshop Report, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 2006, pag. 4.

37. Agostini T., Galmonte A. Intelligence e Scienze Psicologiche, in Caligiuri M., Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016.

38. Heuer R. J. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, CIA, 1999.

39. Wirtz J.J. Theory of Surprise, in Gill P., Marrin S., Phythian M.,

Intelligence Theory. Key Questions and Debates, Routledge, 2009, pag. 73.

40. Sidoni F. Intelligence e Scienze dell'Investigazione, in Caligiuri M.,

Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016.

41. Spadafora G. Intelligence e Pedagogica, in Caligiuri M., Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016, pag. 25.

42. Mosca C. Intelligence e Scienze Giuridiche, in Caligiuri M.,

Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016, pag. 47.

43. Iovane G. Intelligence e Ingegneria dell'Informazione, in Caligiuri M.,

Intelligence e Scienze Umane, Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli, 2016.

44. Johnston R. Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community. An Ethnographic Study, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, 2005.

45. Price D.H. How the CIA and the Pentagon Harnessed Anthropological Research During the Second World War and Cold War with Little Critical Notice, Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 67, No. 3 (FALL 2011), pp. 333-356.

46. Kent S. Studies in Intelligence, September 1955, https://www.cia.gov/ library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-mono- graphs/sherman-kent-and-the-board-of-national-estimates collected-essays/ 2need.html.

47. Wark W.K. Espionage. Past, Present, Future?, Frank Cass & Co., New York, 2005.

48. Scott L. Sources and Methods in the Study of Intelligence: a British view, Intelligence and National Security 22, 2 (2007), pp. 185-205.

49. Kahn D. Intelligence Studies on the Continent, Intelligence and National Security 23, 2 (2008), pp. 249-75.

50. Rudner M. Intelligence Studies in Higher Education: Capacity-Building to Meet Societal Demand, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 22, 1 (2009), pp. 110-30.

51. Denйcй E. Arboit G., Intelligence Studies in France, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 23, 4 (2010), pp. 725-47.

52. Matey G.D., The Development of Intelligence Studies in Spain, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 23, 4 (2010), pp. 748-65.

53. Gill P., Phythian M., Intelligence Studies: Some Thoughts on the State of the Art, Annals of the University of Bucharest / Political science series 14 (2012), 1, pp. 5-17.

54. Morbidelli M., Intelligence Economica e Competitivitа Nazionale, Centro Militare di Studi Strategici, Ottobre 2005.