"Many assume--wrongly, we think-- that if governments stand aside, the technology will sweep away all obstacles and bring widespread worldwide prosperity. Others assume the real challenge is to get governments out of the pockets of large corporations and to unleash digitally enabled 'people power.' (Benkler, Castells, etc., right?)....these views are mistaken."
Well, alright, I thought, something new! But I don't feel like they ever dove into why those views are mistaken. Or perhaps the way they address it is by saying "ahhh, but it's more complex than one or the other..it's BOTH! shocker!", and then repeatedly stating the obvious. Some of my favorites were:
"Marketplace reforms at home demand complementary actions at the domestic level" (Ch 1, p 13)
"global governance is deeply entangled with power and politics." (Ch 1, p13 )
"responsible governments begin by seeking ways to improve their public and national interests...Powerful markets get more of what they seek than weaker ones. (Ch1, p 14)
Because significant players in individual markets are influenced by their respective politics, when they come together to pursue global interests, the political aspects of their solutions predominate. (me paraphrasing from ch 6)
"Global market governance...is important because choices about the design of market
governance influence the winners and losers and the innovation and efficiency in the global ICT market" (Ch 6)
Whether an international institution that is responsible for the administration of a marketplace is a formal or informal (NGO) organization influences that marketplace. (paraphrasing Ch 6)
The one original assertion they did make and attempt to support was that the U.S. will be the "single largest influence on the global policy agenda" and the "pivot" on which the "Inflection Point" will turn until about 2025. They say the U.S
-has a lead in deployed ICT stock (examples would have helped, so I just take them at their word)
-has the largest investment base in the right areas for innovation
-is a leader in software and will remain so
-will remain in the 'top 3' global markets across all types of ICT markets
-is leading producer of value-added content (entertainment) This is questionable, but they do address it later and reference how long-tail markets and new markets like gaming can make that untrue very quickly. (p 107)
They also say China is not that big of a contender, the decline in U.S spending in ICT is overblown, and have a great discussion of net neutrality that makes me feel silly for saying that they have nothing to say. Clearly they do, and it's about net neutrality. And hwo global governance is important.
Right?
The one original assertion they did make and attempt to support was that the U.S. will be the "single largest influence on the global policy agenda" and the "pivot" on which the "Inflection Point" will turn until about 2025. They say the U.S
-has a lead in deployed ICT stock (examples would have helped, so I just take them at their word)
-has the largest investment base in the right areas for innovation
-is a leader in software and will remain so
-will remain in the 'top 3' global markets across all types of ICT markets
-is leading producer of value-added content (entertainment) This is questionable, but they do address it later and reference how long-tail markets and new markets like gaming can make that untrue very quickly. (p 107)
They also say China is not that big of a contender, the decline in U.S spending in ICT is overblown, and have a great discussion of net neutrality that makes me feel silly for saying that they have nothing to say. Clearly they do, and it's about net neutrality. And hwo global governance is important.
Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment