Home > Uncategorized > Economic internetization

Economic internetization

from Constantine Passaris and the current issue of RWER

I have coined the word internetization for the purpose of circumventing the drawbacks of the concept of globalization. These drawbacks commence with the fact that globalization is not a new concept. The international outreach between nations has taken place since time immemorial. Furthermore, globalization does not reflect the contemporary digital empowerment of civil society and the electronic facility for modern financial transactions.

In effect, internetization denotes a combination of two contemporary features. These are global outreach and electronic connectivity. There is no denying that internetization has had a significant impact on the new global economy and the scope and substance of economic governance. The electronic prefix that is appearing before an increasing number of our daily interactions such as e-commerce, e-mail, e-learning, e-banking, e-travel, e-democracy and e-government is a tangible expression of the pervasive influence of the information technology and communications revolution (Passaris, 2014A).

Increasingly, internetization has become a driving force in the business strategy pursued by corporations in the 21st century. Internetization embraces the transformative powers of the world-wide-web and the electronic information high way and serves as a catalyst for the evolving dynamics of interconnectivity in the new global economy. Furthermore, internetization captures the pervasive influence of technological change and electronic innovations on the global economic landscape as well as on all aspects of human endeavour for our civil society (Passaris, 2017).

Internetization has also impacted upon economic governance by facilitating public scrutiny of government documents, enhancing the accessibility of data and generally promoting the electronic connectivity between civil society and government.  In short, internetization which is empowered by the internet and electronic connectivity has enabled the spectacular technological structural changes of the new global order.

It should be noted that the process of internetization is not static. It is constantly evolving, mutating and transforming. The capacity for internetization took a giant leap forward with the transformation of wired electronic technology into wireless devices. In addition, new technological frontiers have been reached through nanotechnology, cloud computing and virtual networks.

There is no denying that internetization has impacted directly and profoundly on the scope and substance of economic governance. It has facilitated new channels of communication between civil society and the government. Economic governance has been exposed to a new form of transparency and accountability in regard to government decision making. Internetization has created a new layer of intervention and regulation for government. Internetization has also revealed a darker and malicious side. In effect it has created the electronic vulnerability of the machinery of economic governance that requires its constant upgrading and the introduction of cybersecurity firewalls. All in all internetization has generated a new form of exposure and interaction for economic governance.  read more

  1. Econoclast
    January 29, 2019 at 10:51 pm

    I read RWER blog regularly and appreciate the postings on the blog. As a retired editor I particularly appreciate the work involved in the presentations.
    However, I’m drawing the line: “internetization”? Really? “Globalization” is bad enough, but I have caved on that neorealitization.
    The article uses words that could substitute: “global” and “connectivity”. Combine these in a way preceded by a universal vowel and you have the readily understood “iGlobal Connectivity”.
    As one who plays making up words myself, I’m just saying: enough. Keep up the good work.

  2. Frank Salter
    January 30, 2019 at 10:31 am

    While the analysis of the paper appears valid, the problem remains − it is the absence of quantitative predictions allowing different proposals to be compared, one against another that will always confound any different realisation than existing prejudices. The fact that erroneous neoclassical analysis claims to provide appropriate predictions will be the error upon which valid thinking will flounder.

  3. Helen Sakho
    February 2, 2019 at 1:50 am

    I, too, have read the original paper, understand and respect the position from which it argues. However, the segmentation of any science into minute specificities that have no connection to valid contexts, makes the whole process rather misleading. The only truly pertinent phenomena that have been internationalised are, to name a few key ones, unprecedented climatic mayhem, destitution and poverty, war and conflict and hunger and deprivation. The most important context that all this has been taking place in is that of a gradual and now openly visible collapse of all systems of accountable governance, ranging form banking to political.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.