Having just returned from Brussels, where the future of the country is still the hot topic of conversation, I thought I’d look a bit more thoroughly at how the web 2.0/gov 2.0 world is changing the form and structure of the nation state. Does it increase the cohesiveness of nations or rather does it act as a catalyst to their dissolution?
While supra-national bodies such as the EU, and regional trading blocs such as NAFTA, CAFTA and the like, are facilitating a more interconnected economic and political world, and thus it could be argued a more cohesive world, the same cannot necessarily be said of differences within countries or nations. In particular, increasingly federated models of government are becoming the norm in countries with diverse ethno-cultural populations. For example, Scotland within the UK, Quebec in Canada, Flanders in Belgium, etc. And while passing power to local levels and subsequent increasing autonomy for “nations” within nations has evident short-term political benefits, what does it do for the long-term stability and sustainability of the larger “nation”? And what is the role of technological change in this evolution?
The federated model used in the aforementioned examples works in large part because these “nations within nations” lack the economic power to, in the words of Lloyd Gruber, “go it alone.” Quebec came within a whisker of separation back in 1995, but had the referendum passed one would be excused for wondering how they thought they’d survive economically.
But as the focus of Western economies has shifted from manufacturing to information and knowledge, regions previously outside of the scope of economic development can suddenly network their way onto the global trading floor. In an economy where ideas and knowledge take precedence, the traditional constraints of capital and transportation suddenly disappear. Essentially, one can argue that the Web 2.0 allows greater access to the economy for everyone, thus breaking down core-periphery economic dependence theory that has been debated for decades. And while this debate is most commonly associated with the underdevelopment of the South, I think it can be equally applied to underdeveloped regions within a developed country. The Web can thus enable greater economic independence for traditionally “ignored” areas, thus leading to greater economic power, and perhaps in the long-run, political and territorial autonomy.
So Web 2.0 breaks down national cohesion? Not quite. This analysis needs to look beyond strict economic terms, and also focus on the political. One of the main selling features of Web 2.0 is its ability to engage the masses into policy and politics, be it via policy forums, jams, etc. In theory this engagement could keep diverse populations on board by giving them a greater say in how their multi-ethnic/lingual/cultural nations are ruled. But there’s a real difference between simply providing such tools for input and participation and actually having those inputs recognized as valued by both parties. Moreover, if you believe that politics is a game of power, then such tools have yet to upset the balance of the traditional political economy. And therein lies the biggest challenge for Government 2.0: sure, new tools allow for unprecedented contact with citizens, but the question remains of whether the machine that is government is going to change because of it?
Thus while these new iterations of technology may provide the means to potentially re-engage disenfranchised citizens in the political process, whether they help create sufficient change to overcome their, in some cases, long running disappointments is another. For example, will a say in broad, nation-wide policy be enough to keep French and Flemish Belgians, or Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, in the same country? Or given the web’s ability to give the loudest a powerful new arena, will it simply speed up the process of devolution therein?
So evidently, I have yet to decide on my take on this issue. Technology has enabled a new economic model that could build power where none previously existed, while simultaneously allowing for a constructivist approach to policy that may placate resentment or disenfranchisement in areas of economic or cultural malaise. Or, perhaps, technology is simply an afterthought in this game of politics, and no matter the web’s ability to “engage,” it won’t be enough to bridge the divides between cultures and between people. If so, then a kingdom created by the great powers 177 years ago may be the first domino to fall in a world increasingly driven by individuals and the aggregate of individual agendas.
Comments RSS
| TrackBack URI
Only tangentially related to your point:
I live in a large city (Toronto) that is routinely neglected by all levels of government. Some people here advocate the separation of the city.
It is interesting; we probably wouldn’t fare too well, but considering the percentage of the governments tax base we make up, I don’t think that the rest of Canada would do very well either.
Comment by Ben - January 3, 2008 3:03 pm
Well it’s probably not that far off… a friend of mine argues that we’re in the midst of a return to the city state… Toronto could probably survive, it’s of the go it alone type given the financial sector, and just imagine if we kept the entire 5% GST instead of sending it back to Ottawa - would likely make for quite a nice investing into the TTC!
Comment by Dan Herman - January 3, 2008 3:20 pm
Being from Belgium and just read your book…
First I would like to comment on : “regions previously outside of the scope of economic development can suddenly network their way onto the global trading floor”
Flanders used to be the apple of the world The history of Bruges (http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/toerisme/index.htm) can point you to this. I would rather refer to “the wheels of commerce” from Braudel (http://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-Capitalism-15Th-18th/dp/0520081153) to explane the shift in world economics and relations.
Where WEB 2.0 would be interesting to investigate in Belgian politics is the importance of populism. Traditional 1.0 media did take away the power from the inter-media groups (social organizations) and strengthened the believe that civilians could directly involve into politics. Now we see another move where social groups are replaced (is it ?) by web 2.0 communities.
Speaking of flanders again you state: “Technology has enabled a new economic model that could build power where none previously existed”. I can say Belgium had the first railroad in the world, we invented the telephone (Bell) and these days we are on top of nano-technology, Embryonic Stam Cell research, and many others. Considering Bourdieu we could argue that only the “advanced” regions can afford to experience new technologies in the hope they can keep their lead. Not, as you seem to argue to brigde the gap.
Anyhow, I loved your book.
Comment by Jan - January 3, 2008 3:54 pm
Hello Jan, thanks for your comments. As a Belgian myself, I’m glad you found our site!
As for your comments, the origins of Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone aside, I would say that the point of the “new economy” is that it specifically allows developing countries to either adapt the technologies created abroad, or to create their own - the growth of innovation from the South (though still a fraction of overall) is proof of this. And while actual invention may still lie predominantly in the North, the gap between invention and incremental adaptation is increasingly short.
Cheers. DH.
Comment by Dan Herman - January 7, 2008 1:36 pm
[...] I wrote back in January, the rise of the Net and its ability to engage citizens is equally applicable to globalist or [...]
Pingback by Net Nations or Global Gov? « My Global Classroom - July 28, 2008 3:35 pm
[...] I wrote back in January, the rise of the Net and its ability to engage citizens is equally applicable to globalist or [...]
Pingback by Wikinomics » Blog Archive » China’s net nation - July 28, 2008 3:56 pm