The Internet has centralised economic power.” Essay - 40 .docx

“The Internet has centralised economic power.”
Essay - 40% Address one of the following topics. Make it clear
what your argument is, and don’t forget to define key terms.
Your argument must reference the role of 'free' online labour,
and draw on material from Module 1 and Module 2. The goal of
this assignment is for you to demonstrate your ability to analyse
broad shifts in the economy linked to the Internet. Choose one
of the following topics:
1. “The Internet has centralised economic power.”
This assignment is worth 40% of your marks for the unit.
Undergraduate students should approximately 2,000 words,
postgraduate students should write approximately 3,000 words.
Postgraduates will need to do more to connect their analysis to
specific case studies in order to demonstrate a deeper analysis
than that provided by undergraduates. You can write up to 10%
more than the word count without being penalised. If you're
more than 10% under the word count, it's a sign that you're not
providing enough depth in your argument.
The essay topics are deliberately worded to allow a range of
responses (including disagreeing with any of the statements),
and you are encouraged to develop a response that integrates
some of the more complex arguments and positions addressed in
the curriculum materials as well as through the
seminars/Discussion Board. Your learning in Module 2 will be
most effective if you develop your ideas through discussion.
Criteria for Assessment You will be marked according to how
well you:
1. Demonstrate understanding of the relationship between
capitalism and the Internet; 2. Draw effectively on relevant
academic research, including theoretical concepts and empirical

data; 3. Present a developed and well-structured argument; 4.
Effectively communicate in the essay format; 5. Support and
connect your statements with appropriate examples, the role of
free online labour, and relevant concepts from Modules 1 and 2.
All your work needs to indicate clearly, using APA-format
referencing, whenever another source is being used. This
includes: using the wording of another person, paraphrasing or
drawing on information and ideas from another source (even if
reworded).
READINGS
Digital Capitalism
By now, you probably have an emerging (or better!) idea of how
powerful economic interests are on the Internet, and the ways in
which businesses are creating revenue from online activities and
communication. In the second module, we start looking more
deeply at how the Internet has affected our economic systems.
We want you to get some sense of the fundamental forces
underpinning the economy, of how they have changed over
time, and of what the future might look like. This requires
understanding a bit more about how capitalism works, including
the role of of the state, production processes, and changing
patterns of consumption.
The readings below mostly assume that you understand the
terms 'capitalism' and 'neoliberalism'. Depending on your
background, these may already be familiar to you. Capitalism is
a system in which the means of production are privately owned,
and in which resources are mostly allocated through the market.
'Neoliberalism' is often used to refer to the current form of
capitalism. You may also find it useful to revisit the
introductory topic, The Digital Economy.
You can read more about the term 'neoliberalism' here if you
want further background:
Mudge, S. L. (2016). Neoliberalism, accomplished and

ongoing. In S. Springer, K. Birch, & J. MacLeavy
(Eds.), Handbook of Neoliberalism (pp. 134–146). London:
Taylor and Francis. Retrieved
from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?d
ocID=4586301 (Available through the Curtin Library).
We strongly encourage you to share your understanding of key
terms and ask questions on the Discussion Board: this is
fundamental to developing your learning.
Readings
We don't expect you to complete all of these readings. Instead,
we provide brief descriptions to help you select two or three to
focus on. Throughout the last module you will have encountered
ideas and concepts relevant to the final essay: start thinking
about which question you might answer, and pick readings
which seem most relevant and interesting to you.
Collaborate with the class as a whole to share your knowledge
(which might include reading summaries, important quotations,
or useful themes), ask questions, and ensure that your analysis
is on track.
Nardi, B. (2015). Inequality and limits.First Monday, 20(8).
Retrieved
from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6126
I think there is an interesting space between traditional
socialism and the free market to play around with in a future of
limits. As in my grandparents’ day, and within the limits of
their personal circumstances, family, neighbors, and friends
filled at least some gaps government attempts to fill now, or
gaps that go unfilled.
This article is short and reflective. In it, Nardi argues for the
possibility of radically shifting our economic system through
the use of digital and mechanical technologies.
Ampuja, M. (2016). The New Spirit of Capitalism, Innovation
Fetishism and New Information and Communication
Technologies.Javnost: The Public, 23(1), 19–
36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2016.1149765. (Available
from the Curtin Library.)

While neoliberalism keeps reinventing itself, it continues to
draw strength from its long-standing ideological assumptions,
according to which the market and the private are superior to
the state and the public. Consequently, elite opinion and much
of the mainstream media in advanced capitalist countries have
accepted free capital mobility, privatisation of public
enterprises and the removal of welfare benefits as economic
policies to which there are no alternatives. Yet the hegemony of
neoliberalism is not based on such “tough” economic
prescriptions alone. They have been accompanied by positive
claims according to which in the past 30 years or so we have
moved into a new form of capitalism that signifies fun,
creativity and innovation, often associated with new
information and communication technologies (ICT) and the
information society. These discourses have served as the “happy
face” of neoliberal capitalism, offering motivations that have
constructed its distinctive moral ethos.
Ampuja argues that we should be questioning many of the
assumptions underlying neoliberal capitalism, particularly in
light of the 2007 global economic crisis. These assumptions
include the overwhelming view of all innovation as positive,
and the lack of attention to the role of the state in supporting
innovation.
Neubauer, R. (2011). Neoliberalism in the Information Age, or
Vice Versa? Global Citizenship, Technology, and Hegemonic
Ideology. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open
Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society,
9(2), 195–230. http://www.triple-
c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/238
Informationists have made much of the decline of labor, the
erosion of manufacturing, the rise of information networks and
symbolic economies, and the ascension of a technologically
reified global economy, which despite the pains of transition are
all seen as indicators of a coming techno-utopia. That these
changes are described as technologically induced not only
obscures the political intervention of neoliberalism and its

hegemonic aspirations, but also helps form the basis of
prescriptions for socio-technological changes without which
global neoliberal regimes of flexible accumulation would
simply not be possible.
This article is particularly useful for building a deeper
understanding of the connections between neoliberalism,
economic globalisation, the Internet, and the changing role of
the state in our economies.
Gritzas, G., & Kavoulakos, K. I. (2016). Diverse economies and
alternative spaces: An overview of approaches and
practices.European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 917–
934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415573778. (Available
from the Curtin Library.)
The awareness of alternative [economic] choices is facilitated
and inspired by ‘reframing’; that is, by revealing and mapping
diverse economies of being-in-common, that are bestowed with
values, such as cooperation, altruism, generosity, mutuality,
solidarity that pervade the everyday circuits of value in parallel
with anxiety and fear of antagonism ...
Although this article does not refer specifically to the Internet,
it provides a useful model for understanding how very different
economic systems may - and do - exist.
Croeser, S. (2019). Post-industrial and digital society. In C.
Levy & M. S. Adams (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of
anarchism (pp. 623–640). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave
Macmillan. (Available from the Curtin Library.)
Networking technologies have facilitated some tremendously
harmful shifts in the global economy, and in our working lives.
They are also being used to find spaces for less hierarchical
production, gifting, solidarity, and mutual aid.
This chapter provides an overview of some of the ways in which
the Internet is being used to facilitate new economic practices,
including collective organising and crisis aid.Gift Economies
Gifting has played an important role online since the early days
of the Internet. Some commentators argue that gifting is so
significant that it sustains alternative, diverse economic systems

that interweave with, and perhaps even offer an alternative to,
the capitalist economy.
A gift economy is not based on monetary exchange, rather,
goods and services are provided out of a sense of community
spirit and responsibility. Perhaps what distinguishes the concept
of the gift economy from other terms is
the acknowledgement that the giver may be rewarded with
status and reputation from their gifts, a reminder that the term,
'economy', although frequently associated with money and
material wealth, is used more generally to refer more broadly to
any production, distribution and consumption system.
Introductory Readings
Elder-Vass, D. (2015). The Moral Economy of Digital
Gifts. The International Journal of Social Quality; Oxford, 5(1),
35–
50. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.3167/IJSQ.2015.
050103. Available through the Curtin Library.
... the pursuit of material gain through market exchange is far
from the only form and far from the only motivator of
economic activity, even in our contemporary, apparently
capitalist-dominated economy. While some gifts are entangled
with such motives, most are not a form of exchange or even an
inducement to exchange. What is remarkable about digital
giving is that while historically the market has been steadily
spreading its tentacles deeper and deeper into the realm of the
lifeworld, the rise of the Internet has contributed to some
unprecedented processes of decommodification ...
Elder-Vass argues that rather than being a marginal practice,
gifting plays a significant role in our lives today. Additionally,
most gifting does not require reciprocity.
Kim, J. G., Vaccaro, K., Karahalios, K., & Hong, H. (2017).
“Not by Money Alone”: Social Support Opportunities in
Medical Crowdfunding Campaigns. In Proceedings of the 2017
ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

and Social Computing (pp. 1997–2009). Portland, Oregon.
Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2998245.
Available
at: http://jennifergahee.com/publications/mcf.support.cscw17.ki
m.pdf.
While medical crowdfunding campaigns explicitly requested
monetary donations, supporters provided that and more. They
contributed by volunteering, such as assisting in the creation of
campaigns, promoting campaigns, and supporting externally .
Sadly, one of the most noticable examples of online gifting is
the crowdfunding of medical expenses, particularly in the US.
Although this article doesn't specifically use the gift economy
framework, it demonstrates the widespread and significant
impact of gifting, stretching beyond the Internet.
Romele, A., & Severo, M. (2016). The Economy of the Digital
Gift: From Socialism to Sociality Online. Theory, Culture &
Society. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415619474. Available
from the Curtin Library.
If a majority of scholars have considered the digital gift as an
anti-economic activity, i.e. as an alternative to the classical
market economy, this article intends to demonstrate that we may
refer to ‘aneconomy’ in relation to digital gifts, where internet
gifting does not have much to do with goods exchange, but
rather with mutual recognition.
As well as providing a helpful overview of literature on digital
gifting, this article argues that gifting practices are about
recognition, not economic exchange.
Further Reading
Stewart, G. (2017). View of The ‘Hau’ of Research: Mauss
Meets Kaupapa Māori. Journal of World Philosophies, 2, 1–
11. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/jwp/articl
e/view/917/95
... it is the ‘inhuman’ nature of the market that allows us to
believe we can satisfy our needs and wants without ethical

consideration of the needs and wants of those with whom we
engage in so doing. I t also seems reasonable to suggest that
this disconnection via the market from the ‘others’ with whom
we engage in carrying on our economic activities is responsible
for acceptance of the otherwise implausible ‘unlimited greed’
as defining the default position of market actors , or ‘homo
economicus .’
Mauss' work on gift economies has been hugely influential. For
those who want to understand more about gift economies and
the impact of Mauss' work, this short article provides useful
background.
Veale, K. (2003). Internet gift economies: voluntary payment
schemes as tangible reciprocity. First Monday, 8(12).
Available: https://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/articl
e/view/1101/1021.
Despite its commercialisation and the mix of fee and free
content, the Internet remains a gift economy. Yet it is clear
those continuing to champion gift economy principles are now
doing so for mixed returns; intangible rewards such as notoriety
or pride and also monetary and non–monetary gifts.
Although many of the examples discussed here no longer
operate, Veale's work provides a useful discussion of how
gifting works online. It is also helpful in reminding us of
connections between the Internet and the rest of our lives, and
gift and exchange economies: often, people will gift money or
purchase goods for others.
Barbrook, R. (2005). The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. First Monday,
3(12). Originally published in 1998, republished in 2005 with
additional comments by the author.
Available: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view
/631/552.
... at the 'cutting edge' of the emerging information society,
money-commodity relations play a secondary role to those
created by a really existing form of anarcho-communism. For
most of its users, the Net is somewhere to work, play, love,
learn and discuss with other people. Unrestricted by physical

distance, they collaborate with each other without the direct
mediation of money or politics.
Barbrook argues that the Internet facilitates a mix of capitalist
and gift economies. It is useful to consider what might have
changed (and what might remain the same) since the publication
of this article.
Ghosh R.A. (2005). Cooking pot markets: an economic model
for the trade in free goods and services on the Internet. First
Monday, first published in 1998 and republished in special issue
#3.
Available: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view
/580/501.
An excellent discussion of how the gift economy relates to the
monetary economy through reputation, which makes links back
to the attention economy.Peer-to-Peer Economies
'Peer-to-Peer Economies' is a broad term that partially overlaps
with 'sharing economy'. However, this week we're using the
term as a prompt to focus on peer-to-peer networks of exchange
that are at the fringes of the mainstream economy: the varied
ways in which people are using the Internet to own less, share
more, and manage resources communally.
Introductory Reading
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and
collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research,
67(8), 1595–
1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001 Available
through the Curtin Library.
Sharing makes a great deal of practical and economic sense for
the consumer, the environment, and the community. It may also
make a great deal of sense for businesses that are sufficiently
flexible, innovative, and forward thinking.
Belk makes a distinction here between different forms of
sharing and collaborative consumption, and provides an
expansive survey of the range of new practices emerging around

access rather than ownership.
Eden, S. (2017). Blurring the boundaries: Prosumption,
circularity and online sustainable consumption through
Freecycle. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(2), 265–
285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515586871. Available
Rather than simply being handed on, things are not only
transformed in this circular consumption, in terms of location,
ownership and materiality (e.g. through being repaired by the
receiver), but also transformed in terms of digital presence and
how goods and practices are collectively imagined. In
Freecycling, this circularity of digital and material exchange is
often actively recognised and celebrated, where Freecyclers
offer or request items for temporary ownership only, expecting
to offer them round again on Freecycle when they are finished...
This detailed discussion of Freecycle can help us to understand
some ways in which the Internet can facilitate changed practices
of consumption and exchange.
Further Reading
We recommend that you choose at least two of the following
readings, guided by your interests:
Baldwin, J. (2018). In digital we trust: Bitcoin discourse, digital
currencies, and decentralized network fetishism. Palgrave
Communications, 4(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-
0065-0.
The discourse around utilization of digital cryptology appears to
be dominated by issues surrounding the protection of wealth and
security of private property—is this compatible with the aims of
the Left and the Commons? Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the
progressive possibilities of bitcoin technology is that bitcoin
digital decentralisation is a thoroughly ideological and
neoliberal notion, both in terms of its infrastructure and as a
product of technology. ... If there is to be a progressive
employment of this digital technology, then this code and

software will need much reconsideration.
This provides a useful overview of what Bitcoin is and some of
the initial excitement around its potential for supporting
economic alternatives. Baldwin is ultimately critical of
Bitcoin's potential: his reflections on why this is are helpful in
thinking about the potentials of other alternative currencies.
(For those interested in this topic, several chapters in
the MoneyLab Reader may also be useful.)
Sun, E., McLachlan, R., & Naaman, M. (2017). TAMIES: A
Study and Model of Adoption in P2P Resource Sharing and
Indirect Exchange Systems. In CSCW (pp. 2385-2396).
Available: https://s.tech.cornell.edu/assets/papers/tamies.pdf.
While peer-to-peer services that function on a model of
economic exchange have thus far been most widely adopted, we
were interested in understanding the wider potential of indirect
exchanges services. As opposed to paying someone in return for
a service rendered, an indirect exchange service would
function without monetary transaction.
This research looks at some of the motivations for - and barriers
to - peer lending and borrowing systems.
Godelnik, R. (2017). Millennials and the sharing economy:
Lessons from a ‘buy nothing new, share everything month’
project. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23,
40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.02.002. Available
... traditional models of consumerism are deeply ingrained, and
deviation may be difficult. Students had to break old habits that,
according to the survey data, they mostly associate with
happiness. The strength of this happiness effect must be great,
given that students were aware of the pitfalls of consumerism.
This is included in the reading list for two reasons. The first is
that it gives a sense of what is actually involved in shifting to
an 'access rather than ownership' model. The second is that it
demonstrates (for those of you who may have found the team
report a challenge) that other teachers also set novel and
difficult assessments.

Geiger, A., Horbel, C., & Germelmann, C. C. (2018). “Give and
take”: how notions of sharing and context determine free peer-
to-peer accommodation decisions. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 35(1), 5–
15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1231101. Available
Sharing can be perceived as a burden or an asset, based on the
individual perspective of giving and taking, and expectations
and obligations that derive from it. Regarding former
experiences as host and surfer, our findings contained narratives
that ranged from uncomplicated to enriching, but also included
negative experiences.
The authors of this article argue that Couchsurfing, unlike
Airbnb, is a case of true sharing, structured through reciprocity
and social connections that purposely avoid the exchange of
money. This research is useful for understanding some of the
motivations that people have for taking part in systems such as
these, as well as some of the challenges in sustaining them.It's
All About...Networks
One of the fundamental economic changes which the Internet
has brought about, argue many commentators, is the shift to an
economy which is based around the manipulation of
information, and in which networks help to shape economic
success. It's the network which becomes central to the creation
of value and, indeed, the creation of products and services in
the information society.
A specific focus on 'the network economy' has now been
supplanted by other concepts in commentary on the digital
economy, as we will see in future weeks. However,
understanding the role of networks - or at least, claims about
the role of networks - in the digital economy underpins most
other topics which we address. We recommend that you read
'New Rules for the New Economy' and at least one of the further
readings.
Required Reading

Kelly, K. (1997, September). New Rules for the New Economy:
Twelve Dependable Principles for Thriving in a Turbulent
World. Wired, 5(9).
Available: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.09/newrules_
pr.html.
The new economy is often referred to as the Information
Economy, because of information's superior role (rather than
material resources or capital) in creating wealth. I prefer the
term Network Economy, because information isn't enough to
explain the discontinuities we see. We have been awash in a
steadily increasing tide of information for the past century.
Many successful knowledge businesses have been built on
information capital, but only recently has a total reconfiguration
of information itself shifted the whole economy.
Much of this is written in celebratory, speculative and
somewhat futurist terms, but is included as a reference point for
much of the discourse that still pervades popular writing about
the digital economy.
Further Reading
Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its
discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business
manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855–
874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105356 (Available
through the Curtin Library).
Ever since the early stages of the internet, manifestos have
announced the beginning of a new era in which the
countercultural ideals of communalism, collaboration and
creative sharing were prophesied to prevail over purely
consumerist values; the resulting discourse yielded an odd
combination of grass roots values of commonality and hardcore
capitalist values.
This work is useful not for its direct discussion of the network
economy (which is only briefly mentioned), but rather for the
prompts it provides towards skeptical reading of Web 2.0
manifestos like Kelly's. The authors are also critical of the ways

in which the claims made in manifestos like these have been
reproduced in academia. You may find this article useful to
return to when we begin Module 2.
Molz, J. G. (2014). Toward a network hospitality. First Monday,
19(3). Retrieved
from http://ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4824
Emerging out of two related transformations in economic
production, namely the rise of the information age and the shift
toward late capitalism, the network society revolves not around
hierarchical structures but around non–linear complexes of
social and technological flows such as globalization or the
Internet. Within this context, Wittel’s use of the term 'network'
refers both to new structures of electronic connectivity and to
practices of making social and professional ties, but especially
to the relationship between the two. In other words, network
sociality is the social logic of a networked world.
This article is helpful in reminding us of the ways in which
economic changes are intricately linked to social changes. It
may be particularly useful to you if you're focusing on Airbnb,
Couchsurfing, or other companies within the sharing economy.
Fekete, L. (2006). The Ethics of Economic Interactions in the
Network Economy. Information, Communication & Society,
9(6), 737–
760. http://doi.org/10.1080/13691180601064089 (Available
through the Curtin Library).
The rise of the network economy brought about the strong
conviction that economic interactions in the network economy
could be based on cooperative, informed and transparent
communication, which would counteract the negative welfare
effects of unequal bargaining power, the opacity of the
intentions of the parties, opportunistic behaviors, monopolies
and market failures. So the contracts of the network economy
nowadays do not at all remind us of agreements based on the
cooperation of free, equal individuals who follow their values
and self-interest, during which they take into consideration the
increase of each other’s well-being as well as the mutual

sharing of benefits and risks. The network economy reached the
limits set by the segmentation of network architecture, the
restrictive regimes of copyrights, the digital privatizations of
the public domains, the right holder’s control over digitalized
contents, the regulatory furors of the different states and
international organizations, the ‘private legislation’ of the
corporations, and so forth.
This is a much deeper, and more complex, discussion of the
network economy. This is useful because it allows us to explore
more not only about the ethical dimensions of the Internet's
economic impact, but also because Fekete provides a more
detailed look at how the Internet is changing fundamental
aspects of the economy.
It's All About...Growth
Growth is assumed to be an essential part of the economy,
whether at the level of individual companies, the nation, or even
the global economy. Without growth, the economy is described
as 'stagnating'. The digital economy is often associated with
much more rapid growth, with tech companies (and sometimes
entire industries) rapidly scaling up and having a massive
impact on the economic landscape.
This week, we explore different perspectives on growth in the
digital economy: what does 'scaling up' actually mean, and how
is it achieved? How might previous measures of growth fare in
the digital economy? And what might it look like to reconsider
the centrality of growth to our economic models?
Read the introductory reading and at least one of the further
readings, based on your interest and your team's chosen case
study.
Introductory reading
Kohler, T. (2018). How to Scale Crowdsourcing
Platforms.California Management Review, 60(2), 98–
121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617738261. Available
from the Curtin Library.
... crowdsourcing companies grow faster, expand with lower
marginal cost, and generate substantial revenue because of the

scalability of their business model. The scalability advantages
rest in several characteristics. First, crowdsourcing platforms
are decentralized. They rely on distributed decision making,
spreading accountability, and harnessing local knowledge. ...
Second, crowdsourcing often taps into a level of intrinsic
motivation that traditional companies find difficult to match. ...
Contributors from the crowd self-select their challenges and
draw motivation from the joy of a creative task, learning, or the
recognition they receive. The third major factor of scale for
crowdsourcing platforms is the cost effectiveness per output, or
per worker, compared with traditional companies.
Crowdsourcing businesses can expand production at minimal
marginal costs.
As well as providing a useful overview of what 'scaling up'
means, Kohler discusses on the benefits of, and strategies for,
scaling up crowdsourcing platforms. Hopefully you will also see
some issues emerging around the ways in which rapid growth in
the digital economy often involves a heavy reliance on poorly-
paid labour, or free 'prosumer' labour.
Further Reading
Jordan, J. M. (2017). Challenges to large-scale digital
organization: the case of Uber. Journal of Organization Design,
6(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-017-0021-2.
Uber is a fast-growing company with several unique attributes:
its drivers are not employees, the company does not own the
majority of its productive infrastructure, and the management is
often at odds with local law and custom. Uber’s rapid rise to
unprecedented scale serves to illustrate the gaps between
traditional organizational assumptions and the reach of current
technological capability.
Jordan argues that Uber is an exemplar of a new kind of high-
growth organisation, and that the problems which it has
experienced are useful 'canaries in the coalmine' for the digital
economy. Among other lessons, Jordan's research suggests that
we need to consider the ways in which rapid growth and

organisational culture interact.
Engel, J. S. (2015). Global Clusters of Innovation: Lessons from
Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 57(2), 36–
65. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.2.36. Available from
the Curtin Library.
Clusters of Innovation (COI) are global economic “ hot spots ”
where new technologies germinate at an astounding rate and
where pools of capital, expertise, and talent foster the
development of new industries and new ways of doing business.
They are vibrant, effervescent ecosystems composed of startups,
businesses that support the startup process, and mature
enterprises (many of whom evolved rapidly from a startup
history). In these ecosystems, resources of people, capital, and
know-how are fluidly mobile and the pace of transactions is
driven by a relentless pursuit of opportunity, staged financing,
and short business model cycles.
Often, growth is seen as related to innovation at the company
level. This article is useful for building an understanding of
how governments, universities, and even non-government
organisations shape economic growth within a region.
Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., &
Schmelzer, M. (2018). Research On Degrowth. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources, 43(1), 291–
316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941.
Available from the Curtin Library.
Degrowth is a new term that signifies radical political and
economic reorganization leading to drastically reduced resource
and energy throughput. Related scholarship critiques the
ideology behind the dogma of economic growth; contributes to
documentation of negative material, social, and ecological
effects of growth; and assesses alternatives to growth-based
development. Put simply, the degrowth hypothesis is that it is
possible to organize a transition and live well under a different
political-economic system that has a radically smaller resource
throughput.
Much of the writing on the digital economy focuses on growth:

rapidly expanding networks and the language of 'scaling up'. In
previous weeks, we discussed claims that the digital economy
has involved shifts away from material goods, industrial
production, and ownership: it might be useful to ask whether
this means a lessened environmental impact. The authors argue
here that we need to transition away from economic growth,
providing a helpful overview of relevant literature in the area.
If this is relevant to your case study, you may also choose to
look at the Journal of Cleaner Production's special volume on
technology and degrowth. This is also relevant to the topic on
peer-to-peer production in Module 2.
Dynan, K., & Sheiner, L. (2018). GDP as a measure of
economic well-being. Washington DC: Hutchins Center on
Fiscal & Monetary Policy at Brookings. Retrieved
from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/WP43-8.23.18.pdf.
A recent source of discussion and debate is whether and how
GDP should account for the vast amount of information,
entertainment, and services that consumers obtain through the
internet seemingly for free. This problem is not new —
households have consumed entertainment and news services via
television, for example, for many decades without paying
directly for it. But, with internet-provided services an ever-
growing part of our regular lives, there are increasing questions
about the degree to which these services are already accounted
for in GDP and whether they should be counted in GDP.
Gross Domestic Product (GPD) is used as a measure of
economic growth at the national level - and, with it, general
welfare. This article will give you a better idea of what GDP
measures, and what the gaps in that measurement might be.
While the authors have attempted to produce a report that is
accessible for non-technical readers, it does get detailed and
technical at points. We recommend that you focus on Sections 1
(Introduction), 2 (The differences between GDP and welfare),
and 3.1 ("Free" goods).

The Internet has centralised economic power.” Essay - 40 .docx

The Internet has centralised economic power.” Essay - 40 .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Internet has centralised economic power.” Essay - 40 .docx

Similar to The Internet has centralised economic power.” Essay - 40 .docx (20)

More from arnoldmeredith47041

More from arnoldmeredith47041 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Internet has centralised economic power.” Essay - 40 .docx