Meeting 2 Notes

Co-ordinator = Neil Stewart

PARTICIPANTS

• Let us consider a revised version of the matrix we developed at the end of the previous meeting:

• We need to look at examples of social control and regulation across the matrix we are using. Perhaps we need to design some research methodologies, look at the impact of regulation and study this along the multiple layers of government.
• My feeling is that we don't have the time to consider all aspects shown on the matrix, but we can consider looking at some horizontal or vertical issues and better going in depth in some of them.
• When looking at the matrix we can say that the prevention role would be biased towards the left hand side of the matrix. On the other hand, the enrichment and citizenship decisions would be built in from the right hand-side of the matrix (i.e., the UN can't create citizenship).
• The political systems we have now were developed during the last century, before ICT was developed. So, perhaps what we are looking at is how we design a Governmental system that is relevant in an ICT era? Notice that ICT globalisation is located to the left of the matrix.
• ICT is becoming global, enrich and it is pushing itself to the left hand side of the matrix. I, as an individual sitting on the right hand side of the matrix, am enriching myself within the framework of my personal life of my community but, at the same time, I am using systems that have a global reach.
• Do we need a kind of hierarchy? A United Nations framework for ICT regulations does not exist but we don't want standards for the benefit of Microsoft.

CRITICS

• I have three comments. The first point is about the framework, it needs to be tested further as in reference to pressure groups, MNEs and Government, etc. Secondly you are talking about issues of standards and it seems that you need to differentiate between policy and co-ordination. The co-ordination of certain standards is one issue while setting standards is another issue. You need to specify which one are you talking about. Thirdly, you are talking about Microsoft, notice that although there is a strict regulation on the nuclear power agency there is none on the Microsoft business. This is suggesting the issue of pressing.
• I think that regarding your discussion the unit of control is not Government by political economy. Political economy is shaped at the national level. If you use this scheme of geographical levels of analysis, then the economy comes only through private enterprises. You may have to re-consider whether political economy should be considered because political economy is being transformed by ICT.
• I think you are missing out a little bit on political issues. If you are talking about political issues what we usually mean by that is a fair distribution of resources like schooling in education. But here the problem is much more complicated because what we have is that there are certain agents that influence the provision of resources, like Microsoft and other large companies. Your discussion seems to be going about how to prevent these agents from influencing in this way, but to my mind the problems is not how to prevent but how to organise these agents such that they can actually contribute to the provision of support associated to the state.
• Regulation at international level is very difficult because you have several national levels whose boundaries can be crossed. What could be the sanctions for breaking these regulations? Who can apply these sanctions?

PARTICIPANTS

• The aim of regulation is to create a situation where people, under this regulation, can be creative. These are the rules of game that, at least in theory, prevent a systemic damage in the system as a whole. However, Microsoft is beyond the US Government stability of regulation. This is just the situation we have now. Perhaps we need to have trade international organisations to regulate at a global level.

CRITICS

• Notice that we have various rules to regulate at the national and international level. The regulation of the 18th and 19th centuries led to commercial boom and positive gain. Regulations can be successful in the long term with the opportunity to compete if you want to.

PARTICIPANTS

• My suggestion is that the easiest way for doing this is at the nation state. I would like to propose two general statements. The first statement is that the nation state was the political and economical response to the industrial revolution. It was not simply political; it was political and economical. The second sentence is that the nation state has not adapted to the demands of control and enrichment in an era of increasingly highly educated civilization, combined with global ICT. These are my thoughts to start off with.
• I think that the nation-state is 'catching - up'. But adaptation is culture-driven and if we can't keep up, it creates tensions and distortions. But is tension in human systems not inevitable? Perhaps we need a more dynamic concept of regulation. 
• Multinational IT companies get so big that we need greater regulation and the nation-state is overwhelmed as a result. Is it necessarily bad? I think that the nation-state lost the authority to tell people what to do. As Marx stated we are seeing the withering of the nation-state, but we need something to replace it with.
• It seems that the key aspect of trade has to be addressed on a global basis. We have to move the political to the left-hand side of that chain.
• On the other hand, there are some huge gaps on control. For instance nobody have control over the military ICT like the Russian and US satellite communication system for warfare.

CRITICS 

• Can I emphasise again on the point that you also have to look at this positively. I mean the state provides defence and education as well as healthcare. If we loose control over those we will not be getting those services.

PARTICIPANTS 

• If we have sufficient competition, we should have greater choices internationally as well as nationally. For instance, we could use the French National Health Service rather than the British.