欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > Media

British Government Released The Digital Britain Report Media Essay

发布时间:2017-04-04
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

In 2009 the British government released the digital Britain report (DBR) with the aim of preparing the U.K. for the next stage of digitalisation. The report set out its five main objectives:

Upgrade and modernise digital networks;

Make an attractive environment for inward and external investment;

Produce UK content for UK users;

Aim for near universal participation in digital economy and society (fairness for all);

Develop the infrastructure, skills and take-up to enable widespread interface for services and business to interact with government.

( Digital Britain report [DBR] 2009, p.9)

This essay proposes that from a political viewpoint, the DBR reinforces the driving forces of inequality in society by giving in to the wants of multinational corporations, which have little interest in engaging with issues of social exclusion, thus continuing the problem. This essay will therefore assert that the DBR is primarily economically motivated and hinders the government from utilising the digitalisation of Britain on the premise of addressing social exclusion.

Primarily I will define the network society, social exclusion and what it means to be socially excluded in the network society. Secondly I will talk about the globalised nature of the network society and the effects this has on the state's power and the transfer of power to multinational corporations, in the DBR (2009) this is talked of in relation to the creative industries. Next this essay will argue that by strengthening copyright laws the government is deterring the digitally excluded from getting online. By looking at the case of Finland and other commentator's remarks I will discuss ways in which this report could have done more to address social exclusion.

The network society

Castells' work focuses on the idea of a network society, which he defines as;

'A network society is a society whose social structure is made around networks activated by microelectronic based digitally processed information and communication technologies'.

(Castells 2009, p.24)

Castells explores networks in a sociological framework and posits that technology is the causal factor of this social shift. These networks function across borders and digital communication technologies allow information and knowledge to be shared globally within seconds. Networks can be of various natures, including (although not exclusively) economic, cultural and technological networks. Despite the massive disparity in the aims and functions of these networks they share one thing in common: the power to exclude people from their networks. Made up of nodes, these networks are original in their ability to morph themselves and exclude or include nodes depending on their relevance to the network's goals.

Social exclusion/inclusion

Despite huge advances in our network society, there are still many in the world that are excluded from the networks and social inequality is increasing (Castells 2000). Social exclusion, as a concept, is still widely contested (Selwyn 2002) however academics and policy makers agree that it is caused by a range of factors and that the cause cannot be pinned to a singular societal aspect (Giddens 1998; Warschauer 2004; Parkinson 1998; Tongia & Wilson 2007; Cabinet office)[1].

According to Stewart (2000) cited in Warschauer (2004) an individual who is socially excluded does not have the opportunity to contribute to a decision- making process in 'both individual and collective chances'. Being socially excluded translates into the lack of opportunity to have your voice heard and to get your point across. This becomes ever more evident in the globalised network society in which access to the internet allows those online to communicate with an equal level of force (Castells 2000). However, the individuals who are not online or are not part of the network society notice exponentially increasing disadvantages (Tongia and Wilson 2007). Due to the multifaceted nature of social exclusion its cause and consequentially possible solutions are difficult to identify. It is partially because of the complexity of the issue that policy makers attempt to simplify it by concentrating on a specific theme such as digital inclusion (Warschauer 2004). Despite appreciating that social exclusion goes beyond digital exclusion, for the purpose of this essay social exclusion will just be looked at in terms of getting more people online.

Social exclusion in the network society

Despite the obvious advantages that technology has brought, the inequality between and within countries has increased greatly in the past forty years (Castells 2000; Tongia & Wilson 2007). Technology is often offered as a government policy tool that can be used to address problems of social exclusion. Contrary to this claim however, income disparity in many rich countries with fast uptakes of new technologies is increasing at an ever faster pace (Castells 2000). A continued increase in the difference between the richest and poorest, even in some of the world's most technologically advanced countries, leads Castells to say;

'I propose the hypothesis that this fragmentation of the societies ..... is in fact, a structural feature of the network society'.

(Castells 2009, p.25)

This exclusion is made possible due to the networks ability to rearrange themselves in such a way that they only include those individuals or organisations that are useful to its goals. Exclusion from the networks is often cumulative and subsequently leads to social exclusion (Castells 2009).

Globalisation

In the past 40 years we have seen a dramatic increase in the globalised nature of the world, both economically, politically and culturally (Dicken 2003). The aftermath of the recent financial crisis demonstrates the lengths to which global financial networks are now determining internal policies and shaping society (Economist 2010a). The nation state as an entity has not disappeared altogether, however its function has altered dramatically (Dicken 2003 and Castells 2009, 2000). The state finds itself in a contradictory situation 'between the structuration of instrumental relationships in global networks and the confinement on the nation-state's authority within its territorial boundaries' (Castells 2009, p. 39).

Multinational corporations operate globally and their economic worth is huge giving them considerable leverage with governments all over the world. Alongside the rise of transnational corporations, the rise of the net has produced new governance issues on how the state can exert its power outside of its borders (Castells 2009). The recent Wiki leak's release of hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents demonstrates the power of the internet and its inability to be regulated (Economist 2010b). Worldwide, governments have been trying to shut the website down (although the website is in fact still accessible) in an attempt to reassert their power. The DBR (2009) is the government's way of trying to exert its power over the unregulated web under pressure from the multinational entertainment giants.

Due to the globalised nature of the network society members of society that are designed to act globally are at a considerable advantage to those whose nature it is to think locally (Castells 2009). Due to the increasingly important role of technologies in the network society, especially the internet, a considerable restriction to acting globally is not being online. The digital divide between those that are online and those that are offline has been a preoccupation for governments worldwide (Selwyn 2002). However, the market led approach to digitalisation has left many still offline and Webster (1995) claims that, far from creating a fairer society, ICT has been used to solidify the power of the capitalist elites. The U.K. government's policies in this area have been concerned with creating a knowledge economy and equipping 'citizens to deal with the associated risk and uncertainties of the free-market thrust of globalisation' (Thompson 1998 cited in Selwyn 2002). The communication and entertainment companies wish to reassert the power of their networks and their influence over government regulatory bodies in order to ensure that policies are made in their favour.

Power of communication giants

'The communication sector underpins everything we do as an economy and a society' (DBR 2009, p.7)

In the network society there is no single power source as power is not held by an individual or an organisation, it is held by the networks. There are many dominant networks, however, communication is key to all networks and consequently the communication giants of this age hold unrivalled power over governmental organisations and institutions (Castells 2009)[2]. By acting as a representative of a single sector of society rather than a representative of the masses, the government ruins its chances of being able to effectuate policies intent on social restructuration (Castells 2009). By the Digital Britain report serving mainly the requirements of the communication sector, it is prevented from offering any radical solution to address the structural problem of the socially excluded.

In relation to the DBR (2009), it is the entertainment giants that constitute the dominant network and make up the UK's creative industry. The digital communications sector is of particular importance to the UK and counts for 6.4% of our Gross Value added (GVA) (DBR 2009). The DBR was compiled by the business, enterprise and regulatory reform department and the culture, media and sport department. This communication revolution that public regulatory institutions are trying to instigate is being shaped primarily to serve business interests (Castells 2009) as is the case with the DBR (2009) and the Digital economy act (2010) that followed the report (and contained many of the same suggestions as the report). Castells (2009) notes an area of policy that is beneficial to all companies in the global communication network, and that is the area of regulating content.

Attracting internal/external investment

Due to the increasing dominance of the market over the state it is no surprise that the aims of the DBR are primarily economically motivated. Digital technologies have dealt a severe blow to the creative industries and the digital Britain report states;

'The transition to digital is (however) overturning old business models much faster than new ones come into their place.'(DBR 2009, p.16)

Alongside a worldwide recession and a significant drop in advertising revenues the sector was in drastic need of a lifeline. The departments concerned rushed the digital economy act through the parliamentary system before the 2010 general election to ensure a fast uptake (Arthur 2010). The entertainment giants needed assurance that the government would help them to regulate the net so as not to infringe their intellectual property rights. The Internet has created a battle between the entertainment giants and society as a whole. Entertainment companies wish to protect their property yet 'digitalisation is making it harder to monetise creative rights' (DBR 2009, p.16). In this respect the DBR (2009) calls for:

Ofcom to be given more power over online copyright laws

Internet service providers to be allowed to remove peoples internet access if they repeatedly infringe on copyright laws

This increase in copyright protection is a desperate attempt by the government to appease the influential members of the creative industries. In this way the government is using the report to hold on to existing business models rather than looking to use digital communication technologies to radically change the status quo. Technologies can be used as a tool to transform society however Perez (2002) states that they will only be able to do this when used to inspire consumers who adopt new lifestyles around the technologies. To make the most out of technologies transformational abilities then old business models will need to be shaken up and reforms must be consumer led.

Increasing digital inclusion

The digital Britain report's aim to attract investment in the creative industries by making online sharing and remixing more difficult will stifle creativity and innovation. To try and attract the digitally excluded to the online world, the government must promote consumer led policies to give people more incentive to get online. Thirty nine percent of households that did not have an internet connection said it was due to a lack of motivation to get online rather than a lack of capability(Pricewaterhousecoopers [PWC] 2009). The raceonline2012 government initiative has its aim to 'inspire, encourage and support' (Raceonline2012 website) the 9.2 million adults who have never been online to get online by 2012.

To inspire and encourage those that are not online does not translate into making it harder to share data online or handing over judicial powers to the internet service providers to stop copyright infringements. Many of the most popular websites including YouTube and Wikipedia use self to mass communication which has been made possible due the innovative nature of the internet wherein the sharing and remixing of ideas is paramount to their success (Castells 2009).

Tony Blair (2000) believed that both the competitiveness of the country and its levels of social inequality could be improved by universal internet access; 'Policies of enterprise and fairness working together' (Blair 2000 cited in Selwyn 2002). However as Castells (2009) notes society is made up of often opposing social groups with conflicting aims and goals. The social actors that gain an advantageous position are then able to promote policy and regulations in their favour meaning that laws and regulations are often not representative of society's needs.

The creative industries network is made up of businesses whose primary motive is economic wealth. For a node to be useful to this network, the individual or organisation must carry some worth in the eyes of the network (Castells 2009). Before the 1997 labour government poverty was often used in place of social exclusion in relation to policy making (Selwyn 2002). Although social exclusion has a broader concept which the governments poverty website describes as' relating to the alienation or disenfranchisement of certain people within society' (The Poverty site 2010), low income is still the primary factor in social exclusion literature (Social exclusion unit 2001). The overwhelming majority of the socially excluded are also below the poverty line and subsequently their economic worth in the eyes of multinational corporation is minimal.

Herein lays the problem of government policy being market led, 'While marketers and innovators may focus on early adopters and expanding markets, policy-makers must worry about society overall' (Tongia and Wilson 2007, p.19). Social inclusion is not promoted through the markets and the past 40 years of increasing inequality are an example of what happens when the market is left to its own devices. 'There are many areas where public policy and the market do not impinge on one another' (DBR 2009, p.8) yet by creating economically motivated reports then the public policy is representative of market needs ignoring the needs of those who do not engage with the market.

However politicians and policy makers have long argued that the market is still interested in the digitally excluded and that the economic benefits from getting more people online will be enjoyed across the board (PWC 2009; National plan for digital participation 2010). The PWC report (2009) on the economic case for digital exclusion sets out the economic benefits that could be felt from a more digitally inclusive Britain; namely the economic savings associated with putting public services online. However this is unlikely to offer any real benefits to the digitally excluded and will, at best, 'offer an improved means to an unimproved end' (Selwyn 2002, p.11) not an individual responsive hotline for the excluded to government services.

The DBR (2009) holds some positive suggestions to increase digital inclusion including a home access fund for low income families. This fund proposes three hundred million pounds to get more low income families online. Applications for the fund, however, require the completion of application forms which mean a basic level of literacy is needed. Low literacy levels are a major factor in digital and social exclusion and research shows that only fifty two percent of adults with no qualifications have net access at home. Research shows a positive correlation between net and social exclusion and nearly a half of the adults in the U.K. which are digitally excluded are also socially excluded (PWC 2009).

Discussion

Both the U.K. and Singapore use their ICT policies to increase economic growth and concentrate primarily on the knowledge economy (Kozma 2005), paying little attention to the information society[3]. This concentration on the economic benefits from increased net participation does little to engage with those individuals who are irrelevant to the global marketplace. Finland offers an alternative approach which promotes ICT policies more focused on the restructuration of society through increasing participation in the digital society. This approach favours the creation of small and medium sized businesses and promotes social inclusion through the sharing of knowledge. Through a long research process the digitalisation of Finland was looked at, taking into account the benefits that would be felt by the whole of society (Kozma 2005). The DBR (2009) was published by the business department and has an objectively narrow focus on the benefits that the digitalisation of Britain will bring to the UK to improve global economic competitiveness. Rather than promoting this through fully grasping the benefits the web can bring, the DBR has in fact just tried to strengthen the existing business oriented framework.

Although this essay accepts that digital inclusion is not the only way in which social exclusion can be addressed, it argues that the 2009 report is not successful in using its remit to address those individuals who are both digitally and socially excluded. The report does nothing to talk of the improved outcomes that can be delivered due to technologies in relation to science, education or health. Social networking could be encouraged across government departments and specific websites for marginalised groups could help people engage and interact with members of society who are in similar situations to them. The report could call on the BBC and the museums to better engage with digital services and promote further community engagement.

Social exclusion is multifaceted and is a structural problem of our society. Its multifaceted nature means that the roots causes of social exclusion are numerous yet poverty, health and low education levels are principle driving factors (Social exclusion task force 2010). Despite the changing role of the state in the network society, reports such as the DBR (2009) are examples of the government effectuating policies that best serve its aims in the face of increasingly uncontrollable technologies. The state's aims are supposedly society's aims, however due to the differing needs of sections of society, policy makers face a tough task when trying to draft policies that benefit all. The aims of multinational corporations differ greatly from the needs of the socially excluded. An increase in social inequality has been led by the market driven nature of the network society. State domination by multinational corporations means that government policy is directed to address business needs. In proceeding in this manner the power of the dominant networks increases and those that are not part of the networks are increasingly losing out.

Conclusion

Given the nature of many government ICT policies such as the DBR (2009) , it would appear that the government cannot use technology to effectively tackle the digital divide 'due to the market driven nature of technological access' (Selwyn 2002, p.11).Despite government's assurance that social and economic aims can be aligned through digital inclusion (Selwyn 2002) this paper argues otherwise. The network society is based around the knowledge economy and the Digital Britain report has its aim to increase participation in the global economy through increased digital participation. To address social exclusion, a radical restructuration of society is needed and governments should harness technology to promote this change. The Digital Britain Report simply aims to cling on to how things are and appeases entertainment giants, yet the socially excluded will remain excluded, agreeing with Castells' (2009) hypothesis that;

'the fragmentation of the societies between the included and the excluded is more than the expression of the time lag required by the gradual incorporation of previous social forms into the new dominant logic. It is, in fact, a structural feature of the network society' (p.25).

Words: 3,289

上一篇:Role Of The Women In The Advertising Media Essay 下一篇:Gaming Becoming A Essential Part Of Life Media Essay