Has the World Wide Web and the internet affected globalization?

Those of you who know me, will agree that I am very passionate about the topic of international development. Indeed, while I thoroughly love the business transaction side of public relations, I more than often find myself drawn towards how public relations can be used as a tool to cater for the greater good socially, culturally and economically through initiatives such as corporate social responsibility, which I am currently writing my thesis on.

A question which I have not addressed before on this blog, is the topic of media, communication and technology as a means of globalization. In the West, the media sphere has been dictated by the emergence of new media which has changed the entire communication sphere and the way that businesses choose to communicate with their publics. However, the full population of our dear mother earth does not have the same access as we do; and while we talk about globalization, the vast majority of the earth still do not have access to the World Wide Web or internet. 

So, has the World Wide Web and the internet indeed affected globalization at all? The term globalization is used in many different contexts, having become a social buzzword with a multitude of interpretations and meanings. Indeed, it is widely contended that the introduction of the internet as a tool available to the mainstream public in the early 1990’s, has had a direct effect on the integration of worldwide communities. However, to determine the extent to which the internet has shaped globalization, it is important to first establish the precise meaning of the term globalization and to determine how the internet could contribute to affect it. 

What is globalization? 


From a conceptual viewpoint, the process of globalization can be split into two parts; outwards into geographic space and inward into culture and society. 


The “outward” factor relates to trade, cross-border production, investment, technology, and the homogenization of policies and institutions. The IMF states that this refers to ‘the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through the movement of goods, services, and capital across borders’ as well as ‘the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders’.  


The second “inward” factor relates to the social dimensions of globalization, affecting the life and work of people, identity, culture, family and the cohesiveness of communities. The WHO states that this dimension ‘refers to the increased contact between cultures, identities and views across national boundaries that result from the application of modern communications.’   


Drawing the two terms together, globalization can thus be defined to be the elimination of barriers to trade, communication and the exchange of culture. Through the above, it is contended that globalization exists to benefit the international development of higher living standards, new opportunities and faster growth.


How can the internet and WWW affect globalization?  


Now, let's investigate the internet and world wide web’s role in contributing to globalization. 


Global organizations argue that modern technology has played a central role in globalization. A 2005 report released by the OECD, for example, states that ‘the dissemination of information and communication technologies has been one of the most decisive factors in accelerating the process of globalization.
Moreover, the UN argues that the World Wide Web and internet is a central tool for the economic and material development and wellbeing of our time and age, contributing to the conditioning of knowledge, power and creativity. They also emphasize that the cultural and educational development which is brought forward by the sharing of ideas though the internet, conditions technological development,  leading to economic development,  leading to social development, which once again stimulates cultural and educational development. Thus, it is believed that the internet enables knowledge growth, considered to be synonymous with economic growth. It is therefore argued that the internet, like globalization, promotes the wealth of all nations.


So, has the internet and WWW affected globalization at all?  

To answer this question, it is necessary to investigate a number of factors and arguments.   Firstly, for populations to truly reap the benefits of the internet and become “globalised”, it would need to be evenly distributed on a global scale. Secondly, worldwide governments would need to be in agreement about the benefits of a world wide pool of shared thought. Thirdly, the internet would work as a means to influence the masses cross-globally through symmetrical communication. Finally, the internet would contribute to trade and cross-border production in a win-win relationship.

The first argument entails that to fully affect globalization, the internet would need to be distributed equally. Globalization as we know it today, however, exists in an asymmetrical form and attention is increasingly turned to the fact the internet is in fact unequally distributed. In its most physical form, more than a billion people worldwide are currently connected to the internet, but the gap between the connected and unconnected is enormous. For example, while the internet has a very high population penetration rate of 78% in North America, the penetration rate on the African continent is merely 11%, with less than 1% of the populations in countries such as Ethiopia, Guinea, Niger and Liberia using the internet. Conversely, the internet reaches 100% of the population on the Falkland Islands and 95% of the population in Norway. Thus, there is a large gap between countries, groups and populations in terms of the physical access, knowledge and use of the internet. However, population penetration rates of the internet cannot alone be used to determine the use of an open net in which global citizens can exchange communication, culture and trade.

The second argument demands that for populations to use the internet as a tool for globalization, governments would need to be in agreement about the benefits of the internet. Another factor which must be considered is therefore internet policy practices. For example, while the penetration rate in a country such as the United Arab Emirates is 70%, websites are widely censored for contents which are not consistent with the religious, political, cultural and moral values of the emirate.  The practice of controlling or suppressing the publishing or access to information available on the internet and World Wide Web is known as “internet censorship,” and is not limited to cases such as the above mentioned, but stretches throughout the world. While some countries have very little internet censorship, such as Demark for example, where it is limited to the ban of child pornography and portals which violate copyright laws, other countries, have implemented censorship that goes as deep as limiting the access to news, suppressing discussions, and prosecuting bloggers for opinions that are against the regime in which the laws exist; in China for example. Yet, other countries, predominantly in the developing world and notably evident in Sub-Saharan Africa, no regime except the Ethiopian, uses technical filtering to limit the access to online content.  Here, it is worth to notice that Ethiopia is also one of the countries in the world with the smallest internet penetration rate.



The third argument involves the internet being available as a global tool, able to communicate cross-culturally through symmetrical communication.  Here, the concept of a “digital divide” is best used, which is the term used to describe the gap between those who can benefit from digital technology and those who cannot. Craig Smith (2011) states that the problem is not so much about internet access as it is about the tangible benefits derived from the access.  Smith argues that while the upper-to-middle class has access to high quality internet, the low-income populations have been ignored by digital programmers who, historically, have specifically been creating solutions for the affluent who are profitable. As a result, the less affluent have had no benefit from the digital technology.  In fact, he argues, that the inappropriate access is harming the poor rather than benefitting them and that extending the access of internet and the World Wide Web into emerging markets will do more damage than good.  Another point to notice, in agreement with the concept of a “digital divide.” is the language of the internet; the concept of the “speaker” and the “listener.” Alozie (2005) argues that mass media artifacts, both traditional and modern, are sponsored and produced by multinationals and Western governments. Delwich (2004) states that some view the internet and World Wide Web as a mean of cultural imperialism, which threatens the independent cultural space of non-Western cultures.  Indeed, the most commonly used language of the internet is English. In 2011, 57% of all website contents were written in English. Qvortrup (2001), however, argues that while the internet is dominated by the English language, it is not a testimony that the culture expressed though the language is dominant in determining influence.  Conversely, he argues, that while the internet for some is synonymous of a public-sphere where global citizens meet, it is in fact the opposite; namely a separation of the public-sphere into specific areas of interests and opinions, dubbed “sub-spheres,” which does not in fact promote global communication, but rather separates the public into clusters based on interests and opinions.



The fourth and final argument holds that the extent to which the internet has contributed to globalization can be determined by its contribution to trade and cross-border production. Indeed, the term “globalization” was coined in the 1980s as an effect of the technological advances that made it quicker and easier to complete international transactions, taking international trade and the outsourcing of manufacture to a whole new level. While the internet does make the process of sharing ideas and concepts easier; thought to contribute to entrepreneurship and innovation; neither time nor the introduction of the internet has helped bridge the gap between rich and poor. Instead, it has contributed to widen the gap between rich and poor, increasing inequality in most countries.  However, that the internet remains a tool of citizen empowerment, democratization and global involvement of countries worldwide, is a testimony that is widely supported. In 2011, for example, the UN called for all countries to put in place a broadband strategy, with a target of seeing 60% of people in the developed world online and 50% of people in the developing countries, online by 2015. Moreover, in 2010, UNESCO in collaboration with the ITU established the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, as part of the UN efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals, highlighting that broadband is as essential a tool to development. However, that globalization is indeed not at all “global,” and that the relationship between the term and global media outlets including the internet and the World Wide Web, is a tool for the West to exercise its use of ‘soft power’ to promote its political and economical interests, is also widely supported. Global media systems are oftentimes considered to be a form of cultural imperialism and the internet widely criticized for contributing to the Westernization or Americanization of global societies. However, while media ownership and control has historically been owned and dominated by Western elite nations, who, through technology attempted to set the communication agenda as a means to expand capitalism, a form of ‘oriental globalization’ is now increasingly coming to the surface. For example, while English is indeed the most widely used language of the internet; Chinese is the second largest language of online-communication, with other non European languages also increasing their online dominance. As a result, it is only to be anticipated that as largely populated countries such as China and India become more and more integrated into the global market, changes to the communication and media industries will affect a decline of the English language’s online-dominance. Moreover, while other media types such as radio, TV or newspapers communicate a one-way message, the beauty of the internet is that it allows for the blossoming of thoughts in a method of cross-communication through independent thought and the sharing of ideas. 


And what does all this mean? 

Like a snowball rolling down a steep hill, globalization is gathering more and more momentum. The growth of globalization and the internet and World Wide Web, rather than having affected one another, has in fact shaped one another, and will continue to do so. Globalization and the internet alike, is more complex than a governments’ role in international business, or its policies to protect religious, political, cultural or moral values. Globalization is happening regardless of governments and goes beyond both politics and economics. However, the global economy of today’s society makes it more important than ever to understand people who are different than ourselves; and while being united through the internet and World Wide Web can assist to unite us, ultimately, it is the people themselves who should be united, if we are to create a truly globalized world.