English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Government everywhere is disparaged and deemed inefficient. Efforts to improve government performance by introducing private sector values (called “reinventing government”) and dismantling governmental responsibilities (known generally as “privatization”) have been underway for some years, particularly in the United States and Great Britain. Other nations have been transformed by this philosophy as well, especially those where the United States is viewed as a model to emulate, where U.S. economists have been provisionally successful as counselors to national governments, as in Eastern Europe and Russia, and where the World Bank has dominated national economic and financial decision making. Telecommunications are now understood by all as a strategic national asset, an essential tool for creating or modernizing a nation’s infrastructure, and for domestic and international competition. Saturated markets in the advanced industrialized nations and the generally high rates of return on telecommunications investments have led global capitalism to seek opportunities in the “less-mined” telecom service markets of newly industrialized economies (NIEs) and developing countries. Thus, the stage is set at this moment in history: Global capitalism invested in a telecommunications infrastructure as an essential key for economic development meets the (re)assessment of government as service provider. In the haste to privatize, deregulate, or liberalize, whatever we call the various mechanisms, national governments are faced with very difficult choices regarding available options that will meet multiple societal, economic, political, and financial goals. Can we maximize both efficiency and equity, or do we optimize one at the expense ofthe other? What information do we need in order to make good public policy? (What is “good’ public policy, anyway?) What are the options and alternatives for balancing foreign investment and national development? Can we use history as a guide to understanding the consequences of particular policy decisions? How do we separate rhetoric from reality? Happily, Mody and her colleagues provide an important contribution through their framework of comparative political economy. In I3 densely-written chapters that require careful attention, I7 scholars offer the reader many insights into the difficult question: “Who will own and control the new electronic control environment and in whose interest?’ Theirs is a much needed voice of caution to policy makers about the rhetoric that surrounds advances in technology for building the “Supcrhighway” and a nation’s infrastructure, and for the ascendancy of corporate private sector claims, in the national debates about the proper role of government. They see, as they comment in their

j. am. soc. inf. sci.

Telecommunications Politics: Ownership and Control of the Information Highway in Developing Countries, edited by Bella Mody, Johannes M. Bauer, and Joseph D. Staubhaar