“The Internet has centralised economic power.” 

“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?docID=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 Reading

s

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.kim

.

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/article/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/article/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 through the Curtin Library.

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

.

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 through the Curtin Library.

… 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 through the Curtin Library.

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

.

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).