Ernest J. Wilson

African information revolution: a balance sheet

Abstract This paper provides a policy and institutional framework to describe and analyze the diffusion of information technology and the global information revolution (IR) in Sub-Saharan Africa and the major factors that influence this diffusion. We begin by examining regional diffusion and find substantial cross-national diffusion differences across the continent, with considerable variation in regional diffusion of telephone, internet, radio, and television. This pattern undermines technologic and economic explanations as sole determinants of variation in diffusion. Then we conduct an analysis of the IR in Sub-Saharan Africa based on a policy framework. This framework identifies four key policy balances (1. public and private initiatives, 2. monopoly and competition “markets”, 3. domestic and foreign ownership or control, and 4. centralized and de-centralized administrative controls) as important elements to a better understanding of the diffusion of the IR. We find that a necessary condition for an explanation of the diffusion of the IR is a policy and institutional framework that incorporates these four balances.

What is Internet Governance and Where Does it Come From

The literature on governing the Internet suffers from such lacunae as overly narrow, technocratic conceptions of Internet governance; insufficient attention to governance dynamics within countries; and limited appreciation for the micro-level political and social roots of governance. This essay suggests ways they may be addressed by asking two foundational questions ‘ What is Internet governance and where does it come from ?’ ‘Governance’ is defined as a syndrome of norms and rules controlling property rights, market structures, equity assumptions and authoritative definitions about which social actors are permitted to participate in governance processes and which are excluded. ICT governance originates in conflict and cooperation among contending elites who negotiate across four distinct societal sectors – government, the private sector, research and development, and civil society. This distinctive pattern of four-way negotiations is termed the ‘ Quad ’, a concept that helps explain the origins of governance, and points toward theories linking the structure of the Quad with the performance of the Internet cross-nationally. The concept of the Quad contributes both to scholarly understanding of Internet governance and to improved performance by practitioners charged with real-world governance responsibilities.

Is There Really a Scholar-Practitioner Gap? An Institutional Analysis

The relationship between scholars and practitioners is a continuing source of concern to both communities. Each side complains about the insularity of the other and routinely points to gaps that separate them. Alexander George and other scholars found weak interest and lackluster capacity on the part of academy-based social scientists to contribute knowledge deemed useful to the policy community (George 1993 ; Nincic and Lepgold 2000 ). For their part, leading policy practitioners have bitterly complained about what they see as the growing irrelevance of scholarly work to the design and conduct of statecraft (Newsom 1995–1996).

The political economy of Robert Bates: A critical reading of rational choice in Africa

Abstract This article identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the rational choice approach to political economy as seen in the work of Robert Bates, one of the leading scholars of African political economy. We trace the evolution of Bates work from 1970 to the present, and draw a Distinction between two aspects of his scholarly approach. One is his ostensible method, or the way he describes himself, and tries to differentiate himself from other schools. The second we call his actual method, or what he actually does in his writing. We argue that there is perhaps less distance between his approach and other conventional public choice scholars than he would like to admit, and that public choice and rational choice possess substantial shortcomings that limit their applicability to Africa. We identify several weaknesses of the method in general and Bates use of it in particular, including assumptions about individual-level materialism, stable preferences, aggregation across social levels, severe limitations due to the way evidence is collected and used, and overlooking certain critical issues such as domination and exploitation. Strengths in Bates approach include its tight focus on important questions of the intersection of choice and structure, and politics and economics; its ability to formalize arguments; and its concern with the logic of alternative explanations to outcomes.

French support for structural adjustment programs in Africa

Abstract The French governments support for economic reforms in Africa has differed in the past from the programs of the United States and the World Bank. Frances interventionist past and its socialist policies of the 1980s meant resistance to forcing market solutions on African countries. By the end of the 1980s, however, most donors converged in their support for structural adjustment, including France. Some key differences do remain, especially in privatization, agricultural policy, and in attitudes toward aid conditionality. The article includes an appendix describing the main agencies of French foreign assistance.

Engaged Scholars and Thoughtful Practitioners: Enhancing Their Dialogue in the Knowledge Society

Engaged Scholars and Thoughtful Practitioners: Enhancing Their Dialogue in the Knowledge Society

Global Media Governance: A Beginner's Guide, by Sean O Siochru and Bruce Girard, with Amy Mahan. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. 224 pp.

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.