Societies in Transition in the Global Network

Societies in Transition in the Global Network
An analysis of the different information society models can have as its starting point the individualization of four dimensions (technology, economy, social well-being and values), through which one can better understand what each society’s position is in relation to the global information society panorama (Castells and Himanen, 2001). On this basis one can consider that a society is an informational society if it possesses a solid information technology: infrastructure, production and knowledge (Castells and Himanen, 2001).Huntington suggests that, during the 1970s and 1980s there were transitions from nondemocratic political systems to democratic systems and that those changes can be seen in the context of a greater trend towards transition to democracy. Without going into the various premises put forward by Huntington in more detail, I think that his contribution is of interest for the analysis of the societies in transition to the network society due to the fact that he establishes a link between different geographic zones and societies at the values level. In other words, all the societies studied herein have shared one common value in the last three decades—the search for democracy—and seek today integration in the global economy as informational societies, with most of the indicators placing them in a transition zone. Almost all of the countries analyzed here as being in transition to the network society are referred to by Huntington as common examples of transition to democracy. Huntington defines three types of transition, which include all the countries analyzed here: 1) transformation (for example, Spain, Hungary and Brazil), where elites in power took on the leadership of the transition processes; 2) substitution (as in Portugal and Argentina), where opposition groups led the democratization process; 3) trans placements(as in Poland and Czechoslovakia), where democratization occurred from joint action by government and opposition groups.
Finland, the United States and Singapore are advanced informational societies. They are also dynamic economies because they are internationally competitive, have productive companies and are innovative. But because “(…) technology and the economy are merely a part of the story” (Castells and Himanen, 2001: 31), one can say that a society is open if it is so politically, i.e., at the civil society level, and if it is receptive to global processes. Likewise, its social well-being can be assessed in terms of its income structure and the coverage offered to the citizens in terms of health and education. When looked at in terms of the evolution of development models, Portugal is a country that is going through a transition process from the industrial society to the informational society. However, we are speaking of an industrial society, which, similar to the Italian and
Spanish societies, is to a large extent made up of small and medium sized enterprises but that has never asserted itself as a large-scale industrial producer (Castells, 2002). In the second half of the 20th century, Portugal assumed what can be termed proto-industrialism and is now seeking to achieve a proto-informationalism (Castells, 2002). As an example of a society in transition, the analysis of Portugal reveals that it is a country which, through its multiple affiliation networks (which range from membership of the European Union to the maintenance of good relations in terms of defense with the USA and to the establishment of partnership networks with Brazil, the former
African and Asian colonies and the autonomous regions of neighboring Spain), seeks to adapt to the conditions of global economic change. And that is a pattern common to all societies in transition.
By Msele Musa
BAPRM 42626