Abstract
If a system such as globalisation is complex when it is composed of many parts that interconnect in intricate ways then what counts is the number, nature and frequency of the interconnections, their growth and dynamic interaction, which makes it difficult to judge or measure or predict emergent properties of the system, especially when small changes in inputs may produce large changes in different parts of the system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Hyperconnectivity is the increasing digital interconnection of people – and things – anytime and anywhere. By 2020 there will be 50 billion networked devices.” See http://www.weforum.org/projects/hyperconnected-world
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
In particular see Figure 1: The Global Risks Landscape at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report.pdf
References
Cox, K. (2008). Globalization, uneven development and capital: Reflections on reading Thomas Friedman’s the world is flat. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 389–410.
Domosh, M. (2010). The world was never flat: Early global encounters and the messiness of empire. Progress in Human Geography, 34(4), 419–435.
Friedman, T. (2002). Globalization: The super-story. Longitudes and attitudes Exploring the World After September 11, http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/longitudes-and-attitudes/prologue
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Helbing, D. (2013). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497, 51–59. doi:10.1038/nature12047.
Herrington, L. M. (2013). Globalization and religion in historical perspective: A paradoxical relationship. Religions, 4(1), 145.
Peters, M. A. (2014). The University in the epoch of digital reason: Fast knowledge in the circuits of cybernetic capitalism. In P. Gibbs, O. H. Ylijoki, C. G. Valenzuela, & R. Barnett (Eds.), Universities in the time of flux: An exploration of time and temporality in university life (pp. 15–43). London: Routledge.
Rugman, A., & Oh, C. H. (2008). Friedman’s follies: Insights on the globalization/regionalization debate. Business and Politics, 10(2), 1–14.
Shapiro, S., & Bedi, I. (Eds.). (2007). Political contingency: Studying the unexpected, the accidental, and the unforeseen. New York: New York University Press.
Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B., & Battiston, S. (2011). The network of global corporate control. PLoS One, 6(10), e25995.
World Economic Forum. (2015). Report on global risk landscape. Online report located at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Peters, M.A. (2016). Afterword: Super Interconnectivity as Globalization?. In: Cole, D., Woodrow, C. (eds) Super Dimensions in Globalisation and Education. Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in Education, vol 5. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0312-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0312-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0310-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0312-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)