Negotiating Distant Influences: Globalization and Broadcasting Policy Reforms in Zambia and South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization operates as a powerful buzzword in discussions of media reform policy in the region of southern Africa. Implied in these debates is an insistence that the forces of globalization exert an inexorable external pressure on local national contexts. This sentiment is captured in Chris Arthur’s definition of globalization as that “inter-related complex of processes, industrial, economic, technological, cultural and cognitive, which have resulted in regional boundaries (whether of family, class, religion or nation) being rendered permeable to distant influences” (Arthur, 1998, p. 3). If one looks closely at southern Africa, it becomes evident that globalization has not had a uniform effect. This is apparent in the way such “distant influences” have played out on media policy reforms in South Africa and Zambia. As the discourse of globalization is not unique to southern Africa, this constitutes a case for some shared lesson-learning. In recent theoretical debates about the effects of globalization on poorer countries, Held, among others, posits “three different theses on globalisation” (in Servaes & Lie, 2003, p. 8). Firstly, there is the “globalist” thesis, which understands globalization as an inevitable development that cannot be resisted or significantly influenced by human intervention, particularly through traditional political institutions, such as nation-states. Globalists can be divided into two camps: the neo-liberalist and the neo-Marxist. Neo-liberal optimists emphasize the benefits of new technologies, global communications, and increased cultural contacts and welcome the triumph of individual autonomy and the market principle over state power. Neo-Marxist pessimists stress the dominance of major economic and political interests and point mainly to the uneven consequences of globalization. The second thesis is put forth by “traditionalists” who argue that the significance of globalization has been exaggerated and contend that most economic and social activity is regional, rather than global. The traditionalist thesis underplays the effects of distant influences and attributes changes in policy reform to the local level, and it thus sees a significant role for nation-states in the policy process. Thirdly, the “transformationalist” thesis posits that globalization is a significant
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".