Hayek, therefore, advises us that “as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization depend” (Hayek 1979, 162, cited in Petsoulas 2001, 4). The social, thus, is not and should not be a product of conscious and purposeful—that is, political—construction. Society and culture do change, but this change should be left to internal, self-regulated, evolutionary processes and not be led by conscious, rational, and deliberate attempts. “We cannot redesign,” Hayek says, “but only further evolve what we do not fully comprehend” (Hayek 1981, 167, cited in Petsoulas 2001, 4–5). Hence, all that humans can do is act in the most immediate, bottom-up, unreflexive, untheoretical fashion as atomized nodes in the network.
Neoliberalism strongly opposes any type of supposedly external regulation, one that has not organically and spontaneously spawned from the rationale and workings of the market. This refers not only to the state but also to organizations in civil society, such as labor unions. The only role appropriate for governments is to foster an environment that allows markets to function properly. That is, governments should protect lives, define property rights, and enforce private contracts; in other words, governments should act as enforcers and protectors of markets (Greenwald 1994).
Intervention of states in the market in fact hurts the mechanisms of self-regulation: “The plethora of ad hoc interventions by governments in the process of resource allocation . . . abrades and even destroys the self-generating and self-organising properties of the spontaneous market order” (Sally 1998, 23). “Political considerations” are therefore said to “typically interfere with economic logic” (Rapley 2004, 76). Indeed, somewhat euphemistically, market failures—such as phases of depression or high rates of unemployment—are commonly referred to as “government failure” (Yergin and Stanislaw 1998). As Ashford and Davies put it, in neoliberal theory, “The existence of ‘market failure’ can frequently be located in the creation of obstacles by government” (1991).
Conclusion: From Safety Net to the Internet
This chapter analyzed the digital discourse concerning the interweaving of network technology with the market. According to the digital discourse, network technology transforms markets in two fundamental ways. At all levels, from organizations, through industries, to the global economy, markets have become decentralized, dehierarchized, and flexible. The reconstitution of markets in accordance with the architecture of networks has rendered them more conducive to spontaneous order. Market order no longer has to be planned a priori by conscious decision and implemented top down; instead this organization is shown to increasingly emerge bottom up from the spontaneous actions of dumb nodes. Likewise, spontaneous order does away with the need for most forms of regulation and planning. Moreover, while network markets require less planning, intervention, and governing coordination, they nevertheless yield more rational results. Spontaneous order is predicated on, and in turn furthers, a new balance of power between individuals and society: a network market empowers individuals at the expense of social regulation through the state.
Network Market
71