WRITTEN REPORT

IN THE
CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Prepared by:
GROUP 5
ALITHA S. LUMACTOD BSCE-1
KEN U. TENORIO BSCE-1
JEANNE C. NEBRIDA BSMBIO-3
ALBERT LIPATA BSMBIO-3
ARVIN OLANO JR. BSMBIO-3
JERIC CREDO BSMBIO-3
REA LYN ARGENIO BSMBIO-3
RICA MAE BACUDIO BSMBIO-3

Submitted to:
MARK THEO P. ZETA, LPT
Subject Instructor
 A WORLD OF REGION

Introduction

Regions are “a group of countries located in the geographically specified area” or

amalgamation of two regions combination of more than two regions” organized to regulate and
“oversee flows and policy choices. Large size territories such as counties, provinces, and
countries, or large sections of countries such as the (Midwest USA) that encompasses many
places, all or most of which share a set of attributes of places that make up a different region.

Observing the dramatic shift in world politics since the end of the Cold War, Peter J.
Katzenstein argues that regions have become critical to contemporary world politics. This view
is in stark contrast to those who focus on the purportedly stubborn persistence of the nation-
state or the inevitable march of globalization. In detailed studies of technology and foreign
investment, domestic and international security, and cultural diplomacy and popular culture,
Katzenstein examines the changing regional dynamics of Europe and Asia, which are linked to
the United States through Germany and Japan.

Regions, Katzenstein contends, are interacting closely with an American imperium that
combines territorial and non-territorial powers. Katzenstein argues that globalization and
internationalization create open or porous regions. Regions may provide solutions to the
contradictions between states and markets, security and insecurity, nationalism and
cosmopolitanism. Embedded in the American imperium, regions are now central to world
politics.

While globalization is a phenomenon, regionalism is also seen as political and economic

phenomenon. The world consists of different regions which refers to group of countries situated
in same geographic location or amalgamate one another to oversee flows arid policy choices.
Countries on these regions respond economically and politically to globalization thereby forming
regional associations for common purposes like military defense and economic security.
Regionalism is a political process characterized PY | economic policy cooperation and
coordination among countries (Claudio, 2018). Whereas regionalization is the concentration of
economic flow within region thereby binding together the region’s economy. Since regionalism is
a process, regions are not given or naturally created. They are product of political and economic
actors, and even social movements. Regions group and divide due to common traits and vested
interests. The world is divided according to socio-economic and political aspects.

Moreover, this written report attempted to seek for the response of the following objectives:

 Define the term “global south”;

 Differentiate the Global south from the Third World;
 Differentiate between regionalization and globalization;
 Define the Modernization Theory and Dependency Theory;
 Identify the factors leading to a greater integration of the Asian Region;
 Identify the Asian and European international organization.
Key Terms: Double Divide, North-South Divide, Global North, Global South, Third World, First
World, Second World, Modernization Theory, Dependency Theory, The Digital Divide,
Regionalism, Regionalization, Globalization, Regional Integration, Economic Integration,
Political Integration, ASEAN, APEC, EU, ASEM, EAS
Discussion

Double Divide or North-South Divide

The “double divide” is caused by political power, economic dependency, and
importation/exportation of resources. The transition of industrial production to cheaper labor
sources, international media, and expanding international trade and
communication have in some ways made the world smaller, yet in other ways made the
gaps between nations larger by creating greater dependency of poor nations to wealthy nations.
The North-South Divide or Rich-Poor Divide is the socio-economic and political division
between the wealthy developed countries known as “the North,” and the poorer developing
countries or “the South.” Although most of the countries under “the North” are located in the
Northern Hemisphere, the divide is purely not based on geographic location. Some countries
located in the same hemisphere may be qualified for “developed” status. In effect may
deemed part of “the South.” This divide is recently known as development gap which puts
greater emphasis on the gap between the economically rich and poor countries.
The Global North mostly encompasses the West and the First World, along with many of
the Second World. It is the home of all the G8 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United
Kingdom, United States and European Union), Global North also includes the outermost regions
of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and developed members of Asia (the Four
Asian Tigers -Hongkong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea). The North, with one quarter of
the world population, controls four-fifths of the income earned anywhere in the world. It owned
90% of the manufacturing industries which are also located in the countries belonging to the
North,

The Global South refers to regions of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. It
includes the countries belonging to the Third World and Periphery. These are regions outside
Europe and North America. With three-fourth of the world populations, only has access to one-
fifth of the world income. Hence, countries that have low-income and often politically or culturally
marginalized. “The use of the phrase Global South marks a shift from a central focus on
development or cultural difference toward an emphasis on geopolitical relations of power,”
(Dados, 2012).

Global South vs The Third World

 The emergence of the term Global South is in part to aid countries in the Southern
Hemisphere to work in collaboration on political, economic, social, environmental, cultural, and
technical issues. This is called a South-South Cooperation (SSC), “g political and economical
term referring to the long term goal of pursuing world economic changes that mutually benefit
countries in the Global South and lead to greater solidarity among the disadvantaged in the
world system” (Gray, 2016).

Global South was first used in 1969 in a contemporary political sense and continued to
gain appeal throughout the second half of-the 20th century.

It was a French demographer, anthropologist and economic historian Alfred Sauvy

(1898-1990) who coined the term “the Third World” in 1952, comparing it with Third Estate, a
concept that emerged during the French Revolution which refers to the French population. The
term was accepted because it clearly differentiated the poor countries from the First World
where countries are wealthy, and to Second World (Communist states) though not so wealthy
but characterized by greater order, higher incomes, and longer expectancies (Butler, 2007).

Their growth and develop of the developing countries in the 1970’s was slowing.
Developed countries were becoming dependent on the Third World for energy due to the
decline of US oil reserves. These likely increased the economic power of the. Third World. It
was at this time that the term North and South were firstly widely used in lieu of the long
standing geographical and cultural partition of the East and West. The Global South was
merged to the Third World in order to avoid the stigma brought about by the form “Third World”
as being very poor and thus created a new world order (Butler 2007).

To expound further, Third World countries are experiencing deep poverty, inequality, and
underdevelopment. They are the countries at the periphery that produce mainly agrarian and
mineral raw materials for industrialized states. In deeper sense, the developing countries
originally belong to the Global South still has a chance to become a developed country.

Modernization Theory vs. Dependency Theory

Modernization Theory emerged in the 1950s. Modernization theory describes the

transformative processes of societies from underdevelopment to modern societies. This theory
highlights that development is purely an internal factor based on various social processes, and
the developing countries are still at a stage where they have not yet reached modernization.
 Modernization theory provides a solution, that in order to help the Third World, including
poverty, not only needed the help of capital from developed countries, but it is advisable to
leave the country and replace the traditional values and then to institute political democracy
(Garna, 1999:9); it is where is the problem, because the theory of development according to the
perception of Third World demands that the traditions and values should give the feel of the
modern state to be achieved (Koentajaraningrat, 1984:69). Modernization theory actually has
the same attention and concern about Third World development issues, and attempt to
formulate a development policy which is expected to accelerate the process of poverty
eradication. In the theory of modernization, development problems such as poverty was viewed
as an internal problem that is caused by internal factors or factors contained in the relevant
country.

Whereas, Dependency Theory emerged as a reaction to modernization theory.

Dependency theory highlights that due to colonial and post-colonial endeavors the countries at
the periphery (or else the developing countries) are constantly exploited by those at the core
(developed countries or else wealthy countries). This highlights that the inequality in the world
system where the developing countries are exploited refrain the countries from development.

Industrialization and Immigration

The Civil War was a result of social, political, and economic differences between the
Northern and Southern states, where slavery had become an economic system and a way of
life. Small farmers raised their own food and a small cash crop, while wealthy small farmers
aspired to the ideal of the rich planter with a large plantation worked by hundreds of slaves.
Southern intellectuals developed arguments to justify the continued use of human beings as
slaves. White Southerners argued that slavery was preferable to working in Northern mills and
factories due to its provision of food, clothing, and shelter. They also used religious arguments
and the racist argument that black people were inferior to whites. By 1860, the North had
become the center of American industry due to its reserves of coal and people to run the
machines.

Political Identities. Political parties formed to debate national policies, with a feud
between Jefferson and Hamilton creating the first party system.

Election of 1824 and the Corrupt Bargain. The rise of the Democrats and Whigs was
caused by a conflict between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson in the mid-1800s. This
conflict resulted in rivalry between the Democrats and the Whigs in the presidential election of
1824. Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the electoral college and popular vote, but failed to
secure the majority needed to win the presidency. Henry Clay rallied the necessary House of
Representatives votes to make John Quincy Adams president, which Jackson supporters called
a “Corrupt Bargain”.

Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party. John Quincy Adams’ National Republican Party
advocated large public expenditures, tariffs, and a strong central bank, while Jackson’s
supporters coalesced into the Democratic Party to oppose them.

King Andrew and the “whig”. John Quincy Adams lost re-election to Andrew Jackson, but
his opponents formed the Whig Party to oppose his policies, which they believed were anti-
commerce and anti-business.

The Second Party System. The Whig-Democrat party system dominated American
government until the mid-1850s, with Democrats representing rural regions and the Whigs being
more attractive to opponents of slavery.

The Digital Divide

The Digital Divide is a term that refers to the gap between demographics and regions
that have access to modern information and communication technology, and those that don’t or
have restricted access. As stated by U.S. Department of Commerce (1995), the digital divide is
an economic and social inequality regarding access to, use of, or impact of information and
communication technologies. Existing literature indicates that the digital divide at the individual
level springs from many different sources. Comparisons between educational and occupational
groups, income brackets, age groups, and genders have revealed systematic variation in both
internet access and the frequency of its use (Hampton, 2010; Lehdonvirta and Räsänen, 2011;
Rice and Katz, 2003; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2014). Economic or other resource gaps,
differences in cultural tastes and preferences of different social classes are factors contributing
to disparities in internet use (Emmison & Frow, 1998; Hargittai & Hsieh, 2010).

According to Schweitzer (2015), the digital divide encompasses differences in both

access (first-level digital divide) and usage (second-level digital divide) of computers and the
Internet between (1) industrialized and developing countries (global divide), (2) various
socioeconomic groups within single nation-states (social divide), and (3) different kinds of users
with regard to their political engagement on the Internet (democratic divide).

The digital divide is characterized by two crucial problems:

 1. limited and costly infrastructure to support internet access
2. limited digital literacy in low/middle-income communities to use resources

Low/middle-income communities have limited access to digital technologies due to high

costs and a general lack of infrastructure, ranging from intermittent supply of electricity to limited
availability of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) facilities (Chipeva et. al,
2018; Ziemba & Becker, 2019). The digital divide arguably reflects structural factors in
advanced societies that give rise to social inequalities in general.

Technology can reinforce the Global Divide

All over the world, industry is being disrupted by new technology. What we have today is
more than we dared to imagine yesterday: new business models, new ways of communicating
and new job disciplines. The pace of technological change has brought the arrival of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution.

Through this, the processing power of computers and devices is getting faster, internet
speeds are rising 23% year-on-year and prices for technology are falling. The price of personal
computers has declined by 99.9% since January 1980 and computer software now costs 0.7%
of its price in 1980. Whereas, social media and online content make it easier than ever to gain
instant access to news and views, while technology’s ubiquitous presence has opened
countless new career avenues for “no collar” digital natives. Yet for all the opportunities this
revolution presents, navigating the brave new world isn’t without challenges. Without a decisive
plan for inclusivity at all levels of society, the revolution will fail the very people it should benefit
the most. While our access to unparalleled levels of information, accessible at the click of a
button or the tap of a touchscreen, has damaged our ability to distinguish fact from fiction with
the rise of “fake news”, it is just as worrying that those without access to technology are being
excluded from the discussion in the first place.

This is a risk we can’t afford to ignore. In recent years, I’ve seen more and more media
headlines, debates, even TV programmes intended to entertain, focus on the division and
issues that move us further away from each other. Moreover, if we don’t act now, technology
has the potential to reinforce these changes. With opportunists able to misinform and twist our
understanding of the world around us the online space is dominated by the divide between fact
and fiction. The risk here is that technology will force us to face an even greater divide, not just
between the connected and the disconnected, but between the technologically empowered and
disempowered.

Furthermore, the divide in connectivity is already starting to make its presence felt. Look
at Latin America and the Caribbean where more than two thirds of people have no access to
mobile broadband, compared with Japan, where 95% of people do. Intuitively, we know that’s
wrong. It’s received wisdom that access to the internet is essential, but access is nothing
without skills and empowerment. A staggering one in five (12 million) adults in the UK lack the
right skills to thrive in the digital age. We’re at risk of hindering the social mobility that
technological innovation can stimulate. More needs to be done to support everyone in realizing
the benefits of access.

Additionally, there’s no better place to start than the classroom. The children of today will
be the leaders of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and we need to reconsider how we educate
them. I’d like to see a move away from the current, exam-focused approach to a model where
we empower and support children’s ability to curate, analyse and evaluate what they’re reading
or seeing online, not merely consume it.

Lastly, we also need to build trust. It is essential that people feel they can participate in
the digital economy on a level playing field with their peers and, most importantly, without fear of
abuse. Greater collaboration with each other, rather than echo chambers of negativity and
prejudice, will achieve this goal.

Models of Regionalism

A common thread runs through the turbulent histories of Asia and Europe: the immense
dynamism and impressive discoveries of their great civilizations have often been directed
towards destruction and death. Fortunately, their collective energies are now channeled more
constructively—not least into closer regional cooperation that entrenches peace and enhances
prosperity.

Regionalism has progressed much further in Europe than in Asia. The devastation
wreaked by two world wars convinced Europeans of the importance of working together to bind
their economies and societies together. They realized that by pooling their sovereignty with their
neighbors in certain areas they could achieve more than by acting alone. By drafting common
rules, promoting close coordination among national authorities, and developing strong regional
institutions that advance economic integration, the EU has generated huge economic gains and
sharply narrowed the income gap among member countries.

The milestones in Europe’s economic integration are the creation of a customs union,
followed by a single market, and then a common currency. Very broadly speaking, after
adopting a common trade policy, European countries agreed to the free movement of goods,
labor and services, then progressively liberalized their capital accounts, and more closely
coordinated their monetary and exchange-rate policies before introducing the euro in 1999.

Central Asia’s long-term economic vitality will depend on the ability of the region’s
economies to participate in global value chains and possibly upgrade to higher value-added
activities. Value chains have transformed global trade and production by enabling the stages of
a product to be dispersed across countries. This is particularly true where the right skills and
input requirements are available at competitive cost and quality.

Many developing countries in Asia are struggling to capture better deals at the higher
end of global value chains. The global value chain participation of Central Asia has remained
limited largely because of its narrow trade portfolio, concentrated in few trading partners. In
contrast, economies like the Republic of Korea and Singapore are fairly well integrated into
production networks and they are—to varying degrees of success—climbing the global value
chain hill. Central Asia is still in the valley.

The EU now has an extensive institutional structure and a large regional bureaucracy
centered in Brussels, its administrative capital. The European Commission, Council of Ministers,
Court of Justice, Parliament and other EU institutions employ more than 60,000 eurocrats, while
EU governments’ very large permanent delegations in Brussels act as strategically important
extensions of national ministries and agencies.

Regionalism in Asia has developed rather differently. Regional integration has been
driven more by markets than by governments. Cooperation among national authorities is more
recent and less intimate. It remains focused on economic issues (with some social components)
and light on formal institutions. For now, it involves no political ambitions, although ASEAN has
an advanced security dialogue with several Asian and non-Asian partners.

Asia’s pragmatic and flexible approach to regionalism is partly dictated by history. Asian
countries are little inclined to compromise their independence by pooling sovereignty with their
neighbors, not least because several Asian nation states have only recently emerged from
colonialism and need first to build their national identities. Disparities in economic development,
social structures, and political systems are also much greater in Asia than Europe.

Asia’s economic integration has been largely driven by the development of increasingly
sophisticated production networks that span the region and enable companies to benefit from
each country’s comparative advantages, through an articulated regional division of labor. As
industries have been transferred from advanced economies to developing ones, the production
of manufactured goods has been fragmented across the region.

The catalyst for the recent enhancement of regional cooperation in Asia was the 1997/8
financial crisis. This created a greater awareness of the region’s shared interests and
vulnerabilities. In particular, it created a greater need for financial cooperation—prompting the
establishment of the ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers’ Process and several related structures such
as the Chiang Mai Initiative and the Asian Bond Markets Initiative—at an earlier stage of
integration than in Europe. The emergence of Asian regionalism also reflects the region’s
disappointment with the way the International Monetary Fund handled the 1997/98 crisis

Regionalization vs Globalization

As discussed previously, regionalization is the concentration of economic flow within

region thereby binding together the region’s economy. It is a process of dividing areas into
smaller segments called regions. While s promotes economic integrations across state borders
around the world allowing many companies to trade internationally that permit free market.
Whereas the former, may not allow corporations outside its region to trade and more likely
create monopolies within the region.

Regionalization and globalization are key defining features in contemporary world

politics. They are not actually a complete new processes. Ever since men started to travel
around the globe by boat or by land, globalization had started. As previously said, the exact
meaning of globalization, and defining it is a controversial risk. It is always understood as the
increased flow of goods, services, capital, people, and information across borders (Jacoby,
2010). Whether people share same culture, history or commerce, the most basic sense of
region is a group of countries in the same geographic location (Mansfield, 1999). The countries
in this region decided to integrate and interact socially and economically leading to
regionalization (Hurrell, 2007).
Integration of Asian Region
Regional integration is the process by which two or more neighboring nation-states
agree to cooperate and work closely together to achieve peace, stability, and wealth. It is
overcoming barriers among neighboring countries jointly managing shared resources and
assets for common good. The European Union supports regional integration to achieve
prosperity, peace, and security.

Cooperation among countries within the region usually start with economic integration. It
is the process by which different countries come to agreement to remove trade barriers (e.g.,
tariffs, quotas and border restrictions) between them. Eventually political integration follows as
cooperating states have become completely integrated into a single market since there is a
need for common policies in social aspect (e.g., education, health care, employment benefits,
and pensions) and political institutions. Single market is the midpoint between political and
economic integration the cooperating states become so integrated that all barriers are removed.
It will come to a point that the countries involved are totally integrated that they will adopt a
common currency with a monetary policy regulated by a single central bank, even share the
same foreign policies and merge their armies (McCormick, 1999). The European Union is the
best example of regional integration. They are almost nearing to the point of total integration.
They have their common currency, the Euro. Who knows in the near future, EU will combine
politically and maximum scale of total integration.

It took time for Asia to integrate economically due to, first, its unbalanced economic
growth. Some countries in Asia have medium-high income (e.g., Singapore and South Korea),
others are of medium-low income (e.g., Philippines and Indonesia), and low income earners
(e.g., Pakistan and Cambodia). Second reason for the delay is diversified cultures, religions and
customs among the people. Asia has a long history and brilliant ancient civilization but impedes
the progress of integration. Issues and problems of security is the third cause of delay. The
issues on terrorism and boundary disputes and other problems brought some negative
consequences to the progress of Asia’s economic integration (Kang, 2009).

The integration of East and South Asia is the product of global economic integration.
According to Sally (2010), East-Asian integration is the strongest in trade in transport and
machinery which the heart of these products is processing trade (also known as fragmented or
network trade). This kind of trade is trade in parts or components where different parts of the
production process are located in different countries. The production chains ended in a labor-
intensive assembly operations happened mostly in China since 1990s before export to-final
consumer markets in the West. Accordingly, South Asia was seen to increase in manufactured
exports

Factors Leading the Asian Region into Integration

 
1. TRADE- the world economy is intertwined with each other whether we like it or not. We
all want or need something from another part of the world and global trade facilities.
2. SIMILAR CULTURE-The culture of Asia is diverse but they do share many things. This
make easier fit during the times of negotiation.
3. COMMON GOALS-The Asian region recognize the mutual benefit of low integration.
Territories involved are not far from each other and industriousness of its population can
work as a powerful negotiation block against those from other parts of the world.
Asian and European representatives attending the G20 London Summit

1. ASEAN- Association of Southeast Asian Nation. It includes Brunei, Darussalam,

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Indonesia, Malaysia Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
and Vietnam.
2. APEC- Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
3. EU- European Union. It includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
4. ASEM- Asia-Europe Meeting.
5. EAS- East Asia Summit. It includes ASEAN+3 members including Australia, India and
New Zealand.

A Unified Korea

There is ample historical evidence that when a country has domestic stability, reliable
allies and a powerful military that allows irredentism and expansionism to flourish. Throughout
history America, China, England, France, Iraq, Israel, Spain and many other nation-states are
testament to this taking place. Others however, are often directly impacted upon and this is true
of Hawaii being usurped by America; China and its taking of Tibet; France in its invasion of
Russia; England and the seizing of India; Iraq and its invasion of Kuwait; Israel and the taking of
East Jerusalem/West Bank; and Spain undertaking the conquest of the South Americas. As
stipulated Japan and its irredentist policies within the region have created tensions means that
as the Koreas gain greater harmony they will assert a more co-ordinated approach toward
Japan’s past deeds and its present ambitions. This, combined with China’s preponderance will
heavily, and negatively, impact on Japan. The way in which Japan will respond to these
pressures remains to be seen, however any China-North Korea-South Korea quasi-tripartite or
direct agreement would see a coalescing of historical animosities which must place strategic
pressures on Japan. For instance, a unified Korea, regardless of not being a single sovereign
nation-state and albeit, with two distinctive regions will nonetheless, identify more strongly as
‘one people with a shared history’ and set about diminishing Japanese politico- and military-
influence An immediate outcome it can be safely argued, would be the two Koreas being less
inclined to directly criticize China’s overt military role in the South China Sea per se; would
explicitly favour China’s claims on the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea;
and would side with China in rejecting Japan’s attempt to become part of the UN Security
Council’s permanent members. All would directly impact upon Japan’s ‘middle power‘ status.
The regeneration of what would constitute a new Korea would be to elevate the difficulties for
Japan and if this were to be in parallel with the US remaining on its current pathway of further
developing quasi-isolationist tendencies and remained true to its mantra of wanting its allies to
‘do more’ in building their own defence capabilities will also add to Japan’s woes.

The outcome of a unified two Koreas living in (relative) harmony with each other would
place Japan in a newfound politico- and regional-strategic situation in which it would have to
come to terms when facing two semi-united countries; and a unified country. Simply put, all
three countries have long-term deep-seated animosity toward Japan and a unification-of-sorts
would offer the opportunity for retaliation, or a quasi-revenge to take place. Going to war against
Japan however, is highly-unlikely as it would draw in other powerful actors—this is not what
either country wants.

Notwithstanding this, China, North Korea and South Korea will do all they can to
constrain Japan. Any decrease in tensions on the Korean Peninsula would be good for the
world from the perspective of a ‘kinetic exchange’ or a ‘shooting war’ not breaking out.
Paradoxically however, the peace will introduce a completely new set of enormous politico- and
military-challenges for Japan, as it is forced to endure the repressed rage of its closest
neighbours finally coming to the political surface.
Conclusion

Groups, associations, institutions, societies, communities and governments form

organizations or networks in regions. The linkages and communications have made the people
more aware of the world around them. Globalization has made various citizens cognizant of
specific areas, particularly on territories or continents where they live. People are able to identify
themselves with regions they belong to.

The first world also implied democratic, capitalist, and industrialized countries, while

the second world implied communist-socialist states, and the third world implied neutral or less
developed countries. The terms have since become outdated and are no longer used to
distinguish between countries that are considered developed versus those that are considered
developing.

Poverty in the context of modernization theory is the existence of traditionalism that often
become barriers to development itself. Third World countries is a backward country with a
traditional society. Third World to develop itself to have the values of Western-owned
achievement needs to grow and develop the modern entrepreneur that describes the strong
public desire to adapt the values of “lifestyle” as the identity of the modern West.
 REFERENCES

Books & Journals

Ang, J., DEM, Zeta, M. LPT, & Papel, R. (2018). The Contemporary World (A Text Manual for
the 21st Century Filipino Student). ISBN: 978-621-406-176-1. Published by:
MINDSHAPERS CO., INC.

Benjamin, E. S. (2017). The First, Second, And Third World Countries: Origin Of Concept And
Present Beliefs. Retrieve from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-first-second-and-
third-world-countries-origin-of-concept-and-present-beliefs.html

Brown, W., PH.D. (2020). Oklahoma State University. Chapter 9: The Digital Divide. Retrieve
from: https://open.library.okstate.edu/learninginthedigitalage/chapter/the-digital-divide/

Budiman, A. (2000) . Teori Pembangunan Dunia Ketiga. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama

Chipeva, P., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Irani, Z. (2018). Digital divide at individual level:
Evidence for Eastern and Western European countries. Government Information
Quarterly, 35(3), 460-479.

Evan, A. (2016). Why are countries classified as First, Second or Third World? Retrieve from:
https://www.history.com/news/why-are-countries-classified-as-first-second-or-third-world

Garna, Yudistira K. (1999). Teori Sosial Dan Pembangunan Indonesia: Suatu Kajian Melalui
Diskusi. Bandung: Primaco Academika.

Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Sessions Goulet, L. (2010). The social life of wireless urban
spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication,
60(4), 701-722.

Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1986) .The Core Knowledge Foundation is an independent, non-profit

educational foundation. Wikipedia. Retrieve from: https://www.coreknowledge.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/CKHG-G5-U11-about-growing-apart.pdf

Kemiskinan, d. S. & Masih, T. (2012) . Diakses

dari http://deki-aloha.blogspot.com/2011/07/kemiskinan-di-surabaya-masih-tinggi.html,
diakses tanggal 24 Februari 2012

Koentjaraningrat. (1984). Kebudayaan, Mentalitet dan Pembangunan, Jakarta: Penerbit PT

Gramedia.
Lehdonvirta, V., & Räsänen, P. (2011). How do young people identify with online and offline
peer groups? A comparison between UK, Spain and Japan. Journal of Youth Studies,
14(1), 91-108.

Nedha (2015). Difference Between Modernization Theory and Dependency Theory. Retrieve
from: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-dependency-theory-and-
vs-modernization-theory/

Jennings, R. Y. (2019). Neo-colonialism and Imperialism. Retrieve from:

https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/the-university-of-warwick/international-law/
neo-colonialism-and-imperialism/14350172

Jhandy Bolando, J. (2019). Factors Leading The Asian Region Into Integration. Retrieve from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/407889642/Factors-Leading-the-Asian-Region-Into-
Integration#

Katzenstein, P. J. (2005). A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium
(Cornell Studies in Political Economy)  https://www.amazon.com/Regions-Cornell-
Studies-Political-Hardcover/dp/0801443598

Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of
usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27(8), 597-623.

STI College (2021). The Contemporary World: A World of Region. Retrieve from:
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/sti-college/the-contemporary-world/chapter-3-a-
world-of-regions/20754663

Tabano et.al (2019). A World of Region. Retrieve from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/404107018/A-World-of-regions-copy-docx

Theresia Octastefani (2012). STRUCTURAL POVERTY IN PERSPECTIVE OF

MODERNIZATION THEORY
https://theresiaoctastefani.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/structural-poverty-in-perspective-
of-modernization-theory/

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA). (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the have nots in rural and urban
America.

Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New media &
society, 13(6), 893-911.

Wandrei, K. (2021). What Caused the Rise of the Democrats & the Whigs? Retrieve from:
https://education.seattlepi.com/caused-rise-democrats-whigs-7035.html

Wesleyan University-Philippines(2022). Nursing. World of Regions – Lecture. Retrieve

from:https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/wesleyan-university-philippines/nursing/
world-of-regions-lecture/31332694

Ziemba, P., & Becker, J. (2019). Analysis of the digital divide using fuzzy forecasting.
Symmetry, 11(2), 166.