I like believing that wirearchy is a bit more apt of a term than heterarchy, which still (to me) implies some degree more of static-ness than I think will be the case, and it’s a bit more awkward and academic-y. And, it does not “poke fun” at traditional hierarchy by rhyming ….

Here for example from the 1996 P-CED paper which proposed a new inclusive economic paradigm which could it suggested by catalysed by deploying social capital made available by the dawning information age.

“the global resource base becomes available as a means for each community to best determine resource locations to meet its needs. Such a localized determination of needs, and connection into a global resource network that provides a means to actually address those needs, has not been possible prior to the onset of the Information Revolution and the emergence of the Internet and Web. The direction and character of our new age of civilization can, for the first time in human history, be proactively determined, planned and managed for the global public good”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism#People-Centered_Economic_Development

The core argument for this paradigm was an assertion that Western capitalism had allowed numbers to trump people, rendering them disposable in favour of profit.

http://www.p-ced.com/1/about/background/

The message seems to have got diluted somewhere with all the talk of a relationship economy, until perhaps being confronted with the credit crisis of 2008, when many began to realise that we’d taken our eye off the ball.

As the link above to Wikipedia illustrates, it was in the wake of an earlier economic collapse in Russia that offered the opportunity to demonstrate this model of social capitalism. A crisis which had been brought about by failing to understand the need for capitalism to co-exist with democratic governance, which could be considered as social capital.

The story had been brought to light by David Mclintick’s article “How Harvard Lost Russia” which inspires little confidence in what they might have to say now.