Globalization: “The World Is Flat” by Thomas Friedman Essay (Book Review)

Introduction

One of the main aspects of post-industrial living has to do with the fact that, as time goes on, the world becomes increasingly ‘flat’, in the metaphorical sense of this world – the forces of Globalization predetermine this state of affairs. Therefore, it is fully explainable why during the course of the last few decades, there has been published a number of books that authors of which aimed to enlighten readers on what accounts for the essence of the Globalization-related processes in the world.

Among the most critically acclaimed books on the mentioned subject matter is The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century (2005) by Thomas Friedman. This book was published in New York by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux and almost instantaneously attained the status of a bestseller. Partially, this explains why in the years 2006 and 2007, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux published the edited versions of The world is flat.

The main idea, promoted throughout the book’s entirety, is that the very laws of history create the objective preconditions for the process of Globalization to continue gaining an exponential momentum. In its turn, this implies that it is in people’s best interests to be trying to adjust to the process in question, as something that will significantly increase the measure of their existential competitiveness. In this respect, one would benefit rather substantially from assuming that: a) In the Globalized world, national borders become an obstacle on the way of free trade, b) The Globalization’s main effects are necessarily positive, b) It is specifically the neo-Liberal/Libertarian economic paradigm, which appears to be most consistent with the process of Globalization (Giroux 2005).

Thomas Friedman is considered one of the leading experts on Globalization in America. Throughout his career as a columnist/journalist, he published a number of books that discuss Globalization from a variety of different cultural, socio-economic, and geopolitical perspectives. The most famous of these books is The Lexus and the olive tree: understanding Globalization (1999) and Longitudes and attitudes: exploring the world after September 11 (2002). In 2005, Friedman was elected a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board

In this paper, I will focus on reviewing Chapter 3 of the initially mentioned book, which is called Developing countries and the flat world. In it, the author discusses the effects of Globalization in the Third World countries and provides insights into what kind of strategies can be used, in order for the ‘flattening’ of the world to prove beneficial to these countries’ citizens.

The reason I choose this specific Chapter to be reviewed is that within the context of how different authors go about discussing the effects of Globalization, the ways in which the concerned process affects people in developing countries, are being often overlooked. Yet, there are a number of good reasons to believe that these people represent Globalization’s actual ‘fuel’. In its turn, this implies that Chapter 3 can be well considered the book’s most important one.

Review of Chapter 3

Chapter 3 in Freidman’s book is dedicated to discussing how developing countries should proceed with trying to integrate into the Globalized world. In this respect, the author comes up with the following suggestions:

1. The policy-makers in developing countries must work on increasing the measure of their awareness of what may be deemed these countries’ Globalization-related objective strengths. The reason for this is that the ways, in which Globalization affects the Third World, often prove counterintuitive, which in turn implies that the subject matter in question should be subjected to an analytical inquiry. As Freidman pointed out, “Countries that fall off the development wagon are a bit like drunks; to get back on they have to learn to see themselves as they really are” (p. 382). According to the author, this implies that developing countries may never cease being preoccupied with trying to find their own niche in the ‘flat’ world, which in turn should result in increasing the extent of their geopolitical competitiveness.
2. While striving to cope with the realities of Globalization, the governmental officials in the Third World countries should choose in favor of the neo-Liberal model of economic development, associated with, “Privatization of state companies, deregulation of financial markets, currency adjustments, foreign direct investment, shrinking subsidies, lowering of protectionist tariff barriers, and introduction of more flexible labor laws” (p. 383). Friedman believes that this will instantaneously revitalize the economies of these countries – hence, making it possible for the affiliated citizens to begin taking practical advantage of Globalization. The author tactfully avoids mentioning that the introduction of ‘flexible labor laws’ means subjecting workers to massive layoffs (Kaplinsky 2001, p. 46).
3. Developing countries should consider implementing the so-called ‘reform wholesale’, as the main precondition for being able to benefit from Globalization. According to the author, the mentioned term stands for implementing economic reforms in a thoroughly integrative manner, “It (‘reform wholesale’) involves looking at four key aspects of your society-infrastructure, regulatory institutions, education, and culture” (p. 386). The purpose of the ‘reform wholesale’ is to eliminate as many obstacles, on the way of attracting foreign investments in the economies of developing countries, as possible. The author believes that this will automatically result in a substantial improvement of living standards in these countries.
4. The likelihood of a particular developing country to benefit from Globalization directly depends on what happened to be qualitative aspects of how this country’s citizens go about addressing life-challenges (p. 396). According to the author, the mentioned provision explains why, whereas, some developing countries were able to profit from the implementation of the neo-Liberal economic reforms, the others were not. This, of course, implies that the objections against Globalization, as such that results in widening a gap between the rich and poor in the Third World, cannot be considered thoroughly rational – the suggestion that once again points out to the author’s affiliation with the neo-Liberal economic paradigm (Weber 2004, p. 360).
5. The lesser is the number of natural resources in a particular developing country; the higher are its chances to adapt to the realities of Globalization. According to the author, this is because there are a number of psychological undertones to the measure of just about any country’s Globalization-related adaptability, “Countries without natural resources are much more likely, through human evolution, to develop the habits of openness to new ideas, because it is the only way they can survive and advance” (p. 401). This appears to be the most unsubstantiated of all of the Chapter’s claims. After all, there are a number of developing countries, which despite being resource-rich, were nevertheless able to adjust to the ideals of Globalization with ease.

Critical commentaries

Even though that the reviewed Chapter 3 in Friedman’s book does contain many in-depth insights into how the process of Globalization affects developing countries, the author’s line of argumentation, deployed throughout the Chapter’s entirety, cannot be thought of as such that represent an undisputed truth-value. One of the reasons for this is that, while promoting the idea that Globalization should result in empowering these countries, the author positioned himself as the adherent of neo-Liberalism – the economic theory that claims that the functioning of the market-based economy should be thoroughly deregulated: “Good regulation often means zero regulation” (p. 392).

However, it never occurred to Friedman that, due to being essentially material (they are made of physically embodied individuals), human societies can be well discussed in terms of an open thermodynamic system. Consequently, this implies that the dynamics within a particular society are not being solely defined by what happened to be the quality of this society’s integral elements – quite contrary to what neo-Liberals belief happened to be the case (Rosenzvaig & Munck 1997, p. 57).

In other words, even though the principle of profit does determine the essence of the interrelationship between citizens on a personal level, there is no good reason to believe that this also happened to be the case, within the context of what accounts for the overall purpose of the society’s existence, as a systemic entity.

This, of course, suggests the conceptual erroneousness of Friedman’s idea that there can be no other but strictly economic incentives for the development of a market-based economy in the Third World countries to take one turn or another. Consequently, this prevents us from being able to refer to many of the Chapter’s suggestions, as conceptually sound, which in turn undermines the overall legitimacy of Friedman’s line of reasoning, in regards to what should be done, in order for developing countries to be able to benefit from Globalization.

The Chapter’s yet another weakness has to do with the fact that, even though Friedman did succeed in outlining strategies that can be deployed by the governments in developing countries, on the way of increasing the measure of these countries’ adaptability to Globalization, the author did not bother to outline the associated risks. The main of these risks has to do with the fact that Globalization endorses the ‘division of labor’, which in turn results in increasing the measure of the world economy’s ‘specialization’ (Bassiry & Jones 1993, p. 623).

Yet, even though this indeed adds to the economy’s effectiveness, there is a negative aspect to this process, as well – the more Globalization-friendly the economy of a developing country happened to be, the higher would be the degree of its vulnerability to financial crises, such as that of 2008. The fact that the author does not mention this even briefly, suggests that while working on his book, he never ceased being politically opinionated – something that undermines the book’s value rather considerably.

The validity of this statement can be further illustrated, in regards to the author’s tendency to use euphemist terms, when referring to the non-appealing aspects of Globalization, such as the fact that this process establishes the objective preconditions for the rate of unemployment in the Third world countries to continue growing ever higher. For example, as it was mentioned earlier, throughout the Chapter’s entirety, Friedman calls for the introduction of ‘flexible labor law’.

While doing it, however, the author deliberately refrained from specifying that the implementation of this type of law will result in increasing the rate of unemployment rather drastically – something that can be hardly considered correlative with the interests of ordinary citizens. Thus, it will be fully appropriate, on my part, to conclude this paper by reinstating once again that, despite being critically acclaimed, Friedman’s book, in general, and Chapter 3, in particular, contain a number of misleading ideas, as to the essence of Globalization.

References

Bassiry, G & Jones, M 1993, ‘Adam Smith and the ethics of contemporary Capitalism’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 621-627.

Friedman, T 2005, The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

Giroux, H 2005, ‘The terror of Neoliberalism: rethinking the significance of cultural politics’, College Literature, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-19.

Kaplinsky, R 2001, ‘Is Globalization all it is cracked up to be?’, Review of International Political Economy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 45-65.

Rosenzvaig, E & Munck, R 1997, ‘Neoliberalism: economic philosophy of postmodern demolition’, Latin American Perspectives, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 56-62.

Weber, H 2004, ‘The “new economy” and social risk: banking on the poor?’ Review of International Political Economy, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 356-386.