According to the Richard Harris, author of "The Global Context of Contemporary Latin American Affairs," Globalization refers in general to the worldwide integration of humanity and the compression of both the temporal and spatial dimensions of planet wide human interaction. The proliferation of McDonalds worldwide is an example of globalization. The question is, is a proliferation of deep fried French fries a good thing? Thomas Friedman says "yes" because we all get equal opportunity at said "French fries," while Joseph Stiglitz says "no" because the "French fry" opportunities are inherently unequal in the status quo. Friedman's book The World is Flat and Stiglitz's book Globalization and Its Discontents tackle similar profound issues of globalization and semi-contradict/not really while providing interesting commentary and critiques on the status quo.
[...] In the global effort to aid the developing countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia, developed countries like the United States must recognize that they might not profit. Theoretically, as Friedman preaches, the sourcing of Walmart services that compete with local businesses frees up new entrepreneurial opportunities for the “freed workers.” Regardless, the short term impact of globalization might not be beneficial for all parties. Because Friedman speaks only of the “benefits” of globalization that he observed on his travels, there are literally too many to list, let alone discuss. [...]
[...] The future is most likely to be formed by the “winners” of globalization, those who are willing and capable of adapting to the ever flattening world: China, India, Japan, etc. Friedman conspicuously provides little thought on the negative impacts of globalization, thus bearing little contrast with Stiglitz's emphasis on suffering via poverty, debt, etc. However, Friedman approaches the global power struggle in a markedly different fashion. There is no reference to the International Monetary Fund or any real focus on similar institutions. [...]
[...] The consequence of the IMF reform was to permit foreign and rich Thai speculators to export capital at an unsustainably favorable exchange rate, while poor Thais were subjected to higher unemployment and an increase in poverty. Thailand's depression in the East Asia Crisis, according to Stiglitz, is the prototypical consequence of the IMF. Corrupt financial interests and flawed theories rapid liberalization and privatization coupled with high interest rates will never spell success in the short run and will only spell limited growth at best in the long run (94-95). [...]
[...] The Triple Convergence is spurring massive outsourcing to China, India, Japan, and now Europe. Furthermore, this competition for efficiency is driving specialization and theoretically spurring global GDP growth. Stiglitz supplants the IMF policy of rapid privatization and liberalization with his belief of monitored gradualism. The United States's transition into globalization in the 19th century epitomizes this notion. To some extent, so does modern China. During the 19th century, transportation and communication costs fell and previously local markets expanded. However, markets were not left to develop “willy-nilly” on their own. [...]
[...] Of course this is not true, but it is clear that they embody different perspectives. Friedman is so friendly and personal, while Stiglitz is quite lofty and academic. I do think that there is one common thread however: both books are skewed to prove a point, and they are not really contradictory points, just different points. I think that a flatter world is good, and that a gradual privatization possibly free of the corruption and taint of the IMF is also good. Together, they could [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
