1.1 Overview of “The world is flat” by Thomas. L. Friedman
Friedman has divided the globalization history into three important parts as Globalization 1.0(1492-1800), Globalization 2.0 (1800-2000) and Globalization 3.0 (2000 onwards) where the world shrank from large to medium (country globalization), medium to small (companies globalization) and small to tiny (individual globalization) respectively.
The author has stated the 10 factors that have played a crucial role in flattening the world as stated below: Fig 1: Factors for flattening the world
The flow chart above shows these 10 factors and how they have affected the rhythm of globalization.
The triple convergence of new player in the new playing field and developing new process and habits …show more content…
1.2 Overview of “Why the world isn’t flat” by Pankaj Ghemawat
Pankaj Ghemawat is a professor in NYU and contradicts with what Friedman stated in his book “The world is flat”. He says there are too many assumptions made in the book and lack enough data and figures to support the arguments. He wrote an article “Why the world isn’t flat” where he talks about the misperception that globalization has made national boundaries nearly obsolete. He also says Friedman’s assertions are simply the series of exaggerated visions that also include the “end of history” and the “convergence of tastes.
The 10 percent presumption
Major cities like Frankfurt, London, and Hong Kong, New York are at the height of global integration which allows us to assume that the world is well connected. But the numbers that are drawn from the context of telephony, immigration, trades and FDI shows the assumption to be wrong.
According to the figure that Ghemawat has drawn from his study shows that only 10% of the above-mentioned factors are done globally. That means more than 90% of the transactions takes place …show more content…
For example, A component of iPhone produced in Japan to China gets exported to US and US to other nation and is counted multiple time. If it is considered, the actual figure of trade to GDP would be much closer to 10%.
In contrast to Friedman argument that globalization proponent’s oft-cited world in which geography, language, and distance wouldn’t matter, Ghemawat gives an example of Infosys and TCS to explain that the factors do affect.
Another information he shared in the article, where he gave an example of NAFTA where he talked about the effect of trade between US and Canada. Merchandise trade levels between Canadian provinces were built-in “home bias”. Although NAFTA helped reduce this ratio of domestic to international trade from 10:1 to 5:1. This shows the nationalism is yet overcome to reach the
Friedman has divided the globalization history into three important parts as Globalization 1.0(1492-1800), Globalization 2.0 (1800-2000) and Globalization 3.0 (2000 onwards) where the world shrank from large to medium (country globalization), medium to small (companies globalization) and small to tiny (individual globalization) respectively.
The author has stated the 10 factors that have played a crucial role in flattening the world as stated below: Fig 1: Factors for flattening the world
The flow chart above shows these 10 factors and how they have affected the rhythm of globalization.
The triple convergence of new player in the new playing field and developing new process and habits …show more content…
1.2 Overview of “Why the world isn’t flat” by Pankaj Ghemawat
Pankaj Ghemawat is a professor in NYU and contradicts with what Friedman stated in his book “The world is flat”. He says there are too many assumptions made in the book and lack enough data and figures to support the arguments. He wrote an article “Why the world isn’t flat” where he talks about the misperception that globalization has made national boundaries nearly obsolete. He also says Friedman’s assertions are simply the series of exaggerated visions that also include the “end of history” and the “convergence of tastes.
The 10 percent presumption
Major cities like Frankfurt, London, and Hong Kong, New York are at the height of global integration which allows us to assume that the world is well connected. But the numbers that are drawn from the context of telephony, immigration, trades and FDI shows the assumption to be wrong.
According to the figure that Ghemawat has drawn from his study shows that only 10% of the above-mentioned factors are done globally. That means more than 90% of the transactions takes place …show more content…
For example, A component of iPhone produced in Japan to China gets exported to US and US to other nation and is counted multiple time. If it is considered, the actual figure of trade to GDP would be much closer to 10%.
In contrast to Friedman argument that globalization proponent’s oft-cited world in which geography, language, and distance wouldn’t matter, Ghemawat gives an example of Infosys and TCS to explain that the factors do affect.
Another information he shared in the article, where he gave an example of NAFTA where he talked about the effect of trade between US and Canada. Merchandise trade levels between Canadian provinces were built-in “home bias”. Although NAFTA helped reduce this ratio of domestic to international trade from 10:1 to 5:1. This shows the nationalism is yet overcome to reach the