)
My opinion
Both Friedman's argument and Druicker's perspective have their particular merits. We can well see how Friedman may be correct. After all, there are fewer wars now than in the past; the world is more closely interconnected; resources are sparser; and countries are earnestly concentered about their economic welfare. Friedman's reasoning does sound legitimate enough and it explains why many countries are deterred from fighting. On the other hand, it does not explain the exceptions, such as continuous fighting in Africa and India, as well as Islamic resolution to continue battering the West. At the end of the day, governments are not always in control of their people. An Egypt for instance may be secular-led and liberal during one period, and during this period its government cares about economic concerns to the point that it refuses to drive its country into war against another nation realizing that to do so may well usher the country into poverty. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, may wrest control of the government and turn a democracy into an Islamic theocracy where it may be the determination of the now-ruling party to dominate the West and convert it to Islamic faith. All of this is speculation, but these circumstances do happen and the Muslim Brotherhood -- the granddaddy of Islamic fundamentalist movements -- has recently won a majority in the Egyptian Parliament with one of its leaders, Mohamed Morsi, became president. The Muslim Brotherhood, whilst advocating social reform, has deep hostility towards the West, and it does not refrain from voicing this regardless of economic results. So Friedman's theory, therefore, has its exceptions.
Druicker's assessment seems to be more accurate. Whilst the world is becoming increasingly more globalized and interconnected on the one hand -- and this is largely due to economic factors -- there is also a simultaneous shifting of plates to fragmentation. Some countries...
Outsourcing has shown that the quality of work does not diminish even if someone who lives at the side of the world does the work. This situation is largely dependent on the amount and quality of investment in enriching human capital in the developing world, i.e. through a more relevant curriculum, which matches the needs of the labor market. Off shoring, on the hand, works differently. Friedman noted that off
The discussion here remains open and this is one of the points where the author is merely raising a question rather than coming with a straight answer. One could argue here in favor of a positive globalization effect involving countries that joined the new economic world after a change of regime, using the example of Nokia. The company first moved with the production from Finland to Germany and this
William Duiker's "fragmentation" argument, found in his Contemporary World History, Fifth Edition (Duiker), acknowledges the fact of globalization and states that Friedman's discussion about the impact of globalization is "stimulating" (Duiker 351). Simultaneously, Duiker believes that there is a reaction to globalization. Duiker believes that societies will react to the globalization trend by trying to preserve: local interests such as local businesses and jobs; their identities; and their senses of
Similarly, Chapter Eight, "This Is Not a Test," is a must read for every CEO, manager and government official. In this chapter, Friedman has highlighted that "lifetime employment is a form of fat that a flat world simply cannot sustain any longer" (p. 284) (Jones, 2005). He argued for a policy of "lifetime employability," which is a kind of social agreement between government and business and the people that, in
World Is Flat by Tom Friedman From the term "The World is flat," Tom Friedman means the international competitive ground is being leveled. It is now possible for individuals to work together and contend directly with others on different types of work from different sides of the globe and on an equivalent ground than in the world history. Friedman considers that this "flattening" around the globe is the result of ten
He considers how fast adaptation to a flattening world can bring economic success and prosperity to the nations, businesses, and individuals capable of that adaptation. Friedman's thesis never was to argue that authoritarianism is better than democracies, but instead to explain some of the factors that make for successful adaptation. The fact that Mexico's democratic process has prevented it from taking advantage of the opportunities of a flattened world
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now