Is The World Really Flat?: my own argument

The arguments against the flat world do not diminish the impact of the flat world metaphor on societies.  In fact these arguments reinforce the idea.  Friedman is absolutely on target when he says that today’s globalization is all “about the emergence of completely new social, political, and business models."  These new social orders and how to tackle them are evident in Ghemawat’s 2007 book, Redefining Global Strategy.  The complex transnational economic, social, and political structures must be examined on the basis of value-added components to become globally competitive.  These components include, “adding volume, decreasing costs, differentiating, improving industry attractiveness, normalizing risks, and generating and deploying knowledge."

Ghemawat further mentions four strategies to deal with the uncertainties in today’s increasingly globalized environment.  He calls them “AAA strategies,” which include adaptation, aggregation, and arbitrage.  These strategies, Ghemawat argues, would provide a tactical platform for dealing with the differences between the countries.

In The Flat World, Friedman highlights the evolution of globalization.  Today, he argues, globalization 3.0, the emphasis on individuals, defines the “power of individuals to collaborate and compete globally."  This phenomenon is not only enabling individuals to connect with each other globally, but it is also “empowering” them.  Despande in his 2005 lecture, argues for the empowerment of individuals.  According to him, as a result of increasing knowledge- and information-sharing among individuals, individuals are becoming the constant target of business organizations.  The organizations are putting customer first, ahead of the shareholders, to achieve their business goals. 

Austere economic factors like demand and supply, cost and benefit, transaction cost must be weighed in to determine run businesses.  Leamer’s 2006 argument against the flat world stems from the accountability of these factors.  Friedman, on the other hand, focuses on various human factors such as strong leaders and educators and other intangible factors like adaptation and understanding to explain the flat world metaphor.