Thomas Friedman
talked about globalization as irreversible phenomenon in his book ‘Lexus and
the Olive Tree’. To him, globalization went beyond economics and politics and
encompassed many other dimensions. He believed that globalization would unify
people and countries and bond them into a web of cooperation that would base
itself both on competition and coopetition. This he believed would free the
world of any military conflict. In his book ‘The World is Flat’ he expands on
this discussion and suggests that globalization has defined the contours of the
daily life not just for countries and people but even those opposed to
globalization. The anti-globalization movements and even terrorist
organizations like Al Qaeda trace their growth and sustenance to the
globalization processes.
Freidman’s
theories on globalization are elucidated through what he calls the two laws. In
his book, Lexus and Olive Tree, he expounds the MacDonald’s theory. According
to this theory, two countries have MacDonald’s outlets will not go to war since
they are busy lining up outside the MacD to buy burgers rather than fight wars.
In case the two countries enter into conflict, the fear that MacD will close
down will make them rethink. Implied is the world interwoven in globalization
and enjoying its prosperity, they would hardly worry about geopolitics and its idiosyncrasies
preferring economic comfort instead. In some ways, it might be backed with some
evidence at least at the national level. In the aftermath of the economic reforms
and emergence of jobs in IT and ITES sector in India, jobs were available in
good numbers even to fresh graduates. These graduates would start earning good
money especially in the initial years when there was little talent pool. This made
them enjoy economic and materialistic comforts rather than dabbling in
politics. Interest in politics among the youngsters had fallen quite sharply
till around 2011 or so when the Anna Hazare fast rekindled activism and
political interest.
In his book ‘World
is Flat’, he expands his theory into Dell Doctrine. Using the analogy of Dell’s
supply chain, Freidman’s thesis is that the countries engaged and integrated in
the Dell Supply Chain would not go to war else the disruption of the supply
chain will endanger the economic strength and position of the country. Implied is
the cross network of global supply chains, it is impossible for a single
country to break away from the same without affecting the other countries in
the chain. The necessity of the chain will deter countries from a prospective
military conflict. To Friedman, the globalization of the supply chains have
resulted in an era of prosperity with little conflict. His argument is further
expounded by the fact that whenever conflicts have occurred or on the verge of occurrence,
the economic interests of the country deter them from prolonging the conflict.
He cites the example of India which despite massing its forces near the
Pakistan border in the aftermath of the Parliament attack of 2001, did not
result in the conflict. He believes the possible economic loss and the likely
movement of supply chains away from India in the event of the conflict deterred
India from taking the final step. This might be contested but Friedman perhaps
has some partial point.
As the Wuhan
pandemic alters the global geopolitical equations, his theories have come under
stress. While serious international relations scholars have generally tended to
dismiss his theories, yet to many so-called intellectuals, his theories not
only carry weight but command some sort of a Biblical command. To them,
Friedman’s propositions can do no wrong. They continue to believe economic
interests will ensure US and China resolve their conflict without bloodshed.
Yet, the current dynamics are very different.
The propositions
rest again on a sort of ceteris paribus conditions. But in the world all
around, the conditions are dynamic and complex. The Dell Supply Chain theory is
rarely a universal supply chain. The supply chains are revolving around China.
China holds the key to most of the supply chains. In the current pandemic
battles, the Chinese lockdown had locked down the supply chains from China. The
rush towards optimization ignored the redundancies essential to prevent
disruption. The disruption does not merely revolve around military conflict.
There can be many other conflicting tendencies that disrupt the chains. The reworking
of the supply chains come at a certain cost. Chinese intimidation of its
neighbours and erstwhile friends is a case in point. The Dell chain is more of
the hold out problem. When the ownership is fragmented, there results a tragedy
of anti-commons. The supply chain was organized in multiple countries. There could
be one small element that might be the O-ring of the supply chain. The hold out
might ensure with the country refusing to let go the critical part and use its
bargaining power to dictate terms. This entails a price for the other countries
which implies a sort of economic destruction. China is using the opportunity to
dictate terms and lead a hold out strategy to leverage its bargaining power. It
wants to revive the mercantilist models and also leverage in continuation of
the creeping colonization it is pursuing.
Therefore the
model of Dell supply chain fails or at least to be charitable suffers from
severe limitations. The Chinese intransigence and insistence to brinkmanship
and game of chicken have laid bare to the innocuous theories that get floated
on the spur of the moment. In fact, the supply chains integrating the world
have their positive spill overs. Yet there should be a qualification to the
same. The globalisation and the supply chains will be localised. Yet, the
phenomenon of localisation will give way to perhaps a sort of gated
globalization. The contours of the economic NATO that might emerge will give
new meaning to the globalization of supply chains. The Dell theory or MacD
theory would work well as long as the countries lie in the globalization club
or the camp. There could be competing clubs in conflict with each other with
little intersection. In such a context, the Friedman’s theory holds partially
true within the club but fails outside the club. The Chinese hold out problem
and possibly the election centric US response will result in new popular
doctrines to describe the new globalization.
Comments
Post a Comment