The World Is Flat Summary

That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates” (Rodrick). If globalization is supposed to present an advantage to developing countries, why have there been so many setbacks? Indeed, both sides will have its winners and losers regardless of which side of the development coin they live on, but for the most part globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, improved the standard of living, and increased life expectancy rates all while keeping developed nations relatively competitive to their developing counterparts. Globalization’s value is that it seeks to create an economic equilibrium in the world, where parties are free from barriers and can benefit from one another through a more efficient allocation of resources. This allows all participating nations to contribute to an integrated economy and where all nations willing to embrace globalization have the potential to benefit. Regardless, the path to successful integration to the global economy has not always been easy. There is contention towards globalization as some argue that it is detrimental to developed nations, while many developing countries that were forced to hastily open up their markets and integrate failed. However, if implemented properly, globalization has proven that it can benefit all parties involved and that the potential gains outweigh the losses.

For individuals in very poor and economically unstable countries, globalization tends to do more harm than good. Through the economic, political and cultural examples stated above, globalization has not aided these countries climb out of poverty, develop an influential government or have a strong cultural identity, in fact, it has done the exact opposite. L’Huillier quotes Charles Darwin, “if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by out institution, great is our sin” (2017 381). The business model that globalization suggests is an unattainable utopia for those in developing countries. These traits of poverty and war have always existed yet, many of today’s countries are the way they are because of the models that are favored and paraded under globalization

On the contrary, taking a more critical view on the effects of globalisation, the findings seem to differ. The fact is that globalisation is pretty much centralised on only a few countries run by a handful of governments. China and India, For example, have been the only two countries to realise any advancements in terms of development and poverty eradication through globalisation, whilst trade openness has led to a rise in income inequalities and generally very uneven gains in the South American regions. And one entire continent, Africa, has actually become more marginalised (Tsikata, 2001, p. 12). The governmental and economic institutions of the developing countries, especially the latter, put them at a disadvantage where weak political, economic and legal structures led to wide spread corruption, conflict and insecurity. Whereas, developed countries already had good infrastructures coupled with high levels of skilled labour, managerial competence and advanced technology making it almost impossible for developing countries to compete. For example, the Japanese government vs. Indonesian government car industry case at the WTO (Kompas, 19 July 1999 ed.).

Globalization has done a tremendous disservice to those that seek to create wealth and resource equality. Globally it has created a system where as the counties with access to strong markets, copious resources, and relatively educated populations will succeed, while those countries that lag behind in categories such as those willhave a difficult time maintaining in the global economic system.

In theory, globalization should help contribute to the equality of the global economy. Yet this is not the case in reality. Globalization contributes to unsustainable prosperity for a very small percentage of the world’s population. For those in developing countries, it is especially unsustainable. The resources in these areas are consumed at an unstable rate and the environment given very little consideration. The workers are treated as if they are expendable. The smaller economies of these countries are vastly taken advantage of. For these reasons, globalization contributes to sustainable prosperity to a small extent.

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

Thomas Friedman says that today’s world is flat meaning that all businesses are playing on the same paying field and no business has an advantage over the other since all can expand into global market. Some of the characteristics of a flat world include, open communication through the modern form of communication from social media to teleconferencing, lack of geographical barriers. Another characteristic mentioned by Friedman of a flat world is that it offers people a chance to collaborate and share regardless of their cultural background, education and language they speak. Some of the challenges that they pose is change and adaptation, many people are reluctant to change. There are those who would want to remain to the traditional ways of

In Chapter Two of Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, Friedman describes ten events and occurrences that have contributed to the world being flat. According to Friedman, a “flattened” world is one where all people and countries have the same opportunities; mainly, that other countries have the resources to challenge America. One of these flatteners is called work flow software, which is technology that has allowed work to become more efficient and productive. This technology utilizes the digital format of documents to make the transfer of the documents easier, as well as allowing more people access to the document. In Danville, work flow software has made a very large impact. In the Danville Area School District, high school students are each given their own Chromebook at no cost, while middle school

Friedman shows how, as services and goods become increasingly tradable, more jobs are likely to become outsourced, digitized, or automated. He predicts that untouchable jobs in the new flat world will fall into three, broad categories: people who are “special or specialized” (e.g. Madonna, Michael Jordan, or your brain surgeon); people who are “localized and anchored” (e.g. waitresses, lawyers, plumbers, nurses, etc.); and “the old middle jobs” (e.g. people in the middle class who are under pressure because their jobs are becoming tradable). Friedman explores what he thinks the new middle-class jobs will be in the flat world, calling the people who will occupy those jobs--which he divides into eight categories-- “the new middlers.”

Distances and obstacles which once prevented the “third world” from developing have been squelched. Not entirely, but with the advent of technology and the pace in which the world is growing, one can see a redefining of the global landscape. Power has shifted hands and this shift in power as well as information is imperative in the shaping of global affairs. Friedman’s “It’s a Flat World, After All” accurately depicts this technological revolution and is in my opinion the most relevant to the current and the future of global affairs.

Author Thomas L. Friedman analyses the technological advances that are creating a level economic playing field with previously disadvantaged countries rising in knowledge and wealth rivaling that of the United States and other world powers in the world. Telephone and computer technology, previously a stronghold only of developed countries, is now easily accessible and has been accessed and mastered by countries such as China and India, making these nations competitive. Friedman perceives the flattening effect as so insightful as to be compared in scope to the Industrial Revolution.

The rise of globalization following WWII generated three important factors that define today’s world. McNeill and McNeill agree with Pollard, Rosenberg, and Tignor that multiple economic changes, such as the creation of financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the globalization of the world economy. Carter and Warren further this argument by claiming that globalization has caused shifts in the modern economy, namely the rise of Asian economic powers. However, all three historians agree that the rise of globalization goes hand in hand with the rise of inequality in today’s world. Gaps in power, wealth, and access to information have only widened due to the trend of globalization. The final key factor defining our world today are the ongoing processes affecting development countries. McNeill and McNeill argue similarly to Carter and Warren that the end of imperialism generated new nations who quickly realized the free market was a pathway to stability. However, Pollard et al. and McNeill and McNeill place importance on financial institutions like the IMF forcing developing nations to reform their economies to be subservient to the world’s economy. Together, these historians argue that the trend of globalization following WWII caused factors like the modern global economy, the rise in inequality, and the development of new, decolonized nations to be key determiners in the world today.

The countries that have experienced high and rising levels of poverty are more often than not, the developing countries that have been marginalised from the process of globalization. Think of North Korea or many countries in Africa. Such countries have insufficient levels of international trade and investment -- not too much. Whether poor countries are poor because they do not trade enough or because poverty stricken countries are prevented from engaging in the global economy, less globalization is generally associated with less development. Ernesto Zedillo, the former president of Mexico seems to have understood the power of globalization when he said, "In every case where a poor nation has significantly overcome its poverty, this has been achieved while engaging in production for export markets and opening itself to the influx of foreign goods, investment and technology -- that is, by participating in globalization."

Lack of development in countries in the so-called `Third World' has many political and economical reasons. Historians explain the inadequacy of developing countries with the early imperialism and the resulting colonization of the South. Exploitation of mineral resources, deforestation, slavery, and the adaptation of foreign policies shaped the picture of today's suffering and struggling civilizations and natural rich continents. The omission of concessions and equal negotiations between dependency and supremacy give rise to the contrast of enormous resources and immense poverty in developing countries is. In the last years the outcry of justice and the emancipation of the Third World became louder throughout developing and industrialized

In view of Thomas Friedman’s work “It’s a flat world, after all”, the entire planet is turning into a global village due to a rapid growth of information technology. There are 10 major contributors, which were also named “flateners” by Friedman, that made the playing field level. Undoubtedly, current sophistication in technology has provided us great access to internet, a virtual platform where people are capable of communicating, sharing knowledge, or performing online activities. Globalization appears to have collapsed the concerns of space and time by outsourcing cheap labor from another continent to undertake the same task but with equal or better performance. To some extent, Friedman has brought about an