Question

Friedman and Ghemawat disagree over whether the world is flat or "semi-globalized." Who do you think makes the more convincing case? How so? With whom does Nandan Nilekani side? Are there elements of Friedman's and Ghemawat's analyses that are complementary?

Answer 1

I think that Ghemawat makes the more convincing case. This is because global distribution of intellectual property cannot called even or same across the globe. Barriers to cross border economic activities still exist and hence the world cannot be viewed as flat as proposed by Friedman. Instead the world is ‘semi-globalized’. Ghemawat righly has pointed out that the world cannot be flat mainly due to cultural differences that exist between different countries, due to administrative differences, due to geographical differences and lastly due to economic differences. Thus strategy on a global scale cannot be uniform and has to account for national differences.

Nandan Nilekani sides with Ghemawat. He has clearly stated that while Indian IT can now easily serve the US market it is still not exempt from different and various political as well as geographic constraints. Nilekani also points out that capital is aslo not totally stateless and the country of origin matters even for capital.

Yes, there are elements of Friedman's and Ghemawat's analyses that are complementary. Both Friedman and Ghemawat in their analysis points out that globalization is a tangible reality and will lead to lessening of constraints and restrictions with regards to cross border commerce and trade. Both agree that increasing level of globalization will increase the level of global prosperity in the long run in a sustainable manner.