Review: The World Is Flat, Part I

I'm currently auditing a very interesting course on science policy and turned in this reaction paper on the first seven chapters of The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman:

In the first half of his bestselling book The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman describes the technological innovations and historical events that have “flattened” the world, putting individuals from all nations on a more equal footing as more and more jobs can be done by anyone, anywhere. I agree with his main thesis, and was glad to have a handy historical outline of the development of the World Wide Web, open source software, and so forth. Friedman has an engaging style and a knack for interweaving personal interviews and simple analogies to explain technological concepts to the average reader. However, he seems to repeat himself a great deal – all right already, globalization is good, it’s here, and we need to adapt! – while simultaneously glossing over a lot of associated issues that I consider to be of great importance.

For example, fresh from our class discussions of the IPCC assessment reports, I find Friedman to be too much the uncritical cheerleader for the rapid rise of the developing world, without enough concern for the environmental impacts of dramatically increasing demands for natural resources as well as waste produced. In general, Friedman writes as though our modern energy needs were unproblematic rather than heavily dependent on finite and polluting fossil fuels, e.g., “transportation seems to grow easier and cheaper over time” (p. 281). He praises Ratan Tata for the innovative and affordable Indian car created by trimming cutting-edge safety and emissions technologies (p. 274) – just what we need, a billion more people burning gasoline in private vehicles! He does mention briefly that “if we don’t learn how to do more things with less energy and lower emissions, we are going to create an environmental disaster and make our planet unlivable for our children” (p. 297), thus providing the incentive to develop renewable energies and environmentally sustainable systems. But the shortness of this section and paucity of specifics or real-life examples speak to a lack of real interest in these issues.

I also think that Friedman gives capitalism too much credit for improving people’s quality of life. He proclaims that while “Communism was a great system for making people equally poor… Capitalism made people unequally rich” (p. 52), a slick set of phrases that gloss over the fact that capitalism made plenty of people unequally poor as well. Even worse, Friedman criticizes the Soviet Empire for propping up “autocratic regimes” around the world, claiming that capitalism in contrast allows economies to be governed “by the interests, demands, and aspirations of the people, rather than from the top down, by the interests of some narrow ruling clique” (p. 52). I think that this would come as a big surprise to the citizens of countries like Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Indonesia (to name only a few) whose democratically elected leaders have been overthrown by dictators with the help of the United States in order to serve our military and corporate interests. Friedman also makes a big deal of India’s transition to capitalism in the 1990s without recognizing that Nehru’s initial socialistic model served to protect the country in its economic infancy, preventing its exploitation by the West (p. 53).

In my opinion, the biggest weakness of the first half of The World Is Flat is that Friedman does not express sufficient concern over the darker side of globalization. He uses the example of the state of Indiana attempting to hire an Indian consulting firm in order to deride those who worry that outsourcing and offshoring can result in exploitation (p. 242). But it’s a straw man, only created to be easily dismissed. Educated, skilled workers may be getting the opportunities of their dreams as a result of globalization, but that doesn’t allow us to ignore the environmental degradation and worker exploitation that do take place as corporations seek to evade US regulations by moving their operations to the desperate developing world.

And so far, Friedman has failed to inspire my trust that we can protect ourselves from the excesses of capitalism gone global. Wal-Mart is the obvious example of “too much of a good thing” – the quest for economic efficiency taken to egregious extremes. His solution to the ruthlessness of “the China of companies” that somehow has been isolated from “the currents of global debate on labor and human rights” even as it has become the biggest and most profitable retailer on the planet? “One can only hope that all the bad publicity Wal-Mart has received in the last few years will force it to understand that there is a fine line…” (p. 163). Call me a cynic, but I don’t think that we should bet the farm on hope: only regulation or consumer pressure will change the unfair practices of corporations with this much leverage.

Finally, while Friedman claims that flattening is frightening but will ultimately create more satisfying kinds of jobs that reward innovative thinking, passion, collaboration, and so forth, he also baldly states that advances in communications technology will make it possible (and eventually expected) for us to work those jobs at all times: “You are always in. Therefore, you are always on” (p. 249). For those of us who don’t think that one’s entire waking life should be defined by one’s paid labor, this sounds like a kind of hell. What about having the “leisure” time to develop and nurture personal (as opposed to commercial) relationships with family and friends, to serve one’s community, to stay informed about the world - not to mention to keep learning the new skills that will be essential to staying afloat in the brave new world that Friedman describes?