Customer Reviews

A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I approached reading this book with the assumption that I would viscerally dislike it: I hate popular culture; I consider myself, at best, to be a technological agnostic; and my impression was the "globalization" is being generated by international-business buccaneers. However, I discovered that John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, correspondents for The Economist, are adept popularizers of complicated contemporary concepts; they share a certain sense of humor; and, while championing globalization's purported benefits, they are willing to acknowledge some of its more serious problems. This book is, therefore, a solid, if not compelling, introduction to the subject.

Micklethwait and Woolridge do not offer dispassionate analysis of globalization and its impact on international business, politics, and culture. Indeed, the authors are advocates, and they are candid about their biases, declaring: "[T]he underlying message of this book is that globalization needs not merely to be understood but to be defended." The reason, according to Micklethwait and Woolridge, is: "Globalization has become, quite simply, the most important economic, political, and cultural phenomenon of our time." That's probably hyperbole, but, without debating that point, the first issue is: What is globalization? In its most basic terms, globalization is the trend toward integration of the world economy into a single market. And what drives globalization? Micklethwait and Woolridge answer: Technology, the capital markets, and management. They might have added: International financial institutions. According to Micklethwait and Woolridge, "it is certainly true that many important decisions about the world economy have been made by a small cabal of technocrats at four institutions in Washington, D.C.: the World Bank, the IMF, the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Board." Nevertheless, the process of globalization still has a long way to go. According to Micklethwait and Woolridge: "Consultants at McKinsey reckon that only a fifth of world outputs, or $6 trillion out of $28 trillion, is open to global competition in products, service, or ownership." The issue is whether this is a good thing. Micklethwait and Woolridge seek to dispel the following "myths" about globalization: (1) it is leading to the triumph of big companies; (2) it is ushering in an age of global products; (3) it has ended the traditional business cycle; (4) it is a zero-sum game (some people have to lose in order for others to win); and (5) geography does not matter in the new global economy. The authors also reject various criticisms of globalization, including the allegations that it contributes to "the rise of homogenized airport culture;" that it involves the "loss of democratic accountability;" that "countries ruin themselves by reducing taxes, benefits, and environmental controls in order to woo rootless companies;" and that it is epitomized by the "weakness of global institutions such as the United Nations." The book is full of anecdotes, some of which are quite revealing. However, anecdote is not argument, and some of the authors' anecdotes in defense of globalization are simply exceptions to accurate generalizations. Micklethwait and Woolridge also tend to make profound statements of the obvious. For example: "The full impact of events that took place roughly a decade ago, such as the collapse of the iron curtain and the introduction of Europe's single market, is only just beginning to be felt." On the other hand, Micklethwait and Woolridge occasionally display genuine insight. According to Micklethwait and Woolridge: "Much of the globalizing drive and energy of multinationals is provided by the management industry: the business schools, consultancies, and gurus." Are we certain we want these people and institutions creating the dominant ideology of the post-Cold War world? The authors give us further reason to pause and ponder when they write at some length about "cosmocrats," whom they define as the class of people "who have benefitted from globalization." Their description of this class includes the observations that they are "[c]osmopolitan in taste," "usually Anglo-American in outlook," and preach a "gospel of wealth." The authors then declare: "These people constitute perhaps the most meritocratic ruling class the world has seen." In my opinion, the cosmocrats sound like just another elite. The fact that they have mastered the international economy - which is the basis for their self-interested conclusion that their ascendancy is based on meritocracy - does not give them a moral right to rule. Micklethwait and Woolridge observe that the "cosmocrats are increasingly cut off from the rest of society," and the authors express this concern: "One of the great risks of globalization is that it fosters anomie - the normalness that comes from having your ties with the rest of society weakened...The most common complaint among Internet addicts" is that they are "isolated, lonely, and depressed." I was not persuaded by the concluding chapter, entitled "The Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed." According to Micklethwait and Woolridge, the "belief in individualism, which was at the heart of both the Enlightenment and the American Revolution, was actually a fairly global movement." According to Micklethwait and Woolridge, "the recent history of globalization can be written as a story...of spreading a political culture that is based on individual liberty" Even if that is an accurate statement of the cosmocrats' ideology, there is no guarantee that they will prove to be good global citizens. In fact, the cosmocrats may already have failed their first test: Micklethwait and Woolridge acknowledge that "globalization has certainly been a mixed blessing for the environment."

In the final analysis, I am concerned about the prospect of building a global community based on an ideology that exalts exuberant (and sometimes rapacious) individualism. Micklethwait and Woolridge are globalization advocates, and they are at their strongest when they discuss economic matters. They clearly believe that it will be the key organizing principle for 21st-century business, but I remain skeptical about globalization's impact on international politics and culture. Nevertheless, I am glad that I read this book and then spent some time thinking about its powerful thesis. I believe we now need a serious, non-Luddite, left-liberal critique of globalization.

Since globalization is inevitably changing or affecting everyone's life and shaping our future, an open dialogue is crucial on how to ease the painful process of transformation and help people handle their new freedom and responsibility. But a dialogue will only be feasible if people stop to paint black and white and put themselves in the other parties position - on the one hand the cosmocratic elite that has no time left for politics since its members spend their busy lives in worldwide economic networks and, on the other hand, people who live in local communities and don't understand world economics.

By showing both sides, A Future Perfect can help people to understand other involved parties or at least encourage them to cross limited horizons, thereby fostering objective discussions about our mutual future.

The authors cite interesting examples and base their arguments on economic theories without turning to a business language that might be hard to understand for a non-MBA reader. It's not a book that will teach you all you have to know about globalization or offer the magic bullet but it allows you to understand the forces (technology, capital & management) that drive globalization and why the term globalization is a welcome scapegoat for mismanagement, regulation and corrupt politicians.

Future Perfect addresses what has become this era's equivalent of the Cold War; the discussion of whether globalisation is working for or against us. Bearing all traits of a classic media-fuelled conflict, i.e. simplification, exaggeration in all directions and, as always, a myriad of people taking a stand for others when they really have nothing to do with the issue at stake (compare the number of times when you've read thoughts on globalization by, for instance, a former child labourer, or an African farmer as opposed to the number of times you've seen well-dressed politicians delivering promises for change in the Third World or masked suburban kids tossing Molotov cocktails at policemen, all in the name of globalization). Refreshing then that John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge has opted for a different, and frankly more sober, view of this complex and politically charged subject matter.

Fans of Micklethwait and Wooldridge will recognize their style of writing from the brilliant "Witch Doctors", a critical analysis of the management thinker-industry, and on a superficial level Future Perfect is as enjoyable to read with a prose that shimmers with intelligence and wit whilst at the same time delivering insights into the many parts and people of the world that globalization has touched in one way or another. But referring to Future Perfect as "an enjoyable read" is as shallow as calling Schindlers List "a scary film". It is necessary to dissect certain parts of this work in order to better understand the argument that the authors present in favour of globalization.

At heart, Micklethwait and Wooldridge, are as arch-conservative as their mother magazine, The Economist (although the magazine would much more prefer the term moderate liberal), which complicates their independence in discussing the subject matter, because just like the Cold War conflict, globalization has also become a war between leftists and rightists; between those who think that the gobalization we are witnessing is dictated by the harsh world of western capitalism and those who think that only capitalism can save the oppressed regimes around the world, trade not aid as they say. The difficulty that arises, and that Mickltethait and Wooldridge unfortunately cannot steer clear of, is the problem of definition; Globalization of what? For whom? One of the reasons that this subject matter has become so politically charged is the fact that the pro's and con's seem to be talking past each other and instead focusing on sensationalist media-frenzy, whether it be poor little infants hammering away in sneaker factories or pot smoking youth blabbering about the world bank when their only excuse to go to Seattle or Prague was that there was no Woodstock or Lollapallooza around at the time. It is easier to react at simplistic and arcane symbols than to do the complex work needed in order to better understand this issue.

It is, however, refreshing that the authors at least attempt a definition of the driving forces behind globalization; technological innovation, management ideas and the free flow of capital since it presents a framework within which the reader can feel more comfortable with what type of perspective the authors are trying to convey. Another uplifting fact is that the authors do not disqualify any area or opinion in the book. Always sensitive for the fact that people and organizations have presented different arguments in the fight for or against globalization, Future Perfect reads almost like a journalistic summary of voices on globalization, not unlike "The Witch Doctors" relationship to the management gurus. What this aspect also adds is something that the other significant book on globalization right now, No Logo by Naomi Klein, failed to do; to allow both sides to have it out so that the ultimate verdict on whether globalization is something that should be favored or fought, will be determined by the only people who should; you, me and all other people who are getting involved in this issue at the moment.

This book offers some ideas that I had not seen before.

For one thing, it is rare to see a book that is pro-globalization that discusses it as fragile and in need of nurturing. It is generally referred to as an overwhelming tide that either must be embraced or stopped.

The book discusses the results of globalization in several industries, and it takes the economic perspective that comparative advantage will continue to operate. But it goes beyond that and discusses the loosers as well as the winners.

The most interesting idea I found in the book was it's discussion of what they call "cosmocrats." An elite that is without geographic identity and more bound to others of their class than to their traditional communities. The book "Bowling Alone" documents the breakdown of traditional social networks. It is easy to see in Silicon Valley's libertarian culture the people who feel they are "self made" and do not feel a need for reciprocal relationships with their geographic communities. This belief, of course, is totally without foundation. However, the belief that a technical elite should run society has been tired in Germany, Russia and other places with horrible results. The books does not go so far as to raise that type of alarm, but the dislocation that they document is well worth considering.

What does globalization mean? For some people, globalization leads to the so-called New Economy - a world with never-ending growth and no inflation. For other people, in particular in Europe but also for a growing number of people in the US, globalization destroys social networks and makes money more important than anything else. Not surprisingly, both sides found strong advocates who try to hammer their points of views into people's heads. Of course, the world is not as simple as it appears to be.

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge lean more towards praising for what globalization leads to, namely free markets and thus to more happiness and freedom all over the world. This is hardly surprising given the fact that they both work for The Economist, a British business magazine which likes to talk about ideas like "comparative advantages" into people's heads. However, The Economist also mentions the problems of globalization and this books gives many examples. It is very hard to imagine the image of a starving African child with the caption "The Losers of Globalization" on the cover of, say, Business Week. It is equally hard to find another book which gives as many facets of what globalization means and stands for as this book. What's more, the authors even introduce the reader to the development of international trade and finance by discussing Bretton Woods and how it came about.

Everybody with an interest in what's going on in business should read this book. It's scope is very wide, ranging from the porn video industry in the US to little telephone shops in South Africa. The book's depth is about the same as that of an article in The Economist - the book is very well written and fun to read. Readers of The Economist will find that the authors recycled some of their articles (which they mention in the introduction) and now they appear in a wider context.

To summarize, this is one of the rare books where the reader is taught a lot by two brilliant writers. It is fun to read and is very hard to stick to one's opinion's afterwards without at least re-thinking them thoroughly.

I have just returned from a trip to Brasil. Driving in from the aiport I looked out over the higgeldy-piggeldy shantytowns and became depressed. The living conditions of the poor inhabitants was appalling, but, I have to confess that, selfishly, this was not my major concern. Deep down, I think I knew that my fortunes were inextricably linked to theirs, and this scared me. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls..." and so on.

And then I read this book, and two things happened. First, I was helped to understand, through detail and story and personality, the process (globalization) which is currently driving all of our fortunes. I am glad of this simply because it is deeply disconcerting to borne along by something you don't understand.

Second, I was given something that, on balance, is probably even more valuable: hope. Somehow the authors managed to persuade me that this unfeeling, senseless tidal wave of globalization was actually, as Monty Python would say, "a good thing." That openess, and risk, and accountablility, and transparency, harsh though they can be in the short term, do lead to the promised land of liberty and prosperity. For all.

This argument sounds glib as I reread it. Somehow the authors don't make it sound glib at all. They make it sound real; difficult, and hardly inevitable, but real.

A final thought, late on a Monday night. It is encouraging to think that all the "I" words such as "Investment" and "Individuality" and "Initiative" lead to another "I" word...Inquisitiveness. I suppose I had never before been confronted with the thought that globalization would lead many of us to become genuinely inquisitive about other cultures, that globalization could actually foster the appreciation of "foreign" ways of life, that it wouldn't americanize the world, but rather would be a force to preserve what is unique and precious about each culture, and, perhaps, each individual.

So, if nothing else, thanks for that.

Okay, if you want a book with lots of anecdotes and quotations that try to prove that globalization is this uncontrollable process that must be accepted on its terms by individuals and governments, read Tom Friedman's "Lexus and Olive Tree" . If you want a more nuanced view, and a more critical examination of different aspects of globalization, read this book by Micklethwait and Aldridge.

"Future Perfect" also has lots of anecdotes , but somehow it feels like these anecdotes fit into an intelligent discussion, rather than being part of some breathless voyage of discovery like in Friedman's book.

Another difference is in coining of new terms. Friedman has a tedious list of terms like DOSKapital, glocalism etc . Micklethwait and ALdridge also coin terms. But more often they borrow refreshing terms from other authors and thinkers - and the result is much better. This also means that these authors are able to draw on the history of ideas , especially since the Enlightenment. And they do so by making these ideas extremely germane to the current discussion.

For instance, one of the great examples in the book is that of John Maynard Keynes who went from being an unmitigated free-trader to a proponent of protectionism and back to free trade again. This short but brilliant biographical sketch helps illustrate how fickle the world of ideas can sometimes be, and how the pendulum can swing in the other direction. This is to remind the "inevitability" school of thought that politics and local issues matter a LOT. Technological determinism is but a small part of the story. Globalization is not irreversible. Globalization appeared irreversible earlier too, and it was reversed quite easily by protectionst barriers and World Wars.

Also Micklethwait and Aldridge are too wise to indulge in the kind of exaggerated dramatization Tom Friedman indulges in. For instance, based on Intel's reluctance to enter France because of its restrictions on encryption technology, Friedman rushes to say - If France were a stock , I'd sell it. I am sure that if Micklethwait had dealt with the same question, he would have reached the more correct conclusion - yes, Intel's aversion to France is a problem for France, but not as big a problem as the technological determinists would have it.

This book examines almost every aspect of globalization critically. Is electronics responsible for the volatility of short-term capital? Yes and no. Is geography irrelevant in the global world? Yes and no. Is American culture really riding roughshod over local concerns? Yes and no. Is it really a winner-take-all world? Yes and no. And so on.....

Ultimately , for good understanding , you have to quantify, no matter how imprecisely. How interconnected are we really through trade? If Asia vanishes overnight, what effect will it have on the US economy? Once you start asking these questions, you reach a nuanced and mature understanding. Yes, trade as a share of GDP is rising. Yes, more globalization should mean more worldwide specialization and exchange, that is , more trade. Still there are important limits to this process, and domestic economies will remain extremely large. This book engages in this type of illuminating analysis , and does not rely on mere storytelling.

The book also spends lot of time addressing the critics and the sceptics of the globalization process. This is in contrast to Tom Friedman's book where his only (facetious)answer is something like - "Okay, the electronic herd is coming, if you don't heed its demands, you'll pay a heavy price".In this book, inequality, rich nations versus poor, shortterm capital flow versus capital controls, cultural hegemony versus cultural plurlaism - these are issues that are discussed in wonderfully more sophisticated fashion. The sceptics are met head on. Intelligent scepticism is countered. Stupid scepticism is dismissed. The authors offer their own answers and solutions, but they are wise enough to discuss all the caveats.

Also I haven't been able to spot any glaring mistakes in analysis in this book. As opposed to Tom Friedman's book, where he sometimes hopelessly mixes up chains of reasoning. For instance, Tom Friedman's book makes a weird connection between the winner-take-all phenomenon , and the fact that real incomes at the bottom are falling. Surely, technological change , and the resulting fall in demand for unskilled labor, is the strongest causal factor behind the falling wages. The winner-takes-all phenomenon can at best be a secondary factor. Micklethwait's book doesn't suffer from these kinds of bloopers.

Ultimately a good book, a complete book as far as coverage of topics go, and also entertaining reading.This may be the best book in its genre.... After reading this book , I am now terribly eager to read their earlier book about "Witch Doctors" .

The main point of this book - with which I fully agree - is that globalization is hardly a new phenomenon. Most, if not even more, aspects of the current globalization also existed a century ago. Indeed, you might be forgiven for thinking that the free movement of people - emigration - in the world was arguably more global then than it is now. So the process is not new but it feels new, Why?. For starters it's only been slightly over ten years since the fall of Communism and the unfettered resurgence of the free market as the unquestionably dominant economic ideology. Nontheless, the process also feels new because most of us are still reluctant to concede authority to extranational bodies and institutions while national politics still operates in self contained systems. The main point is this, and it is my principal compalint about globalization, international or global power is still mostly limited to the financial markets and multinational corporations and less to supranational bodies like the EU. meanwhile, as we are ever in search of the best product and brand there is the job insecurity that results Fiom greater foreign competition and the cultural hegemony of the United States.

This is a wonderful piece of work. It systematically looks at Globalization from a number of perspectives. While some of the conclusions are a bit outlandish - the research is sound. If you want to understand the dynamics of the economy without a lot of economic blather - this is the book.

There are loads of numbers - some good down to earth examples plus a lot of excellent thinking on the implications for all of us - what does the long term nature of connectedness imply.

An alternative would be to look at The Invisible Continent by Kenichi Ohmae.

Exhaustively researched and thoroughly considered, A Future Perfect tries to communicate the "other view" of globalization, that of the economists and businesspeople who see its benefits to society. By presenting both sides of the story, then rebutting the anti-globalization viewpoint, Micklethwait and Woolridge nearly achieve their goal of proving globalization is a net positive to the world. Their understandable reluctance to prove many of the conclusions reached due to space and complexity considerations is the only frustrating aspect of this book -- the reader is ultimately left in the same position she started in: supportive of or repulsed by globalization.

That being said, the book is an incredibly rich discussion of the bewildering complexity of globalization. For someone not involved in the intimate details of the subject, the glimpses into the IMF, WTO, UN, national governments, and various other NGOs are fascinating, breathing life into a world only hinted at in news reports and magazine articles.

For anyone who really cares about the political and economic development path of the next 20 years (especially in light of the recent WTC bombings), and has not kept up with the leading edge of debate on the subject, this book is indispensable.