Customer Reviews

The World Is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of New York Times Bestseller by Thomas Friedman

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This book is simply awful. There is plenty to criticize about Friedman's The World is Flat, but this book is so poorly written with so few specific points that I can't recommend it to anyone.

The book does help make it clear that many critics of globalization have a problem with corporations driving the process, not with globalization itself. It also mentions many other books, probably all of which are better than this one. I'll give it two stars for that, but I'm being generous. Don't read this book.

I've just started reading Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work. Read that book instead. Specific criticisms of globalization followed by specific recommendations to fix the problems. You'll find neither in The World is Flat? You will literally learn more about globalization by reading Wikipedia's page on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization) than you will by reading this book.

Specific complaints:

First, much of the book consists of personal attacks against Friedman. For example, they spend time discussing a *rumor* that he has clothes FedExed to him while his travels. So what? Actually, that sounds like a great idea if you have the money.

Second, much of what they criticize is really quite petty. For example, Friedman spells "workflow software" as "work flow software". Half a page gets devoted to that extra space.

Third, several pages of the book are devoted to comments off of Amazon's customer review sections. So you find out some people don't like his book. Amazon tells me that for free.

Fourth, pointless sarcasm appears on nearly every page. For example, on page 58 we find out that, "Seldom has there appeared such a superficial treatment of Ricardo's 'comparative advantage,' that is, except perhaps in some 11th grade civics class."

In short, the entire book is Amazon and Wikipedia quotes, strung together with personal attacks and sarcasm. Even the valid criticisms of Friedman's work are rarely followed by anything useful, like a discussion of alternative viewpoints. Read Stiglitz or Wikipedia instead of this book.

The World is Flat?

Really, did you know that? Well, from a geometric point of view, the world is not really flat. But, from almost every other point of view (travel, political, vocational, industrial, environmental, etc...) the world is either flat or becoming flat. When I say the world is flat or becoming flat, what I really mean is the world is in theory becoming smaller. At least, this is the argument presented in Thomas Friedman's book "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century" and also in the Ronald Aronica and Mtetwa Ramdoo book "The World is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of New York Times Bestseller by Thomas Friedman".

Basically, what Friedman asserts is that with the rate technology is advancing, the world is getting smaller. Technology enables individuals and small companies to act like or have a presence similar to large companies and vice versa. Jobs are constantly migrating, mostly from the United States to somewhere overseas and the U.S. has the constant challenge of trying to stay ahead of the "pack" of other nations that are giving chase for their piece of the global pie. He claims the U.S. has all the resources to meet the challenges associated with the ever changing and shrinking "flat world" but that we are lagging behind the rest of the developed world in pretty much every major area that we need to be excelling in.

From my point of view, in "The World is Flat?" Aronica and Ramdoo do not necessarily disagree with all of what Friedman has observed and written, but they very much disagree with his methods and call into question his research and interview processes. For example, they claim he gathered most of his notes from the elites while in China and India and that he pretty much discounts the less fortunate or the "have nots". Their largest fundamental difference with Friedman is in their basic view of globalization as good or bad. Aronica and Ramdoo claim Friedman is fully supportive of unfettered globalization regardless of the consequences.

Personally, I believe Friedman is a fan of globalization, but I think they go a little too far. Though it is never directly stated in Friedman's book or in Aronica and Ramdoo's book, they make is seem as though Friedman's desire is to see the U.S. without national boundaries and for Americans to be stepping and fetching along with the rest of the world in some sort of "New World Order". Again, neither book comes out and says this, and who knows, maybe Friedman does feel this way.

I believe Friedman's book does a good job of focusing on the positive aspects of globalization (e.g., helping individuals compete with large companies, providing financial stability to people in developing nations) while also cautioning the reader with other things that must be taken into consideration (e.g., vocation training and placement for individuals that have lost jobs to other countries, challenges to national sovereignty).

Again, Aronica and Ramdoo agree with many of Friedman's points but criticize him for not seeing much of this happening earlier on, and for creating new catchy terminology that really means nothing in technology or business circles. They of course have a heavy focus on the negatives of globalization.

If you have invested the time in reading Friedman's 616 pages of "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century" then I would definitely recommend reading Aronica and Ramdoo's "The World is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of New York Times Bestseller by Thomas Friedman". Coming in at 132 pages, it should be a much quicker read. Aronica and Ramdoo tend to focus on the negatives of globalization and offer a good counter balance to the data presented by Friedman. I would especially recommend it in case you are undecided in your own views and want help in forming your own opinion regarding globalization.

One caution, in Friedman's book get ready to read the phrase "the world is flat" and how amazing and scary it is over and over and in Aronica and Ramdoo's book get ready to read various jabs and barbs at Friedman over and over.

This book is not, and does not pretend to be, a complete treatment of the subject of globalization. Instead it provides an antidote for those who were awed by Friedman's bafflegab: story after story and arguments by assertion. Friedman gives average readers a false sense that they are gaining a true understanding of the broad and complex subject of globalization.

This terse monograph dismantles Friedman's arguments. But there's more here besides a critical analysis of Friedman's Flat. Aronica and Ramdoo go on to introduce 9 major issues that Friedman ignores or treats superficially. Friedman has done a great job of getting millions of people to think about globalization, but this book issues a wake up call to "think again." After all, globalization is so important to all of us that we need to become more fully informed, not misinformed by story after story spun from meeting Friedman's daughter's friend's boyfriend at Yale, or playing golf with rich and famous corporate executives. All this with nary a footnote reference to substantiate Friedman's arguments by unsupported assertions.

What I especially liked is that Aronica and Ramdoo provide a roadmap that includes readings of true experts on globalization (Stiglitz, Prestowitz, Baghwati) and a comprehensive collection of resources (from short articles to full essays and videos) at the books web site mkpress [dot] com/flat. I find myself visiting that site when I get a few minutes and want to gain more insight into globalization and what it portends. For example, Friedman preaches on and on about the U.S. needing more and more education in science and technology to compete, but at the site there's a short revealing piece, "Flattening the Great Education Myth," by David Sirota, that makes you do a double take.

So, don't look to this 132 page book to be the ultimate manifesto on globalization. It's not and in no way claims to be. But do look to this book to be the concise roadmap for coming to grips with the greatest issue of our times. The authors are optimistic about globalization and its potential to contribute to people around the world, but not so optimistic about the cheerleading Friedman does for a specific form of globalization called "corporate globalization" where transnational corporations go the ends of the earth seeking labor earning slave-level wages, lax environmental regulations, and tax avoidance. Yes, there's a darker side of unfettered corporate globalization you won't see in Friedman's cheerleading. Because, as Aronica and Ramdoo write, "globalization is the greatest reorganization of the world since the Industrial Revolution," we all need to understand both sides of the globalization coin. Labor and even democracy just could hang in the balance.

Section by section criticism of Friedman's book. The general theme is "Friedman is wrong," followed by selective use of "experts" to support the theme.

Very poor scholarship. The book seems to be a real cut and paste job, containing long strings of quotations (4.5 pages of quotes in the introduction from one source), where the quotes are poorly cited. Most include an author's name, but few include complete citations making it impossible to verify. Also, it's not clear if the long quotations are consecutive.

They claim that Friedman is pro-globalization, which isn't quite true.

"While readers probably cannot find a single lie in Friedman's book, neither can they find the whole truth, nor most of the important facts of globalization." Isn't this the nature of a theory or an argument?

They argue implicitly that Friedman is right in his positive analysis, but that the results are normatively "bad".

The real argument of the authors is in the last section of the book, pp. 93-130, in which they identify what they claim are the real problems with globalization. Many of these are indeed problems, but they don't hang together coherently. Is the low U.S. savings rate due to globalization?

Globalization is bad for labor. It's shipping jobs abroad where workers can be exploited for much less cost than here. The winners are capitalists worldwide. The result is increased income inequality, here and worldwide. Trade should be fair not free. Industrial policy is the answer.

Aronica and Ramdoo have done what Friedman could have done, but didn't do: some comprehensive reporting on what the experts have to say about globalization. While Friedman restricts his reporting to conversations with celebrity CEOs he knows and stories based on interactions with his friends, Aronica and Ramdoo report on the thinking of experts, investigative journalists, economists and academics who specialize in the subject of international trade and globalization (Stiglitz, Bhagwhati, Roach, Gray, Shiva, Gonzalez, Leamer and other qualified experts are cited in their 46 footnotes (Friedman has none)). Friedman's book will fill your treasure chest with great material for yapping at cocktail parties. Aronica and Ramdoo's book will give you a balanced snapshot of the most important topic of our time, globalization.

I think Bill Moyers' recent talk (January, 2007) was especially telling, "Then there's the social cost of free trade. For over a decade, free trade has hovered over the political system like a biblical commandment striking down anything: trade unions, the environment, indigenous rights, even the constitutional standing of our own laws passed by our elected representative that gets in the way of unbridled greed. The broader negative consequences of this agenda, increasingly well-documented by scholars, gets virtually no attention in the dominant media. Instead of reality, we get optimistic, multicultural scenarios of coordinated global growth. And instead of substantive debate we get a stark formulated choice between free trade to help the world and gloomy-sounding protectionism that will set everyone back."

"The degree to which this has become a purely ideological debate, devoid of any factual basis that people can weigh the gains and losses is reflected in Thomas Friedman's astonishing claim, stated not long ago in a television interview, that he endorsed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) without even reading it. That is simply because it stood for `free trade.'"

"We have reached the stage when the Poo-bahs of punditry have only to declare that `the world is flat,' for everyone to agree it is, without going to the edge and looking over themselves. It's called reporting." That's exactly what you get in Aronica and Ramdoo's book. And you get it in137 concise pages with Aronica and Ramdoo.

Thomas Friedman is a poor excuse for a 21st century sage. Aronica and Ramdoo correctly point to his poor method, overly glib and too-self-satisfied anecdotes and annoying neologisms... and then they proceed to commit so many of the very same crimes against reason and serious research in their own "contribution" to our field of political economy.

Knowing, as I do, so many truly gifted scholars who will reach and influence fewer in their entire careers than will Friedman will in any given week through his contributions to the NYT, it has long been a puzzle to me how he has maintained his audience and popularity. Why on earth would anyone take this man seriously? Perhaps the answer is found here, in this "critical analysis of Thomas L. Friedman's New York Times best seller": his critics have an even less-firm grasp on "globalization" (such as it is) than he. I would not have thought this possible, but this book has exploded far more myths than it set out to. Truly, if this is the quality of his opposition, then Friedman's continued relevance has become less puzzling to me, and perhaps I have this to thank Aronica and Ramdoo for.

If you, like I, wondered how the other side saw Friedman, then perhaps you should pick up a copy of this book. If you wish to gain further insight into the brave new world into which we are entering, read anything else... perhaps even Friedman's own The World is Flat, I man who's work I never would have otherwise recommended in this life.

After giving you an eye-opening counterpoint discussion of Friedman's main points, I especially liked Aronica and Ramdoo's coverage of what Friedman left out ...

1. The Real Drivers of 21st century Corporate Globalization
2. Fair Trade or Free Trade?
3. Ricardo and National Industrial Policy
4. Debt and The Financialization of America
5. America's Former Middle Class
6. Privatization of the Commons
7. Not Killing the Earth
8. Beyond Unipolarity: A Tripolar World
9. A Paradigm Shift for America

If Friedman made you think about globalization, these discussions will make you "think again." And the book's web site offers a world of follow-on materials. I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting a quick but comprehensive grasp of 21st century globalization.

"I did not have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one" goes the Mark Twain quote. Well unlike Friedman, Aronica took the time to deliver stronger more concrete messages in a more concise format. Aronica also took the time to do the research and look at the facts rather than just talk to his friends. If you have already bought the Friedman book but not read it, do yourself a favor, buy this and save yourself the time. If you have not bought Freidman, then you don't need to, this great little book will give you all that you need.

The book is well written, punchy and to the point. It contains great insights and provides a strong motivation to change what we are doing before we get run over by a steamroller!

Aronica and Ramdoo's book is an important addition to the literature of globalization. It provides therapy for those who have invested hours and hours digesting Friedman's half-baked treatment of globalization. Aronica and Ramdoo not only dismantle Friedman's superficial arguments, they go on to discuss nine key issues that must be included in any thorough discussion of globalization. I especially like the wealth of material at the book's web site at mkpress, where you can explore much more beyond what's included in the book itself (great articles and some short videos).

The authors could have saved us time. This book was more about espousing a socialist agenda then reviewing Thomas Friedman's book. From extolling the virtues of common property to describing every American job that has been outsourced as "sweatshop" labor, it is clear the authors have a bone to pick with free market capitalism. They do offer some insight into the how managed trade, such as NAFTA, does not necessarily mean free trade. Free trade does not need to be managed. But then they forget this point later and begin disparaging free trade when really they are talking about managed trade by the government. All in all they think the solution is more government power. They think we have not taxed enough nor have we created enough government programs. The authors could learn alot from the following conversation between two cavemen, "Something's just not right - our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty."
It is sadly ironic that the authors choose to quote Thomas Paine as inspiration for the challenge of globalization. He was someone who fought to reduce the tyranny of the State while these authors seek to increase it.