Friedman vs. Duiker \"The Dell

Friedman vs. Duiker

"The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention" proposed by Thomas Friedman asserts that the interdependence of national economies in global supply chains make those nations far less likely to go to war against each other. Meanwhile, William Duiker's "fragmentation" argument asserts that societies may react against globalization to preserve local businesses, jobs, identities, meaning and purpose. These ideas do not necessarily contradict each other. In fact, both authors support modern economic realities and both authors are correct.

Thomas Friedman's "Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention" and William Duiker's theory of fragmentation are both correct. The theories are not mutually exclusive and these authors never claim that they are mutually exclusive. In fact, given the world's estimated population of more than 7 billion people as of February 2, 2013 (Siry), a uniform world response to any issue of business, identity, meaning or purpose would be surprising. Friedman's Dell Theory holds that "No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell's, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain" (Friedman 587). Even as Friedman uses absolute terms, saying in effect that these countries will never fight, Friedman immediately softens and qualifies his stated theory. For Friedman, the interdependence of economies caused by large internationally operating corporations -- such as Dell -- having operations for supply chains in foreign countries, make the populations of those involved nations and their leaders reluctant and/or less likely to go to war against each other. This reluctance is due to at least two reasons: they want the better standard of living enjoyed by countries involved in those international supply chains; and they want to have a concentration of the jobs created by those supply chains. These aspirations make the countries involved in these international supply chains heavily weigh the significant economic losses they would suffer by going to war against one or more other countries involved in their international supply chain. In Friedman's estimation, these considerations do not guarantee that there will be no war between these nations; rather, these considerations make war far less likely between these nations (Friedman 587-8). To illustrate his theory, Friedman cites several examples, including the nuclear tension between India and Pakistan in 2001-2002, which did not result in war because of India's wariness about losing its place in global supply chains and the prosperity and labor they provide (Friedman 594-5). Even as Friedman cites this example, however, he also states that sometimes war is unavoidable and that certain Indian business leaders would have supported war against Pakistan in the face of an "outrageous act of terrorism or aggression" (Friedman 594). In sum, Friedman logically argues the tendency to avoid war for economic self-interest but he does not ultimately assert that there will never be a war among nations that are part of the same global supply chain.

William Duiker's "fragmentation" argument, found in his Contemporary World History, Fifth Edition (Duiker), acknowledges the fact of globalization and states that Friedman's discussion about the impact of globalization is "stimulating" (Duiker 351). Simultaneously, Duiker believes that there is a reaction to globalization. Duiker believes that societies will react to the globalization trend by trying to preserve: local interests such as local businesses and jobs; their identities; and their senses of meaning and purpose (Duiker 342). This argument also appears to be quite logical without contradicting Friedman's theory. For example, the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the United States, Canada and Mexico is designed to eliminate investment and trade barriers among those nations, essentially opening up all three countries to further economic globalization (Friedman 229-230). Simultaneously, the local reaction within the United States, for one, was angry protest by American laborers and labor unions because NAFTA would cause the loss of jobs in America, as corporations sought cheaper labor in Mexico (Duiker 334). Both NAFTA's movement toward economic globalization and the local "fragmentation" by American labor fighting to keep local jobs are current economic realities. In fact, Friedman refers to a type of fragmentation when he discusses the negative politically-motivated reactions to NAFTA during the 2004 Presidential campaign (Friedman 229-230). Consequently, both Friedman's theory and Duiker's "fragmentation" argument are correct.