The article further says that "Japan's grip on the industry has weakened and it is time that the world redesigns the whole supply chain. The article ends with the note that things could go on in a moderate scale for a while and then by the first half of 2012, Japan may come back to the state of overcapacity." (Mutschler, 2002) Analysis:

In analyzing this article and the impact of a disaster on global management especially supply chain management, while it can be appreciated that there would be some delay and hitches in the recovery of Japan, one cannot go with the prediction of an impending doom in the electronics industry on account of supply closure in the near future. It can be seen that the alternate sources are active and may make use of this scarcity to their advantage. Most multinationals also will not suffer because they have alternate facilities existing. Mutschler (2002) did not take these facts into consideration. For example, one nation that can answer the supply crisis is Philippines. However the entire electronic industry of the country is set up and controlled by U.S. And other nations. There are "Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporean and Malaysian capitalists and bigger companies like Intel, Texas Instruments, Amkor/Anam, Motorola, Phillips, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Acer, Casio, and Sony." (Asia Monitor Resource Centre, 2007)

Further we have the fact that other countries also can supply to the market and Japan has overseas interest in many countries that can balance the production and distribution. In that case the disaster that wreaked Japan may not actually cause problems in the global supply chain as was predicted by Mutschler (2002). Looking at the theory behind it, it can be seen that the international management is always influenced by national interests, and the definition of globalization is simply the way the transnational corporations define it. That has resulted in the hegemonic influence of corporations on the national communities. The lopsided...

The trans-nationals which do not consider developing countries and spread their foot print cause such imbalance. (Guedes; Faria, 2006)
Conclusion:

While the article stressed on the possible shortcomings and the worst case scenario, it failed to take into consideration the true global view and how the multinationals can respond to the crisis. Therefore the article while pointing out one of the possibilities failed to show that the disaster may actually create opportunities for further expansion and investment in the electronic industry in Japan itself and elsewhere. The fact that the demand for the goods manufactured in Japan can be now offset by the supply from other countries have also been overlooked.