The world is flat

Globalization

Mincing with Democracy and Globalization: Friedman's the World Is Flat

In Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat, the author argues that one product of globalization is that the world is becoming "flatter." In other words, barriers to competition are coming down, making it possible for individuals, businesses, and corporations around the world to better compete with one another. This flattening, according to Friedman, has had the effect of redistributing the flow of capital and spurring development in many part of the world -- most notably in China and India. Despite this favorable presentation of globalization and its effects, Friedman has garnered his share of critics with the publication of The World Is Flat. In particular, some have suggested that by focusing on the positive economic aspects of globalization, Friedman has neglected the matter of democratization and -- what's more -- has suggested that authoritarianism can be a powerful tool to promote economic prosperity.

It is beyond the scope of this discussion to delve into each and every example that Friedman employs, or to break down each and every criticism of his pro-globalization argument. Instead, consider a very narrow aspect of Friedman's discussion: that short, easily overlooked passage in Chapter Nine that discusses the different responses that China and Mexico have had to the relentless push of globalization. Critics have charged that the arguments Friedman makes here are evidence of his attitude that economic success is more important that the spread of democratic ideals. At first brush, this actually appears to be true. After a quick introduction to the fact that China's economy is thriving in the globalized era, while Mexico's is faltering (and that's being generous). Friedman explains:

No doubt China is benefitting to some degree from the fact that it still has an authoritarian system that can steamroll vested interests and archaic practices [...] Mexico, by contrast moved during the 1990s from a basically one-party authoritarian state to a multiparty democracy. So just when Mexico needs to summon all its will and energy for reform retail on the micro level, it has to go through the much slower, albeit more legitimate, democratic process of constituency building.

No wonder critics have come out of the proverbial woodwork to challenge Friedman's arguments. He's implying that democracy might not be all its cracked up to be, that economic prosperity through globalization might be a higher social ideal than the spread of democracy. He implicitly praises China for its ability to adapt to the global market, despite its authoritarian government, while chastising Mexico's capacity to do the same, even given its democracy. For those who still maintain faith in democracy and the democratic process, it must seem as if Friedman has turned the world on its head. How can he so lightly challenge the value of liberal democracy?

To these critics, I say we should consider two important points. First, Friedman's The World Is Flat is a text about the modern spread of global capitalism. He considers how fast adaptation to a flattening world can bring economic success and prosperity to the nations, businesses, and individuals capable of that adaptation. Friedman's thesis never was to argue that authoritarianism is better than democracies, but instead to explain some of the factors that make for successful adaptation. The fact that Mexico's democratic process has prevented it from taking advantage of the opportunities of a flattened world is simply a reality; there does not have to be an associated value judgment. In fact, Friedman quickly points out -- for those critics who bothered to keep reading -- that it is premature to conclude that democracy is a hindrance to economic reform. He believes, whether rightly or not, that the more important issue is leadership and cites examples of democracies that have failed to adapt (Germany) and some that have (the UK), as well as authoritarian governments that have adapted excellently (China) while similar nations failed to do so (Zimbabwe).