Friedman's Thinking on Market Globalism

Steger (2009) offers five claims relative to market globalism in an attempt to develop a conceptual framework to comprehend the virtually infinite dimensions of “free-market norms and neoliberal meanings” (p. 99). Friedman (2005), gives substance to these claims by proffering real-life events, individuals and images that further crystallize Steger’s precepts.
Steger’s Claim 1: “Globalization is about the liberalization and global integration of markets” (p.103), aligns with Friedman’s discourse on Globalization 2.0, the era he identifies from 1800-2000. Friedman reflects, “…there was enough movement of goods and information from continent to continent for there to be a global market with global arbitrage in products and labor” (p. 10). Friedman uses essential questions to demonstrate the thinking processes of businesses that were challenged to either hold and ultimately fold by maintaining their current practices or metamorphosize to keep pace with the rapidity of innovations. Those questions include: “How does my company fit into the global economy? How does it take advantage of the opportunities? How can I go global and collaborate with others through my company?” (p. 10). As Friedman moves into Globalization 3.0, he continues to speak of businesses as a whole, but he extends the idea of liberalization to individuals. He contends, “…individuals from every corner of the flat world are being empowered” (p. 11). Hence, both corporations and individuals have rid themselves of the commercial ligatures of conducting business in terms of geographical confinement. Friedman extends his view on liberalization to discuss physical relocation of businesses. He explains, “…if somewhere has the richest human resources and the cheapest labor, of course the enterprise and the businesses will naturally go there” (p. 36). Additionally, Friedman defines liberalization as being free to pursue specific facets of a business or industry. For instance, he discusses the benefits of off shoring. “It helps because it frees up people and capital to do different, more sophisticated work, and it helps because it gives an opportunity to produce the end product more cheaply, benefitting customers even as it helps the corporation” (p. 21). Friedman also references global integration as he describes residents of India who have become an integral part of America’s and other countries’ efforts at out-sourcing such services as airline customer service and radiological studies. Friedman summaries Claim 1, “…what the flattening of the world means is that we are now connecting all the knowledge centers of the planet together into a single global network…”(p. 8).
Steger’s Claim 2: “Globalization is inevitable and irreversible” (p. 103), resounds in the very tenor of Friedman’s writing. He expends neither time nor energy in identifying corporations who have fought impending globalization. Friedman uses verbs that are emphatic and directive. Consider his description of Tom Glocer, CEO of Reuters. Friedman describes, “The dot-com bust and the flattening of the world forced [emphasis added] Glocer to rethink how Reuters delivered news…” (p. 17). He also speaks to the inevitability of the global market, “Every person, just as every corporation, must tend [emphasis added] to his or her own economic destiny, just as our parents and grandparents in the mills, shoe shops and factories did” (p. 17). Friedman also summarizes the inevitability of continued change, “The flattening process is happening at warp speed and directly or indirectly touching a lot more people on the planet at once” (p. 46).
Friedman’s support for Claim 3, “Nobody is in charge of globalization” (Steger, 2009, p. 103), is emphatic. As part of his description of Globalization 3.0, he writes, “Everywhere you turn, hierarchies are being challenged from below or transforming themselves from top-down structures into more horizontal and collective ones” (p. 45). Friedman provides a timely illustration of Claim 3 as he describes the military drones that provide “real-time intelligence images” (p. 39) to military personnel stationed in Las Vegas, Nevada. He continues to explain how this information is shared with consultants including enlisted military and low-level officers. According to Friedman, “…the days when only senior officers had the big picture are over. The military playing field is being leveled” (p. 39). Additionally, Friedman shares Bill Andolino’s story of finding a journalistic niche on the internet. Adolino, in describing the benefits of on-line reporting explains, “The splintering of media…also decentralizes power and provides a better guarantee that the complete truth is out there…somewhere…in pieces” (p. 44).
Steger’s Claim 4, “Globalization benefits everyone” (p. 103), meets with a modicum of argument from Friedman. While the author discusses the efficacy of this claim, there is an undertone of skepticism in his writing. For instance, Friedman cautions that the rapidity with which change occurs will negatively impact those who “lack the leadership, flexibility, and imagination to adapt” (p. 46). He also warns that the exponential rate at which change occurs means “the more likely is the potential for disruption… (p. 46). Information on al Qaeda’s rise as a result of globalization does little to affirm Claim 4 for Americans, especially in light of 9/11.
Steger’s final claim is, “Globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the world” (p. 103). Friedman cites Sifry’s (2004) article in The Nation for a comprehensive assessment on the expansion of democracy, “The era of top-down politics – where campaigns, institutions, and journalism were cloistered in communities powered by hard-to-amass capital – is over” (p.44 ). While Friedman alludes to “the emergence of completely new social, political and business models,” (p. 45), he falls short of identifying the end result as the spread of democracy.
While Friedman certainly transmits a level of intensity and excitement relative to market globalism, especially as it relates to the positive impact on third world countries, I believe he minimizes the residual impact of this rapid change on the very culture of American society. For instance, the loss of textiles has dramatically changed the structure and relationships within families. Upper management males saw the demise of six-figure incomes and substantial bonuses. In many households, roles quickly reversed to see the woman as the primary breadwinner. The psychological role of the male as the provider for his family, especially among Baby Boomers, was shattered. Exacerbating the situation was the fact that women, some with little or no work experience, found their skills to be more marketable while men, in some instances, had to re-tool their skills and settle for positions with marginal starting salaries. The ripple effect impacted the housing industries as many were forced to downsize. Private schools also felt the impact as families withdrew their children because they could no longer afford tuition. The ripple effect continued as these families determined essential goods and services versus extravagances. Granted, globalization does allow Americans to focus on the passionate source of their job (Friedman, 2004, p. 14). However, individual reinvention will have to keep pace with the concomitant exponential change rate.