Friedman v Barnett

The just published May issue of Wired has an interview with Thomas Friedman. Friedman wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem and The Lexus and the Olive Tree (his seminal work on globalization and the cultural ramifications) and recently published The World is Flat which is his updated views on globalization in which supply chains figure prominently. What is remarkable is how similar Friedman is now to Thomas Barnett's work. While it is easy to quibble about the differences, the similarities overwhelm the differences:

Thomas L. Friedman                                    Thomas P.M. Barnett
The World is Flat                                         The world is connected
Can't understand 9/11 without flattening         Disconnectedness defines danger
Nations won't fight when part of supply chain Global transaction strategy
Anti-globalization forces have role to play       Ditto
Key events:
Fall of Berlin Wall                                        Fall of Soviet Union
Netscape IPO                                              Internet flows
Prominence of India and China                     Ditto

Whereas Barnett excels in policy and military analysis, Friedman has a closer view of the personal issues people are concerned about such as outsourcing, job security and education. Friedman has a wealth of foreign contacts that give him a lot of credibility as well as personal contacts within the high tech industry.

The only problem I really find in this interview is that Friedman declares "the entitlement we need to get rid of is our sense of entitlement" (I'm all for that) but then goes on to talk about creating a whole series of government entitlements such as wage insurance and portable benefits. Friedman doesn't quite seem to get that capitalism is the engine of globalization and various types of protectionism will only make us less competitive. I'll withhold judgment until I get to read his new book.

Barnett and Friedman are natural allies and should realize that they fight the forces of disconnectedness - whether internal like protectionism [remember  Kerry sniping about outsourcing?] or external like Al Qaeda.

Update:

H/T - Saar Drimer for the NPR link of a Friedman interview

Friedman continues to walk the fine line - still he slips up with some pretty silly ideas like mandatory fuel pricing $4 gallon gas to force conservation (see Peter Huber link) but all-in-all he has an important message - the value of globalization, the importance of education for Americans, the value of interdependency with trading partners and democratization.

It is obvious that globalization is being viewed from various perspectives, Barnett sees it from on high within a wide and historical context, Friedman sees it coming head-on, and despots see it bearing down to crush them.

Tyrants offer no hope, Friedman perceives it and Barnett plans for it.

Richard Bennett finds Friedman's choice of words preposterous.

Comments

[Saar Drimer]

Stuart,
If you read the book, this will be all known to you. But the following might be usful for your readers:
Thomas L. Friedman on NPR April 14th.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4600258

[praktike]

well, barnett cites friedman quite often, so there's no revelation here.

[Stuart Berman]

What is remarkable is how similar Friedman is now to Barnett, not the other way around...

[Freeman]

Stuart,

I am worried about the globalization in its current form, although I am one its beneficiaries. Many discussion on Globalization benefits is based on the assumptions like "China needs us as a trade partner. They are not crazy to mess with their biggest goods importer." They also mention the Marshall Plan, ...

Well, these assuimptions have shown their flaws through the history. I wonder why no-one recalls US buissiness supplying the German economy in 1930s. It is interesting to seee that many believed that such trades would put a leash on Hitler. I bet they also thought that "After all, he is not crazy to blow all this up"

I love Capitalism, but I believe that one shall play a game only with people who agree on the rules of that game. China can not call itself a communist nation and still benefits from the capitalism. Tian An Men was just 15 years ago. The question is, can we trust Chininese Communist Party?

My answer is "In the short run, yes. But as soon as they have a more powerfull army than US (very near future), the answer is No."
I have to note that, there is absoloutly no correlation between pacifism and economic growth. Japan (before WWII) is another good example (you know the story).

[Stuart Berman]

Freeman,

This is a great distinction that Barnett offers in the Pentagon's New Map (and I would imagine in his new book as well). Barnett describes several recent eras of globalization (unlike Friedman) including an era that ended around World War I (see http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/storyboard/sb_newrulesets.htm). Instead of seeing trade with Nazi Germany as reducing the likelihood of war (or trade with Saddam's Iraq) consider that the economic destruction of Germany in World War I as creating a 'Gap' nation that was destined for war. Had Germany embraced freedom and democracy the likelihood of war despite its economic condition would have been minimized.

Barnett says that encouraging freedom and democratization is essential (an evolutionary process for China which is not guaranteed). He would also say that China will not want to build up their military to our level (witness the result to the USSR with the arms race) unless we threaten them enough.

Because of these details, I believe that Friedman's message is suited to general discussions with the public and not at the policy level.