Globalization is a dynamic and broad topic usually discussed on major forums. The issue of globalization may be favorable for others while, on the other hand, it may be arguably exploiting other countries and individuals due to the relationship that exists between the two parties. This essay will compare and contrast reasons as to why Friedman’s Dell theory of conflict and Duiker’s uncertainty on the trends of globalization totally oppose each other.
Friedman’s Dell theory of conflict states 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.” (Duiker 421) This means that when two countries have economic ties, the chances of the two going into war are very small. He argues that they will weigh the pros and cons and, practically speaking, a full-fledged war is very expensive, the damages and reparations are too big especially on the economic side.
According to Friedman, his theory applies in a case whereby a country that has chain supply of corporate bodies starts opening them in another country. This, therefore, means that there is now a relationship between the two countries that has to be maintained for smooth transactions and fruitful business venture to effectively take place. It then makes sense to say that the two countries will not get involved in an arms war. This is supported by his example of how the India-Pakistan 2001-2002 nuclear war was avoided due to this theory because people and government of India considered the risk of losing their biggest global partners and, as a result, they let it go.
As a result of this relationship, that is economic interdependence, any two countries that share the same chain store or corporate and benefit from the generated income will not consider going into war. This applies for even small and developing countries that wil feel the need to keep their newly found place in the world of economy.
Friedman says “The Cold War had been a struggle between two economic systems capitalism and communism and with the fall of the wall, there was only one system left and everyone had to adhere to it” (52). This gives him the ground to stand and support his theory.
However, Friedman is cautious enough to give a stern warning that the Dell theory should not be mistaken for a guarantee that countries who share economic borders will not go into an arms war.
Duiker seems to be opposing the Dell theory. In his book Contemporary World History, Duiker says that the trend toward globalization may be offset by a simultaneous trend toward fragmentation. This means that he does not agree with Friedman. According to Duiker, there are other equally if not more important incidents and factors around the world which affect world peace.
In his book, Duiker reviews prehistoric events right up to the 20th and 21st centuries and draws a conclusion that is the economic, social, cultural and political history of different civilizations and regions have a major role towards globalization. According to him, no particular factor is certainly responsible for globalization.
Duiker says “Not until the sixteenth century, however, was truly global economy created, a product of the circumnavigation of the globe by the Portuguese adventurer Ferdinand Magellan and the voyages of exploration. With the establishment of contacts between the Old World and the societies in the eastern Hemisphere, trade now literally spanned the globe” (7).
Duiker’s adamancy to admit that one factor brought about globalization and kept the world at peace is clearly a move to oppose Friedman, and he explains his reasoning. Contemporary World History addresses all the issues and facttors that seem highly likely to have contributed to globalization and maintaining the world at peace.
Duiker goes on further to list the factors that brought about globalization, he says:
While the Industrial Revolution shook the economic and social foundations of European society, similar revolutionary developments were reshaping the political map of the Continent. These developments were the product of a variety of factors, including not only the Industrial Revolution itself but also the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the French revolution at the end of the eighteenth century. (10)
This shows that globalization did not come about recently; it goes back into time. As a result of the events going on around the world, globalization is spreading around the world with the aid of political, social as well as cultural factors.
Duiker is actually saying that the trend that seems to be moving towards globalization is not the only move in the world. If anything, there might be more important moves in that area heading towards a different dimension than the route taken by the Dell theory. This means that there might not even be peace among various countries.
Duiker’s position is that the adversity in globalization will see many countries being dominated by the conflicts based on the cultural blocs. Whichever way we put it, cultural barriers will always arise.
In conclusion, both writers put forward interesting opinions and views. Without going deep, the Dell theory may be assumed to be correct and taken as a solution towards a peaceful world. But on closer inspection, Duiker is right. Looking at the recent world mishaps, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the September 2001 twin towers bombing in the US, it makes sense to conclude that globalization does not mean that peace and coexistence have been achieved.
Related Research essays
- Brand Equity, Brand Awareness, and Brand Image
- Chemical Engineering
- Death Rituals and Spirituality
- Nut Graph
- Human Resource Management in China and the United States: Analysis, Challenges and Comparison
- Hispanic Culture in Comparison to African American Culture
- Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
- Research Study Design
- And Then There Were None
- Cleveland, Ohio Deadly Police Chase