The New Rules of Globalization - Harvard Business Review
I thought this a very clear articulation of the realities for multinational companies, especially when 'Stay Home' is one of the key strategies to now follow. One could see this as a welcome re-balancing of the world from western companies continuing the imperialism of their home countries past. After all, ensuring that one is actually adding value to the state one is operating in seems a reasonable request.
But I think we have to question the nature of those states asserting themselves with more economic power than in the past. They do not follow all the same values of democracy and freedom as the US, with Europe in support, has represented over the last century.
These rising powers place multinationals in more exposed and uncomfortable positions, as they must now more explicitly deal with the democratic and social contradictions of their partners, when in the past it was often simply not spoken of by either partner.
In this context, these new rules seem to me a realpolitik guide to economic success, but raise more questions about the direction the globe is going in. While competition is good, it's not a competition when the players play to different rules.
In his own blog, Bremmer places US as the no.1 geopolitical risk in 2014 2014’s top 10 political risks | Ian Bremmer:
"In the wake of perceived American foreign policy missteps in the Middle East, the Snowden scandal, and dysfunction at home that leaves allies guessing abroad, the United States’ foreign policy has become increasingly hard for the global community to interpret and predict... governments will begin to shift their international orientation — with implications for companies and investors doing business within their borders."
I thought this a very clear articulation of the realities for multinational companies, especially when 'Stay Home' is one of the key strategies to now follow. One could see this as a welcome re-balancing of the world from western companies continuing the imperialism of their home countries past. After all, ensuring that one is actually adding value to the state one is operating in seems a reasonable request.
But I think we have to question the nature of those states asserting themselves with more economic power than in the past. They do not follow all the same values of democracy and freedom as the US, with Europe in support, has represented over the last century.
These rising powers place multinationals in more exposed and uncomfortable positions, as they must now more explicitly deal with the democratic and social contradictions of their partners, when in the past it was often simply not spoken of by either partner.
In this context, these new rules seem to me a realpolitik guide to economic success, but raise more questions about the direction the globe is going in. While competition is good, it's not a competition when the players play to different rules.
In his own blog, Bremmer places US as the no.1 geopolitical risk in 2014 2014’s top 10 political risks | Ian Bremmer:
"In the wake of perceived American foreign policy missteps in the Middle East, the Snowden scandal, and dysfunction at home that leaves allies guessing abroad, the United States’ foreign policy has become increasingly hard for the global community to interpret and predict... governments will begin to shift their international orientation — with implications for companies and investors doing business within their borders."
I expect this is the subject of his book....
I think and hope we're some years off a real G-Zero world, as I believe talk of America's decline are far too premature. But we're certainly moving in a direction of stronger regional powers, and need to think sooner rather than later how to keep balance, rather than trip into volatility as the Great Powers did a hundred years ago.
Comments
The new Cold War on Business: For two decades, globalization has been the world economy’s central story line—or so it was until Russia and China sharply changed the narrative. For big companies in the West, the question now is: can there be a happy ending?
http://fortune.com/2014/10/08/the-new-cold-war-on-business/