Subscribe: E-mail | RSS
Topic: Globalization
Don’t count globalization out yet
26 February 2009
  • Comment on this articleComment
  • Print this articlePrint
  • Link to this articleLink to this
  • Bookmark and Share this article Share
  • Text size

In November 2008, Richard Elman spoke with McKinsey’s Clay Chandler about the economic downturn’s implications on global trade.

There’s been this amazing integration of the world over the last 20 years. Is that going to continue at the same pace, or have we reached the limits of it?

In 1997 we had a crisis, but it didn’t really affect Europe that much. It didn’t particularly affect Africa or the United States either. This time we have a crisis that seems to have started in New York—and it is creating a recession globally.

So I think the interdependence of everything and everybody in the world is getting deeper. The US consumer can’t buy electronic goods unless they’re made first in China. And the Chinese factory cannot employ workers unless it has somewhere to export its goods.

And, in fact, what we’re seeing today is a large number of factories in southern China closing down. One, they don’t have enough business. And, two, they also became very expensive. But somebody else will fill that slot; whether it goes to Romania or Bulgaria or some other country.

What about moving materials around the world? For commodities that have a high level of efficiency in terms of energy expenditure per ton moved, the sorts of commodities that you handle, do carbon emissions and energy costs still pinch?

Ships do emit carbon. And probably in a rather unfriendly way because they tend to burn the worst type of fuel—heavy fuel oil. But people are looking for the cheapest raw materials; nobody’s willing to spend money on that sort of thing, mainly, I think, because you don’t actually see cargo ships. They’re in the middle of the ocean somewhere. But slowly, people are getting around to trying to monitor emissions in ships. We, in fact, have just completed a carbon neutral exercise. And we have bought carbon emissions rights equal to the amount of emissions that we produce.

Aren’t there other issues such as increasing drought conditions that force some regions to import even more items?

Global warming has created long-lasting drought conditions in certain areas. So there are a few producing areas of the world that are immune to drought—particularly South America and the United States. I don’t think we’re going to get rid of coal or oil for many, many years—maybe 30, 40, or 50 years.

You don’t see the reliance on coal vanishing or decreasing?

No. It’s too important to the world. And it’s still the cheapest energy source. Can we burn it cleaner? Of course.

People are now suddenly acutely aware of their dependence on other markets in a way that they weren’t, probably, a year ago. Do you think that awareness of their exposure to other volatile markets translates into a retreat from interdependence and integration?

You can’t avoid interdependence. There’s a global economy. The sterling dollar rate is the sterling dollar rate. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world. And it has some relationship to the Australian dollar, to the US dollar, and so on.

Where have you seen, in your business, the greatest impact from the financial crisis?

It’s not necessarily that commodity prices are fluctuating. We’ve learned how to manage ourselves. We’ve learned how to manage a lot of volatility. But it’s very, very difficult when there’s a breakdown of the financial system of the world.

The charter rates for ships has gone from a peak, for a short period, of $250,000 a day. But let’s take the top-end average; let’s say it’s $150,000 a day, down to $10,000 a day. So people who have made commitments at $150,000 have an asset that’s $10,000 today. That is major. You’ve lost 90 percent of your asset value. Sixty percent, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent—these are major, major impacts. And anybody who had any leverage, had any debt, can’t refinance it. What do they do?

There’s nowhere to go for cover. That’s the worst thing. There are no umbrellas out there, so you’re on your own.

How long do you think it takes to digest a shock of this magnitude?

I think it gets deeper as each week goes by. A couple of months ago I thought this could be an 18-month experience. And then the national growth of the world would kick in again. I think it could be many years now. But when it does kick in again, I think you’re going to see just enormous inflation.

Back to top

  • Comment on this articleComment
  • Print this articlePrint
  • Link to this articleLink to this
  • Bookmark and Share this article Share
  • Text size
Increase text size Decrease text size

Comment [2]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

  • I agree that Globalization is here to stay. When the concept was first mooted by Prof Theodore Levitt, it contained all the merits of standardization and lower costs, from which the consumer would benefit. Unfortunately, MNCs which practised globalization from 1990s onwards took the concept too far and misused the very objectives on which it was founded. MNCs had the financial and the technological might and it was not difficult to exploit the situations in the developing countries, and destroy local industrialization. This is what brought the wrath against globalization and several protests at Intenational levels. Globalization will, and must continue for overall well being of consumers the world over, but only for causes which are just and equitable, otherwise developing nations, which are the largest recipients of the benefits of globalization, may protest again and force these govermnets to adopt protectionist policies. So, Globalization with caution please!

    Posted 4 April 2009, 10:01 by Prof Harish C. Chopra

  • Yes, I agree that globalization isn’t over yet; it’s here to stay but with a more definite and purposeful agenda – to integrate the world.

    If globalization is for integration, then it should serve to promote development among all players and stakeholders. However, the contrary is true in recent years. Globalization served to impoverish the “poor” nations while it strengthened (financially, economically, and politically) those with mighty powers. In that sense, the globalization that we experienced was not the “real” globalization in its truest intention. What happened was a competition for lowest manufacturing costs, lowest wages, least governmental regulations, and so on. Countries who were willing to offer the least to the mighty giants earned the merits of globalization at the expense of people and the country’s resources.
    But all is not over yet. There is still time to change paradigms and focus on a real globalization which unites the countries of the world – bringing each one to at least the minimum level of decency. This is social justice and this is what is fair.

    Posted 26 March 2009, 20:55 by Cecilia L. Real

Commenting is closed for this article.

Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.

Follow the opposing views presented by our two debaters, then make up your mind and join the conversation

06 Mar 2010 · 02:18:04 PM GMT
Why would people move to the cities when they have everything they need in the suburbs?
—oscar

In response to The cities of 2100

10 Jan 2010 · 07:14:44 AM GMT
I think government regulations are indispensable to foster fair and sustainable growth all across the globe. Not only the employees of the mostly third world countries would profit by this but also the whole global competition would be about to chang...
—Anna Söring, Karin Masoner, Pia Kroll-Fiedler

In response to Forcing companies to play nice

30 Dec 2009 · 06:45:42 AM GMT
A communist state that abuses human right becoming the economic world leader is a horrible vision. Is that the kind of economic leader we are searching for? Is it acceptable measuring Chinas economic power by overpopulation and cheap manpower? Wh...
—Bachernegg, Pfattner, Moritsch,Private University Schloss Seeburg

In response to When China is no. 1

26 Dec 2009 · 08:57:37 AM GMT
Balance of Powers is likely reach an equilibrium, so there is a growing hope that there will be more Harmonious world and end of Unilateralism.
—Husin O'Bama

In response to When China is no. 1

16 Dec 2009 · 04:28:43 AM GMT
Globalisation is a very popular but often abused term nowadays. For Nayan Chanda it’s a drive that is inherent in us human beings, the drive to move closer together. His opinion is very straight forward, he clearly doesn’t believe that ob...
—Victor Gaspar, Johannes Gastinger, Udo Schober

In response to The ties that bind

10 Dec 2009 · 06:47:36 AM GMT
Globalization and Global Sourcing are without a doubt connected to the growth of economy in general. People working in the global sourcing sector of a company need excellent job trainings. They have to pull together so many different aspects of econ...
—Kahlert, Steiner-Holzmann, Gruböck, Private University Schloss Seeburg

In response to Global sourcing in a world less flat