Comment [22]

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

• 1
• 2
• 3
• >>

• One cannot disagree with the fact that some visible aspects of globalization, especially as they pertain to trade, international capital, and labor flows are slowing. And in some cases, protectionism may even cause a reversal.
  This said, in the larger context, globalization as we know it is being redefined, thanks in part to pervasiveness of technology and capital, a trend that is going to be hard to reverse.
  At the end of the day, broader business gains do outweigh local interests.

  Posted 23 May 2009, 20:13 by Mohan Babu K

• I am surprised at the forecast for integration of financial markets. It depends on how it’s been defined. Already companies access finance globally and across markets. A large number of companies are listed in multiple exchanges. Also, a sizeable companies have investors from around the world. Financial markets are a derivative of economy and not exactly the other way round. Recently, the fall out of US financial chaos hit almost all the countries in the world, including their development agenda. On the other hand, hopefully globalisation is not becoming a sophisticated redefinition of international trade and marketing negotiation instead of large scale enhancement of quality of living across the world. Look at Africa, Latin America and a sizeable population in China and South Asia, besides a number of less visible suffering and poverty . It’s time to give an organised multi-stakeholder thrust to what we want globalisation to do for us, which should be equitable and inclusive growth.

  Posted 4 May 2009, 04:30 by Narayanan PV

• Quite good points..

  I’d love to share my own point on this: I believe that globalization switches from ‘real’ to ‘virtual’ spaces.

  Look, several years ago I could not stop getting more and more amazed about how global world is getting.

  I was constantly surrounded by people from all over the world, my friends and colleagues were flying forth back (I used to have 3-4 flights monthly myself), everybody seemed to know everybody, the same brands were being sold in any city I would arrive. Sometimes coming to a new city I would not notice any change: the same mix of products, languages, people, companies.

  Now the virtual globalization continues to expand through networking, video conferencing, Internet of things, “linked data” and so on, while the physical world gets more and more local in the times of downturn.

  Quite understandable indeed, companies are trying to implement shorter supply chains, switch from outsourcing to insourcing (e.g., Lego moving their factories back to Denmark, Renault – back to France), companies are getting more conscious about travel budgets: they are exploring local talents instead of bringing overseas consultants, etc, etc.

  I mean, isn’t that good? Haven’t we been abusing the nature by shipping things all over the world so easily?

  Posted 1 May 2009, 04:30 by Vladimir Dzalbo

• It would have helped if you showed some previous numbers before the crisis so we could see how opinions have changed.
  I am surprised by the results on financial integrations as I would tie this in to FINANCIAL REGULATION that most nations are espousing. Maybe the contradiction can be explained by your experts.
  Most I think missed why integration and the resulting negative effects occurred. It was greed-driven and will continue to be so unless regulation and personal values change it. I think transparency can also help out as well as education of investors.

  Posted 30 April 2009, 20:33 by Mariano Lagman

• I quite agree with the report. However I would like to put across my personal views on Globalisation in the present time of economic crisis. Infact the recent developments have slowed the process of consolidation for many corporate giants. When the process of globalization started in india in particular and in the developing world in general, it was viewed as an accelerator for the small business growth whereby benefiting the local players. Ironically because of consolidation spree, this could not happen as viewed, however could be seen in some pockets only.
  Further when we look at the financial integration, I dont think it would be much of an issue as the time passes and things would shape up for the better tomorrow of hope. Beware Free Economy might have its stronghold for capitalists, Protectionism still holds the key for the concern for society if not for all sectors of economy but still for many important sectors of the economy. Financial inclusion is pretty well possible in the present economic scenerio. Can organizaions and institutions initiate strategies for better balanced growth rather than more consolidation!!!

  Posted 30 April 2009, 12:22 by VK Shrotryia

• I believe there is a reasonable chance that the decline cycle of globalism will actually accelerate. There exists the potential for the backlash to trigger violence and even warfare. We may see a retrenchment of economies as this down cycle runs its course.

  Posted 30 April 2009, 11:55 by J. Robinson

• Roots of globalization lie far deeper than what the current financial meltdown can shake. The only difference for years ahead will be that it will be globalization “with caution”.The practitioners of globalization in the past decade and a half have been ruthless, unmindful of the consequences both for the provider as well as for the host country. Both have suffered by the over-dose, leading to protests and advocacy of protectionism by the recipient country, and the loss of liquidity for the global player, both at home and in the foreign market, resulting in the crisis that we face today. Global players will have to become more sensitive to the market requirements, must avoid destruction of competition in the host country, and above all, must not dump dead technology in those countries which have their own aspirations, developmental programs, and pride. If we tread our path cautiously, globalization is here to stay, because the economic advantages far outweigh the demerits, if any.

  Posted 29 April 2009, 07:17 by Harish Chopra

• We need to revisit the definition of “Globalization”. In its current context, it is very much what the comment above suggests – the primary beneficiary has been the American (extend to “Developed World”) consumer.

  We need to shift focus to include beneficiaries in the “Developing World” rather than look at these countries simply as a source of cheap labour and cost arbitrage.

  The impact on economies and middle class there is far more significant with that audience becoming stronger and more influential.

  Free market implies that everyone stands to gain equitably.
  This is the future.

  Posted 29 April 2009, 06:10 by Satyajit Venkatraman

• There can be no reversal of the globalisation clock. Globalisation is an evolutionary phenomenon. There may be a brief lull in the globalisation process, but soon the integration of markets will be accelerated. As regards financial markets, they have to keep pace with the trade and industry trends. I, therefore, do not see any slow down in the global integration of financial markets as well.

  Posted 29 April 2009, 05:41 by SATYA NARAIN GHATIA

• Globalization is still something I believe in and would support from a professional and personal point-of-view. Supporting poorer nations through free-trade, and leveraging value for all concerned is still the cornerstone. Yes it may be damaged for a while, as protectionism continues to be the default position for those not brave enough or visionary enough, but value is still the ultimate pursuit. And Globalization provides us all with the infrastructure to go after it.

  The battle will be to encourage the moral and ethical thinking that is needed to facilitate value exchange, but that’s just human nature.

  The likes of the emerging EPM (Enterprise Performance Management) disciplines will help this, as more transparency and organisational-wide thinking is encouraged and supported.

  Oxfam also support the concept of giving more through free trade than through Aid, delivering longer term development opportunities for poorer nations.

  The same is true of business and leveraging strengths is always a path to success.

  Posted 29 April 2009, 04:53 by Pamela Edmond

• 1
• 2
• 3
• >>

Commenting is closed for this article.

• The new normal

  The business landscape has changed fundamentally; tomorrow’s environment will be different, but no less rich in possibilities for those who are prepared, argues McKinsey's worldwide managing director Ian Davis.

• China takes aim at dollar

  The Wall Street Journal reports on China's call for a new currency to replace the dollar as the world's standard.

• Zhou Xiaochuan's speech

  The full text of the essay by Zhou Xiaochuan, China's central bank governor, in which he calls for a new world currency, is available here.

• A New Deal for Globalization

  Rising wage inequality in the U.S. is threatening a protectionist backlash that will hurt everyone. The best way to avert the problem, argue Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter in Foreign Affairs, is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. (Article requires registration)