In the April 3, 2005 issue of the New York Times, renowned economist and journalist Thomas Friedman declared “the world is flat”. Of course, he was referring to the global economy and its impact on modern society. Melting national borders, perpetual international communication and insta-news are all byproducts of this new environment. Governments and industry must develop transnational strategies to integrate, meld and compete in this brave new world.
Without the appropriate organizational paradigm and international focus, companies and government agencies will be unable to navigate foreign policy and bridge cultural differences with commerce and security. It is imperative for public and private industry to glean expertise from our existing baselines and expand our transactional worldview to a borderless concept.
But is the world really flat in an economic and communicative sense? The American public sector might argue that the world is fully round and strict boundaries are required to maintain continued regional partitioning to ensure state/city security or to “keep jobs local”. If we’re being honest with ourselves, American industry hasn’t been “local” for decades. The past 10 years of white-collar outsourcing has severely cramped the office “temp” agency markets, but products considered distinctly American are largely un-impacted unless you want to answer phones for $6 an hour or less.
In terms of private industry, American and Japanese auto icons are perfect examples of nationalist identity forged through the sweat of “foreigners”. The Ford Ranger and Mazda B-series pickup trucks are made with identical chassis, engine structure and share most parts in common. They both roll off the same production line in New Jersey. At the end of the production line, they receive slightly different accessories and, of course, a different symbol. Ford is an icon most Americans associate with the traditional image of the Detroit “big 3” and 1950s drive-ins. For at least 20 years, it’s been largely composed of Japanese parts to allow Ford to expand internationally, leverage economies of scale and maintain the low production cost to profit ratios that keep Wall Street blue chips humming (or at least used to). Mazda was one of the first Japanese automakers to symbolize Japanese business prowess and engineering capability. The irony, of course, is that both Ford and Mazda enjoy an nationalist iconic status built on labor pools outside their home countries.
Despite what political advertisements tell you, nothing is fully produced locally anymore. The American Midwest has tens of thousands of miles of fertile fields. We have a surplus of corn producers in the U.S. who are paid not to grow their crops so we can meet our federal agreements to import from agricultural “powerhouses” such as Brazil. The U.S. government has long recognized the need for transnational commerce “quid pro quo” and created such agreements to keep pace. Again, no nationalist borders, just lines on a map for Rand McNally to label.
But what about security? Terrorism? These concerns are validated daily through the thousands of defense and intelligence professionals working around the world to stop those that embody the 1% doctrine. In spite of long airport lines and background checks, transnational commerce continues to thrive and prosper. In recent years, a few American businessmen have been traveled to Pyongyang, North Korea to bargain with suppliers and build contacts there. The U.S. government did not block these travels even though North Korea meets our definition for inclusion in the “Axis of Evil”. Why? Because the federal government recognizes the criticality of international relations and business and the loss to our macro-economic status in the world if such restrictions are implemented.
International trade has boomed largely due to the fuel of integrated technology encroaching into daily life cycles around the globe. By the start of the 21st century, broadband connections were omni-present around the world. This fundamental change created a platform where “intellectual work and intellectual capital could be delivered from anywhere” (Nilekani). Exports no longer need be based on a product.
Once the current inter-banking credit crunch stabilizes, the hum of international business will resume at warp speed. The United States is actually behind the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) nations in terms of GDP growth for the past few years. As they expand, we Americans should not be caught behind the 8-ball.
But what does this mean for the United States Government (USG) and the constituents they serve? Does international exchange only work for businesses? I would argue the exact opposite is true. The federal government communities can only benefit from a more robust infrastructure where global communications and international relations occur in the blink of an eye rather than hours, days or weeks. The days of FedEx couriers delivering marginally important information in 24-28 hours are gone. The effectiveness of network security allows government partnerships to compile, store and disseminate sensitive, timely information in a secure environment almost instantly. This effectiveness saves lives, tax dollars and adds credibility to the citizens of the United States. The public sector stands to gain everything through mutually beneficial relationships with the borderless private sector.
Where will America stand in the 21st century? Will we lead the charge to revitalize industry and expand our influence or will the BRIC superimpose their markets and policies to sell their products and services to the newly available “other” 2/3 of the world? Are we a nation state or economic state? The American government has a stake in globalization and the expansion of our economy. Taxes fund crucial government programs and corporate innovation precedes global leadership and domestic stability.
So go ahead: invest in innovative technology; buy some stocks on the Shanghai exchange; sell Mary Kay to Bolivia; import Egyptian cotton and support your local distributors and brewers by ordering an all-American Budweis………or, um, rather, get a nice cold Belgian-American Budweiser.
At a grassroots, level, U.S. citizens should learn to navigate multiple cultures and create a paradigm that empowers companies and nation-states to succeed while creating cross-cultural partnerships and investments that lead to a stronger, more stable global community. We’d better hurry though…there’s no time to waste.
“The longer I was in [Bangalore], the more upset I became – upset at the realization that while I had been off covering the 9/11 wars, globalization had entered a new phase and I had missed it “ (Thomas Friedman, 2005).
