The World Is Flat Essay
Critically evaluate the ‘World is Flat’ thesis put forward by Thomas Friedman.
Thomas Friedman in his recent book ‘The world is flat’ discusses a short history of globalisation in the twenty-first century. His discovering journey took him around the world to investigate the new concept in transnational business. He views himself as Columbus-like, but in a new modern word, in which he is searching for the sources of today’s wealth. Only to come to a rhetorical conclusion that the world is “flat” not round!
His book, ‘The world is flat’ has been a subject to much criticism. His work was highly criticizes by Aronica and Ramdoo, (2006) in their book ‘The World is Flat? A Critical Analysis of Thomas Friedman’s New York Times Bestseller’. …show more content…
In a flat world, Friedman writes, “you can innovate without having to emigrate. Yet, there are still many people in rural areas that have been left out and neglected of this global integration. People are migrating from rural areas to the big cities in search of jobs all the time, and this is what Friedman calls a ‘flat world’?
Richard Florida,(2005) in his article ‘The World is spiky’ argues that “the globalisation has changed the playing field but it has not leveled it.”, Richard talks about “uneven distribution of the world’s population, light emissions, focusing on ‘peaks’ as of the cities that drive the world economy, and ‘valleys’ – places with little connection to the global economy.” Both authors seems to be right, but they both missing the point, using misleading metaphors.
The paradox of these two metaphors is that the flattening of the world is creating a new prospect for even greater spikiness.
Some would argue that it does not matter whether the world is spiky or flat. What does matter is where you live. Now, people have to compete and work harder than ever before. People in American are losing their jobs because someone on the other side of the world can do it faster and for less
Thomas Friedman in his recent book ‘The world is flat’ discusses a short history of globalisation in the twenty-first century. His discovering journey took him around the world to investigate the new concept in transnational business. He views himself as Columbus-like, but in a new modern word, in which he is searching for the sources of today’s wealth. Only to come to a rhetorical conclusion that the world is “flat” not round!
His book, ‘The world is flat’ has been a subject to much criticism. His work was highly criticizes by Aronica and Ramdoo, (2006) in their book ‘The World is Flat? A Critical Analysis of Thomas Friedman’s New York Times Bestseller’. …show more content…
In a flat world, Friedman writes, “you can innovate without having to emigrate. Yet, there are still many people in rural areas that have been left out and neglected of this global integration. People are migrating from rural areas to the big cities in search of jobs all the time, and this is what Friedman calls a ‘flat world’?
Richard Florida,(2005) in his article ‘The World is spiky’ argues that “the globalisation has changed the playing field but it has not leveled it.”, Richard talks about “uneven distribution of the world’s population, light emissions, focusing on ‘peaks’ as of the cities that drive the world economy, and ‘valleys’ – places with little connection to the global economy.” Both authors seems to be right, but they both missing the point, using misleading metaphors.
The paradox of these two metaphors is that the flattening of the world is creating a new prospect for even greater spikiness.
Some would argue that it does not matter whether the world is spiky or flat. What does matter is where you live. Now, people have to compete and work harder than ever before. People in American are losing their jobs because someone on the other side of the world can do it faster and for less