Horasis:The Global Visions Community Horasis China and business Asian business Asian business globalization systemic risk sustainability management consulting Asian trade globe visions leadership skills scenario-building World Economic Forum Frank-Jürgen Richter Frank-Jurgen Richter Frank-Juergen Richter Frank Richter
      Home Site Map Email
Home
Philosophy
Management
Events
Contact
News and Press releases
2013
China’s New Role in the Global Arena
Horasis Announces Global India Business Meeting 2014
Vision For The Future
2012
Outbound express
Ras Al Khaimah to host global Arab Business Meeting in Dec
Chengdu ‘could be Silk Road hub’
Fruitful coalition
Old model of capitalism is ‘coming to an end’
We believe the profits to be genuine
We believe the profits to be genuine
Ray of hope for African FDI?
No PIIGS in Asia
Decoding the Euro Crisis
Where To, The Euro Zone?
Economic Outlook 2012
 
2011
The Big Fall
Compromise is good for politics
The EU problem hurts China more than India
Even the Tatas are not full-fledged brands overseas: Richter
The European Crisis Is An Opportunity For India
Europe Has A Superiority Syndrome
India is no longer decoupled
Interview with CNBC
Global India Business Meeting
What's the world coming to?
Global Russia Business Meeting 2011
100 Global Leaders
 
2010
Asean Affairs China in Spotlight
Emerging Markets to the Fore
Global India Business Meeting to take part in Madrid
Dialogue with Dr Mahathir
Global Arab Business Meeting
 
2009
Patriarch Kirill
Trade Protectionism
Business Leaders of the Year
Spotlight on Macau
Global China Business Meeting
Tamil Nadu
India: Enthusiasm and Concern
Indian Business Leaders
Minister Anand Sharma
Emerging Markets Investors Roundtable
 
2008
Bargains for China
Global China Business Meeting
Global India Business Meeting
Responsibility to the Future
To Brazil, to Gold
China Meeting 2008
 
2007
China and Energy
Business Leader of the Year
China and Africa
Jean-Claude Trichet
Global Bailout
IHT
China Meeting
China-Europe Connector
Source Code China
China Meeting in Frankfurt
Meeting with José Socrates
2006
Connecting China & Europe
IHT, 9/06
China Meeting in Geneva
High-Level Meeting
Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak
Managing Global Challenges
Six Billion Minds
2005
China's energy needs
China meeting in Geneva
From Local to Global
Global Outsourcing Report
Release of 'Global Future'
Media Industry's Future
China's Rise - Europe's Fall!
Jagdish Bhagwati, 8/05
Jagdish Bhagwati, 7/05
Dinner on Globalization
 
A New Vocabulary for Trade
By Jagdish Bhagwati
4 August 2005, Wall Street Journal
 

‘Metaphors matter. They define how one sees reality, as when the phenomenon of skilled emigration turns into the problem of "brain drain," evoking the image of a leaky faucet that few can regard with equanimity.

The phenomenon of globalization has prompted competing metaphors. The prolific Thomas Friedman talks everywhere, and writes in his latest best seller, of globalization being marked by a "flat world." Writing almost a decade earlier in the New Republic, I advanced an alternative -- and less demotic -- metaphor, that globalization was characterized by " kaleidoscopic comparative advantage ." Let me explain why the two metaphors diverge dramatically and carry startlingly different policy implications -- and why Mr. Friedman gets it wrong.

One cannot but be aware that countries face intensified competition in the world economy -- a phenomenon that forced itself on our attention long before China and India began to loom large in fevered imaginations. Interest rates are less far apart than earlier: A continual opening and global integration of financial markets has occurred. Multinationals now consider many alternative locations for final assembly and to manufacture components, so their know-how becomes available, in effect, to several likely locations. Access to knowledge is more diffused than ever before: Student enrollments in foreign countries have grown, better educational institutions have opened in some developing countries, and the need for skilled professionals has led to shifts in immigration policies to draw them in to countries that have excess demand for their skills. Producers in distant places can now access markets thanks to the Internet, to the point where many talk melodramatically of the "death of distance," and I say, with tongue partly in cheek, that " geography is history ."

Yet it is wrong to infer from this that the world has gone "flat," and that there is no comparative advantage left. The notion of a flat world is as wrong metaphorically now as it was when Copernicus showed it to be literally wrong. To be more precise than his metaphor, Mr. Friedman has on his mind not the world but a large fraction of it -- India and China. He believes that the gradient which the citizens of these countries had to climb to get to our shores and out-compete us has now disappeared, giving way to a level playing field that we ignore at our peril.

But he takes too literally his friends in Bangalore. They flex their muscles on IT the way Popeye does on spinach, and tell him that some Indians can now do anything that the Americans can do. But it is a leap to translate this into the proposition that several Indians will now do everything that the Americans do. Then again, we have Intel Chairman Craig Barrett talking about 300 million Indians and Chinese professionals who will hurtle down the flat road. And Clyde Prestowitz, in his latest book, carries the argument to its logical conclusion with the American nightmare that there will be three billion Indians and Chinese capitalists soon down that road.

In truth, the flat road is not flat at all . Take the supply of educated manpower in India. Of the numbers in the age cohort for college education, only about 6% make it to college. Of these, only two-thirds graduate, and just a small fraction can read English. Of these, a further fraction can speak it; and of these, a smaller fraction still can speak it in a way which you and I can understand. The truth of the matter, therefore, is that even for the call-answer and back-office services, the numbers who will compete are only a very small fraction of the numbers being thrown about. India's huge size and the dazzle of the few Institutes of Technology are totally misleading. The road is not flat; the gradient becomes steep as wages rise for those who can manage while others cannot qualify.

Again, just think back on why China has not managed to break into IT the way it has on a range of manufactures, while India has. Surely, that has to do with the fact that India is democratic and hence IT can flourish. By contrast, the CP (the Communist Party) is not compatible with the PC: Authoritarian regimes are fearful of IT -- a gigantic pothole in the road!

Such fears of a flat road were rampant when many thought that Japan would be a fearsome Godzilla, trampling over our activities all around. But then it turned out that the Japanese were real klutzes in the financial sector. They still are. And remember that while the Chinese and Indians have lower wages, we have better infrastructure, stronger venture capital markets, an ability to attract talent from around the world, and a culture of inventiveness. Comparative advantage persists; the road is simply not flat.

The flat road metaphor is, therefore, both inapt and mistakenly alarming. The real problem in the increasingly globalized economy is rather that most producers in traded activities -- an expanding set because services have become steadily more tradeable -- face intensified competition. A specific producer here will find rival suppliers stealing up on him from somewhere, whether Portugal, Brazil or Malaysia, indeed from sources which may not include India and China. In consequence, almost no producer is truly relaxed. I was at a Parents' Day at my daughter's camp in 1991 in Vermont and talked to a father producing chips in Silicon Valley. He lamented, as did Bill Clinton soon after, that competition from Japan and South Korea was fierce (and wicked). So I turned to another dad listening in on us and asked him what he did. "I grow mushrooms," he said. "Ah, you must be happier," I remarked. He replied, tearing at his hair: "Oh no, Taiwan is killing me!"

Gone are Adam Smith's days, when no one in Haifa lost sleep because Edinburgh could grow oranges in greenhouses: The cost differences would be substantial. Comparative advantage was "thick," shielded by big buffers. This is no longer so: not predictably from India and China, but almost certainly from somewhere. Hence I use the metaphor: "kaleidoscopic comparative advantage." Today, you have it; but in our state of knife-edge equilibrium, you may lose it tomorrow and regain it the day after. Boeing might win today, Airbus tomorrow, and then Boeing may be back in play again. It is as if the design of trade patterns that you see now gives way to another, as if a kaleidoscope had turned.

In this situation of flux and change, we see the Friedman metaphor turned on its head. Faced with fierce competition, firms and unions often seek to iron out whatever differences they can so that the cost conditions for foreign rivals are brought closer to what they are for oneself. Producer interests, including labor, lobby to narrow (if not equalize) as far as politically possible the cost advantages that accrue to rivals from differences in all sorts of domestic policies and institutions. They try, through political agitation, to shield themselves.

Hence the massive demand for "fair trade," a seductive phrase that has become a principal ally of protectionism. So you see demands for enhanced labor and environmental standards in trade treaties, not as altruism but as a way to reduce the competitiveness of rivals. This game cannot be played in the multilateral trade negotiations because countries like India and Brazil see through it. But it can be played when smaller fry are involved in bilateral Free Trade Agreements: A hegemonic power like the U.S., captured in turn by fearful lobbies seeking to flatten the world, can get the minnows to do almost anything that it wants.

The real answer cannot be to seek to flatten the world, as this flies in the face of commonsense and good economic sense as well. Except for a few universal principles, diversity of labor and environmental standards is legitimate. Forcing convergence with our standards is simply an act of high-handedness by a "selfish hegemon" pretending to be an " altruistic hegemon ."

But even if plans to flatten the world thus were to succeed, they cannot but leave out the vast numbers of bumps and gradients that cannot be steamrolled: The world cannot be flattened, frankly. And so the proper response to flux is to manage it. What does this imply? Evidently, we must strengthen the Adjustment Assistance Programs, which we have done from 1962 when they were introduced at the time of the Kennedy Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. They must be rapidly enlarged, especially to include service workers.

But that is not enough. We also need to ensure that when a radiologist in Boston loses his work to one in Bombay, he is able to retrain for the new skilled medical jobs that arise daily as new problems arrive: e.g. the obesity epidemic and the associated diabetes outbreak. In fact, new medical employment will multiply in cosmetic surgery with an aging population as nose jobs, silicon transplants and chin tucks capture the female half and spread to the male half as well. (I have a bet that even Clint Eastwood's wrinkles will be erased some day by a facelift!) The radiologist may be able to find for himself the training to get new jobs closest to his skills; but it is clear that more aged radiologists will need more assistance, and that professional societies such as the American Medical Association could assist in this task by defining optimal transition paths from the old to the new jobs.

Yet it is not enough to say that we must educate our people to stay ahead of the curve. Yes, that is important: But it is also necessary to look at the content of the education. In a world of kaleidoscopic flux, an American aeronautical engineer at Boeing may well find that the industry has suddenly lost to Airbus, and that he must move into automobile engineering, where the Honda and Toyota transplants may be expanding. It is important that his training provide a larger share of general engineering skills and less of specialized ones. And thus, instead of succumbing to the panic of the "flat world" metaphor, we need to embrace the kaleidoscopic metaphor of flux, and redefine our institutional and policy responses to make the best use of the opportunities today in the globalized world.

Jagdish Bhagwati is university professor, economics and law, at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.


Horasis is a global visions community committed to enact visions for a sustainable future. (http://www.horasis.org)

For more information, please contact:
 
Communications and Public Affairs
Horasis. The Global Visions Community
phone: +41 79 305 3110
fax: +41 44 214 6502
e-mail: visions@horasis.org
 
 
Copyright © 2005 Horasis Web by Toronto Web Design