The World Is Flat
Thomas Friedman fronts the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention in his book ‘The World is Flat’. It is commonly referred to as the Dell Theory, and it states, “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain”. Friedman presented this theory as an update of his previous Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention. With increasing globalization, more countries are doing business with each other. Multinational corporations have subsidiaries and supply chain operations in many countries other than their home countries (Hamilton & Wood 67). The economies of all the countries in the supply chain are dependent on the continued existence of the supply chain. These countries will, therefore, try as much as possible to avoid conflict or anything that would interfere with the supply chain operations (Friedman 48).
Globalization has created economic interdependence between countries, especially where large multinational corporations are involved (Friedman 36). These multinational corporations bring new wealth to the countries in their global supply chain, especially the developing nations. There are several ways through which developing countries benefit from being part of the supply chain operations of multinational companies. First, they might be suppliers of raw materials needed by these companies for manufacturing their products. Any conflict would disrupt the flow of raw materials out of the developing country and deny it much needed revenue.
Multinational corporations also bring foreign direct investment into the developing countries that are part of their operations (Hamilton & Wood 84). This can be in the form of building manufacturing and assembly plants or offices. When a company is built in a developing country, it provides employment and small business opportunities to the citizens in that country. In case of conflict in that country, the multinational corporation stands to make huge losses since their operations will be disrupted in a major way. Therefore, multinationals will only invest in developing countries if they are assured of peace, security and a favorable environment for doing business. Any developing country will want to have as many multinational corporations as possible doing business in their homeland. Having a large multinational corporation doing major business in a developing country is like a vote of confidence in that country, and this will act to attract even more multinationals to that country. Therefore, the country will be keen to maintain peace and stability for the sake of its economy.
There is also increased international trade between countries, and this is only possible if those countries are in good terms. Countries whose economies are closely interlinked and dependent on each other will try as much as possible to resolve their differences without resorting to conflict (Hamilton & Wood 93). The economic well-being of countries is usually given a lot of prominence whenever there is a possibility of conflict. The developed countries also have business interests in the developing nations. They stand to lose if these developing nations were to go to war. The developed nations will, therefore, impress on the countries at loggerheads to find diplomatic solutions to their disagreements without resorting to conflict (Friedman 75).
William Duiker, the author of ‘Contemporary World History’ points out that Friedman’s theory above might not work as reported. Duiker says that there is concomitant fragmentation in the world political map that might offset the gains of globalization (29). There are several examples of new nations breaking off from larger nations and declaring independence. These secessions are not usually smooth and may breed hostility and conflict between the two nations involved (Duiker 84). There are usually ongoing border disputes and fighting for resources as can be seen in Eastern Europe and Sudan in Africa. These disagreements disrupt or discourage the establishment of global supply chains that are the hallmark of globalization. Countries that are in disagreement also do very little business with each other, if any. As more countries break off and declare independence, there is bound to be more conflicts that will erase the gains extolled by Friedman’s theory.
The arguments from both authors are very valid and have a lot of weight. However, Friedman’s position is the correct one in this case. There is increased globalization, and international business is rendering political borders less relevant. Even for the new countries that have recently declared independence, they need to trade with other countries if they are to sustain their economies. Furthermore, they need multinationals to bring foreign direct investment on their soil. They have to be part of the global supply chain if they are to develop their economies. To achieve this, they have to ensure that they remain peaceful and avoid conflicts at all costs (Friedman 92). Apart from all the above, war is very costly. The weapons, machines, materials and supplies that go into war take a substantial amount of a country’s budget. Any country that thinks of going to war must consider these immediate cost implications, not to mention the long-term effects on the economy due to interruption of the global supply chain. The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention is, therefore, very applicable in today’s world.
Works Cited
Duiker, William J. Contemporary World History. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2008. Print.
Hamilton, Sara M, and Ward Wood. Globalization. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub. Co, 2009. Print.
