Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
opposed to the 'death of distance' conclusions. In particular, rather than
becoming flatter, in many aspects globalization is nowadays making the
world more uneven, more curved (McCann 2008), or even more spiky
(Florida 2005a, b; RodrÃguez-Pose and Crescenzi 2008).
In terms of economic geography and multinationals, why is it that the
'flat world' thesis could be so wrong, given that so many people accept it
and are influenced by this line of reasoning? As we will see, the answer is
that while technological changes have indeed affected the behaviour of
individuals and corporations, the changes actually occurring are in many
ways very different to those posited by the supporter of the flatness thesis,
and there are two main reasons why this is so. Firstly, one basic problem
with the flatness argument is that the analytical perspective and the objec-
tive of the analysis are often somewhat conflated in this logic, leading to
many problems of both analysis and interpretation. For example, as we
will see shortly, while institutional and technological changes are indeed
causes of evolution in the nature of globalization, phenomena like out-
sourcing and offshoring are actually responses to such technological and
institutional transformations, and not in themselves causes of changes in
globalization. Secondly, many of the types of behavioural responses con-
sidered in these arguments are simply the responses of individual people,
and in particular their leisure responses to the possibilities afforded
by technology. As we will also see shortly, however, the employment
responses associated with these technological changes are fundamentally
different to these posited leisure-related observations.
In order to understand these changes, and to see how and why they
differ so profoundly from the flatness characterizations, it is first necessary
to understand the main features of economic and technological globaliza-
tion as being the result of a long-standing historical process, the charac-
teristics of which have evolved over different periods. The reason for this
is that in order to get a sense of where we are today, and the outcomes
of this process in terms of the current logic of our worldwide exchange
architecture, our international economic order, and the global geogra-
phy of production and consumption, it is necessary to understand these
historical processes and to consider the major features of contemporary
globalization from a historical perspective. Our analysis of globalization
will therefore focus on the interrelationships between technological, insti-
tutional and organizational changes, as they impact on the roles played
in globalization processes by countries, regions, cities and multinational
firms. One of the aspects which will become apparent is that there was
indeed a change in these relationships during the inter-war years of the
twentieth century and, in that sense, Friedman's historical characteriza-
tion of the eras of globalization has some credence. However, we will also
