Globalization and Two Regions

GLOBALIZATION AND TWO REGIONS
 
I found myself on the edge of the Singapore Harbor on a recent business trip and - despite all of the reading I have done about the forces of globalization and the impact of world trade - I was awestruck by the thousands of containers awaiting shipment to North America and the hundreds of freighters in the water awaiting dock space.  A truly staggering spectacle.  The next morning, I opened the newspaper to read of an initiative very similar to Advance Northeast Ohio being launched by philanthropists and corporate benefectors in Singapore.  Except where the Fund's ambition is contribute $34 million to ANO over the next three years, a single philahthropist had already committed over $300 million!  The message: they are dreaming no small dreams in Asia.  Simply add at least one zero and possibly more to anything you might consider in terms of scale.
 
On the flight home, I read the recent cover story on China by James Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly. I highly recommend this article as one of the most cogent descriptions of the forces at work in China and their impact on the United States (and particularly places like Northeast Ohio). In the article, Fallows describes the simplistic way that most westerners regard developments in Southeast Asia - always hoping to reduce the argument to whether globablization is "good" or "bad" for America.  This was brought poignantly home to me in a recent meeting around the Advance Northeast Ohio program where some leaders expressed dismay that I described globalization as an inexorable and inescable fact of life to which we needed to optimize our response rather than to debate whether or not we liked what is happening.
 
We must move beyond such thinking. Debating globalization is like debating whether or not we are in favor of sunrises.  We may like or dislike the sunrise, but there is little we can do to change it so it is probably useful to plan our lives around it.
 
The consensus of the literature seems to suggest that globalization is both good and bad.  It is good for the american consumer and it is good for the worker who is educated.  Globalization is an almost unmitigated bad news for those who are uneducated or with limited work force skills.
 
The message to all of us working on economic transformation in Northeast Ohio should be: first, to accept the reality of globalization and to determine how to shift our industrial and investment policies to capture opportunities (e.g., to realize that a global supply chain may offer as many opportunities as threats for domestic manufacturers, to focus on developing noncommodity products, to build upon our historic industrial design skills); and second; to recognize that education and life-long learning are the ONLY long-term hope for the most vulnerable segments of our population.   Not addressing education gaps will otherwise lead to an economically polarized society that behaves increasingly like a developing country filled with "haves" and "have-nots."
 
Globalization needs to be a priority but still to often feels like a forbidden topics because of its politically charged undertones.  Obviously, many individual companies and institutions are working on these issues - but I'd love to get people's perspectives on how me might raise the issue of global competitiveness higher in terms of overall regional priorities.
 
 
Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Comments

# Submitted by C. Beau Daane (not verified) on Mon, 08/27/2007 - 17:03.

Northeast Ohio has to start facing the reality that the sun is rising and setting each day; and that globalization is here to stay. On a recent mission to China, I was struck by the pace of change and development. Some 90% of the world's cranes are currently in China. Every single industry seems to be booming in China, from diapers to the automobile. Take diapers for instance: right now, only 7% of Chinese babies use diapers. By 2010, however, this is projected to grow to 14%. When you think of the China scale (adding one zero and possibly more to any number you consider as Brad noted), i.e., the number of babies, you can see the business opportunity for diaper manufacturers like Procter & Gamble or Kimberly Clark.

As a region, we've got to come together and stop fighting between municipalities. This is the time to turn our attention to the growing Asian powers, specifically China. If we don't focus on educating our workforce, on getting lower skilled workers farther up the food chain, we will be in big trouble sooner than later.