Over the last two decades we have seen an unprecedented step-change in the rate of economies becoming more interlinked and entwined, and where we deem this rapid change as globalization, it has meant that no one body is circumvented from such phenomenal process.
The rise of technological advancements and free trade that has allowed many organisations to cross borders much more efficiently has contributed significantly to the rise of large global value chains like Dell, Nike and Ford to name a few, in which the idea of comparative advantage is played much more. In addition, the establishment of production networks across countries by large international firms has resulted in greater transparency and visibility on what goes on around the world not only in terms of prices, but also in the nature of products through the notion of homogenous products.
Yet the image of globalisation as the master of efficiency may not be as alluring. In an age of globalisation, it is widely claimed that the greater part of social life in which national cultures, national economies and national borders matter less than they use to, and to some extend are being eroded.[1] So much so that the complexity of global value chains because of too much outsourcing, cross border flows and inter-dependency suggest that the ripple effects happening in one country has repercussions elsewhere. In effect, the state of the global economy becomes like ‘a house that every day is more likely to collapse, and when it does it may fall faster and harder than we can imagine.’ (Lynn, 2005:4)
Herein, Barry Lynn questions the extent to which globalisation represent a greater functional integration in the international economy. Where our national systems in which our fortunes are ever-more tied up with other parts of the world, the complexity of global systems has led to economies become so deeply embedded with one another that a breakdown anywhere increasingly means a breakdown everywhere....