Creative Globalization

Stéphane Callens

• Publisher: Wiley-ISTE
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781786302274
• eBook ISBN: 9781119527404
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Globalisation
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The purpose of this book is to draw up a picture of the transformations in the innovation systems induced by globalization - or globalization. We understand the latter as the existence of new macroeconomic solidarities. These are attested since about the middle of the 1980s, with the observation of a tripolar world drawn up by Kenichi Ohmae.

The book intends to explain all theories of globalization, as well as to clarify its relations with innovation. It constitutes an unprecedented synthesis on this theme, illustrated by examples from many sectors of activity.

1
Globalization and Innovation: An Intellectual Landscape

Theories of globalization emerged in the mid-1980s. They combine risk in three different ways: as a “godsend”, as a ubiquitous probability of a disaster or even as an injustice repeatedly affecting the most vulnerable. The diversification of the innovation system also took place in many ways. Literature on innovation systems includes a large share of comparatist processes: for example, opposition between the Japanese and American approaches to innovation. Globalization theories bring about a methodological break: the approach is global and no longer comparative between the different national innovation systems. Three theoretical families can be distinguished: the first will seek to concentrate the innovation system in companies, rather than industrial policies, i.e. more or less updated variants of Colbertism. A second family has no organizational dimension; what matters are the consumers and public policies. This family proposes political action. The third family is that of “change in change”, which means that globalization modifies the innovation system. In “supply” approaches of innovation systems, the risk is reduced in the form of a godsend. In “political action” approaches, the collateral damage of globalization is insisted on. In the “system” approach, a catastrophic risk is introduced. The three families also vary through the levels and scales of collective action: the first “offer” family seeks to reinforce small subregional collectives, regions like the German “Länder”, with between 5 and 20 million inhabitants. The second family is based on political action on national and global scales, knowing that it forbids the organization dimension (territorial collectivities, businesses, universities, NGOs), the only one present in the “supply” approach. The “system” approach introduces new scales, particularly regional collectives like the European Union.

This chapter proceeds in three stages. The first section creates a map of the globalization theories. The second section contributes an overall view of the technological risk dimension in globalization based on viable resources in terms of databases on the industrial risks in the world by discussing technological disasters, then work accidents. The third section discusses the pertinence of the theoretical approaches, given the results obtained.

1.1. Globalization: theoretical approaches

The theoretical approaches of debates on globalization draw on ancient oppositions between Free Trade and Protectionism, and on a lamentation upon the decreasing quality of culture due to industrial massification. These stances date back to the industrial globalization of the 19th Century. For example, Marx defended Free Trade in an 1848 work [MAR 48], since nationalism only sowed harsh quarrels masking the only true conflict in his eyes, the one between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The concern over cultural quality is expressed by de Tocqueville in his work on the United States, which he characterizes through its democratic regime and cultural choices dictated by the search for a smaller common denominator, playing on the dropping quality [DET 61]. This intellectual landscape of globalization is greatly modified and can no longer be summarized in the large dichotomies of the 19th Century, namely Free Trade or Protectionism, Mass or Elite Culture.

1.1.1. The “Supply” approach: Kenichi Ohmae

We have divided the theoretical works on globalization into three families. The first of these families represents the works that assume a promotion of globalization. This family includes experts who are concerned with the immobilism of behaviors in different classes of society in so-called rich nations, a loss of the taste for innovation that leads to little growth. The industrial policies generally supported by discourse on the decline of so-called rich nations are generally taken badly by these experts. The innovation system must be internalized in companies. A targeted policy is sometimes foreseen for the most deserving companies in this program, but this form of strategic commercial policy is not recognized in expanded protectionist policies like those recently set forth by the American administration.

Since 1985, it is the books of Kenichi Ohmae that have popularized the globalization strategy for companies. His works have a precedence in this concern, and he is thus one of the primary strategists aligned with the maxim “Think globally, act locally”, accredited to Akio Morita, then president of Sony. Kenichi Ohmae, born in 1943 in southern Japan, was trained as an engineer for the nuclear industry and then turned toward reflection on business strategy. Risk is not a measure for Kenichi Ohmae, who raises up against safety studies conducted based on probability models. He favors practical intelligence based on maxims in a tradition of strategic thought.

Kenichi Ohmae’s work Triad Power [OHM 85] is situated within the framework of the strategic and organizational reflection of companies. It is thus recommended that companies favor involvement in the three principle economic regions of the world: the United States, the European Union and Asia-Pacific. A simplification of international organization is also desired through the limitation of hierarchical levels of public authorities in global regions and microregions. These regions must welcome companies by being attractive. Risk is positive for Ohmae; it is first of all an opportunity: for companies, it is a matter of getting involved in the large economic flows, the public authorities coming to support them. This work is the first manifestation of a globalization theory, original vis-à-vis schisms between Protectionism and Free Trade or between American and national culture.

The work of Ohmae [OHM 96] clarifies the role of public authorities. “Competitiveness is not and cannot simply be the property of one Nation-State” [OHM 96, p. 68]. It proposes dividing Japan into 11 regions and generalizing a situation comparable to that of Singapore on the planetary level, a State-Microregion that has just a bit more power than a territorial collective, particularly in commercial matters. These “Länder” with extended commercial competences would ideally have between 5 and 20 million inhabitants, and contrary to the megacities, they could freely have property in peripheral areas. The agenda of these public agencies is that of improving the resilience of companies by unveiling policies that “help companies learn and react quickly to the evolution of the situation rather than policies that protect them or isolate them from competition or external change” [OHM 96, pp. 96–97]. The “Colbertist” policies like that of Japan’s Ministry of Industry have a substitution effect, “no policy can replace the individual efforts of the company management aiming to create links between their activities and planetary economy” [OHM 96, p. 68].

Ohmae proceeds to spatial hierarchizations: global implementation of a company takes place by privileging certain areas. The governance of a company between areas must be equidistant. There must not be compensation for defavored areas. The spatial hierarchy is also put in place between regions that are well integrated into the global flows, and peripheries that must be annexed without benefitting from compensatory transfers. It is the rural areas that are relegated to the bottom of a spatial social scale. Ohmae is opposed to the principle of universal service, the obligations of spatial equity demanded by the regulation authorities (for example, to cover a territory with mobile telephony). “Multinationals have no need to establish a series of identical UN-style national organizations” [OHM 96]. The organizational principles mentioned by Ohmae are rather integrational; that is to say, they are not, as a general rule, those of simple financial holdings. The principle of justice explained is that of objective internal equity in the multinational firm. The manager is “equidistant”; he need not favor this or that part of his organization chart, the verticality of which is presented as reduced.

For Ohmae, the established relationship between globalization and innovation is only considered in the method of enlargement. The strategic manager is a realist from an international relations standpoint; the company profits from differences brought about by the powers in place. It can be satisfied with global coverage by a network for 30 to 40 City-States that do not need to subsidize periphe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Globalization and Innovation: An Intellectual Landscape
• 2 Scaling Up
• 3 Born Global
• 4 Penpushers and Hotheads
• 5 Innovation and Freedom of Circulation
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Data sources
• Index
• End User License Agreement