Strategic Management and Strategic Competitiveness

Strategic Management and Strategic Competitiveness

Glonalization

Schlegelmilch (2008) argues that, such transfers also play a crucial role in the successful transition from globalization to localization. The intent is not to overpower state control, rather to ensure that governments' provision of a policy and economic framework allows people, community groups and various types of technology to diversify their own local economies. It means nurturing locally owned technologies that use local resources sustainably, employ local workers at reasonable wages and serve primarily local consumers. It means becoming self sufficient, and less dependent on imports. Control moves from boardrooms of distant corporations and back to the community where it belongs (Schlegelmilch 2008, 19-200).

The International Forum of Globalization argues that, the current and future well-being of humanity depends on transforming the relationships of power within and between societies towards more democratic and mutually accountable modes of managing human affairs that are self-organizing, power sharing, and minimizes the need for coercive central authority. It should be recognized that when jobs are exported to developing nations, there can be considerable benefits to those recipient regions. For example, increased employment opportunities, investment in local infrastructure, skills based training and women can enter the workforce, improving family income and women's status (Rumelt 2007, 12).

In relation to local cultures, one of the significant issues is the extent to which communities and cities are being homogenized. Smith (2005) further argues, when firms seek to maximize efficiency, and to enforce calculability, predictability and control, the outcome is an inevitable bureaucratization that spread around the world leads to routinization and standardization. Anthony McGrew perhaps shares the same perspective as Smith (2005), though is more subtle to argue, globalization both stretches and deepens social interactions. That is, its political, socio-cultural and economic effects are being felt around the world in a more profound way with the result that people, increasingly, come to see themselves as global citizens (Smith 2005, 85-97).

Unlike McGrew and Smith (2005), Robertson was concerned that globalization would not be viewed critically, as a homogenizing force that would lead to convergent development. Therefore, he employed the term globalization to remind one that global forces do not override locality. Robertson further argues that, we do not live in a 'McWorld' of 'homogenizing globalization', but one in which local and regional areas are 'condemned to freedom.' Local places are forced to interact with wider forces to maintain their economic future. They are able to do so in very different ways and conditions. With time compression of technological influences of the global economy, the local absorbs, OS shapes, alters, and opposes wider tendencies while creating its own (Smith 2005, 85-97).

Smith (2005) questions, how does one understand the McDonaldization of society? Perhaps the existence of such an enterprise suggests increased uniformity? Robert (2008), like Smith (2005) argues that, consumers are free to choose but many, in context of the assault upon local culture by global firms appear happy to choose uniformity and ...