We've been reading Daniel Altman's new book, Connected: 24 Hours in the Global Economy. Overall, it's a nicely-written, very broad look at the global economy. Put this down under the category "we're only human," but we especially enjoyed parts of it that seem to validate our own work. Altman discusses, for example, Intel's attempt to penetrate -- or rather, build -- a computer market in Vietnam. Intel's representatives in this effort tend to be persons who fled Vietnam thirty years ago (or those refugees' sons and daughters). The Intel representatives meet a lot of resistance, but it seems clear that a big part of their difficulties stem from local officials' inability to comprehend the importance of the computer in this age. It is only with the representatives' deep knowledge of Vietnamese culture and language that the reps can even begin to overcome this resisitance. Altman conveys pretty clearly that Vietnam is likely to benefit from Intel's efforts, as will of course Intel. All this is a nice anecdote supporting our book's contention that migration not only does not destroy the ability to contribute to one's homeland, but that some contributions are possible only due to migration. Altman also points out, as do we, the terrible cost of corruption, and how it particularly affects foreign direct investment, since "[p]rivate investors simply have to be more discriminating than donors when it comes to sending money to corrupt countries; they can't afford to do otherwise." (p. 125).
So there is a lot to like about the book and -- equally important in a work of such scope -- very little that's off-putting or even plodding. The one statement that forced us to raise every eyebrow was Altman's contention, in a discussion of migration's impact on developing countries, that "[i]f a college-educated person earns $40,000 abroad and sends $5,000 home, his or her home country is still missing out on the products of at least $35,000 worth of work." (p. 200). Not only does this statement ignore other contributions a migrant can make, it also assumes way too much about what is likely or even possible in a developing country, especially one that suffers from high levels of corruption. But this "assume a comparatively productive economy" moment is a rarity in Altman's book, which is generally very well-grounded in both its facts and ideas.
All in all, a good introduction to the complications of the globalized economy.
Comments