The book is clearly written without all the scientific referencing that make many other books unreadable. And though the book can be called successful in fighting some of the scepticism around regarding globalisation, the subtitle is a bit misleading, as it percolates as another prosperity gospel rather than a realist view on global trends, which the book is quite capably demonstrating.
Especially the CAGE model on different types of distances is worth using in understanding some of the global realities around. It differentiates between Cultural, Administrative, Geographic and Economic distances. However, the time distance dimension seems missing. This may often be a function of one or more of the other distances, but can also be a distance in its own right.
After setting the stage with describing colliding wordviews, Ghemawat makes your mind susceptible to his worldview captured in the Law of Distance that he already introduced a decade ago as the CAGE model (refering to Cultural, Administrative, Geographic and Economic distances between countries (see also www.ghemawat.com). He then describes a number of problems with Global. You then really wonder, what is Ghemawat heading for. On page 255 it then boils down to the comparison between two schools of thought Harvard and Chicago. (I know, both American. That’s an omission on his part, nevertheless). But it is already clear from the start that Ghemawat is not going to support the one over the other (though a slight inclination towards Harvard should be expected from him).
And here we see the Eastern Schools of thought coming in currently teaching both Harvard and Chicago a lesson. to re-consider eastern Philosophy. Coming from the Indian sub-continent it should not be a surprise that also Ghemawat ends up embracing his roots. Mutualism comes back into the game, playfully balancing free markets and regulation of them.
Though this seems a smart solution, the introduction of a World 3.0 further resembles a kind of linearity that is very much part and parcel of World 2.0. After World 1.0, where we had odd views about other worlds and always preferred our own worldview over someone else’s, we became interconnected in World 2.0 tolerating any worldview, leaving it to the Market to provide our common worldview, forgetting that the world still is utterly complex. Combining both seems a logical next step. Hence worldview 3.0 does not resolves our linear and sequential thinking.
The question raises: what's next? When will we discover that world 3.0 is also missing a dimension and we need to get into a three dimensional model for instance integrating time or history if you like in the equation? So let's forget about global prosperity. We need individual prosperity determined by the well-being of our planet. How do we achieve that? Let's skip level three and four and jump to World Y. Crossing out the why finally accepting we are living in ¥ourWorld.