Going back over all the comments posted in response to my “What in the World” blog, I am struck by the volume of thoughtful commentary and wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time to post comments. Things that I’ve learned or been reminded of by the exchanges include:

Continued confusions about globalization. Some commentators still think of globalization as the process of (increasing) cross-border integration and others as the state of complete cross-border integration. Commenter Tevfik Dalgic (September 28) encapsulates the difference: “Globalization is in the making-it is not in its final phase yet.” I’d generally agree with this statement because my point is that the world is not (close to) completely globalized—although I am less certain than Tevfik seems to be that that will be the final phase, or that it will be reached within any meaningful time frame.

Believing is seeing. Ultimately, even after definitions (e.g., of globalization) have been agreed, data take you only so far in settling debates. As reader Marcis Esmits elegantly puts it (November 5), “The reality presented by your research is completely irrelevant to the argument about globalization. The globaloneys KNOW that globalization is bad, is increasing, will increase the gap between rich and poor, and can be blamed for any and all ills suffered by (particularly) Third World countries.” I am more optimistic about data, and will present more, but also recognize that stories can be more engaging.

Techno trances. Continued belief in complete cross-border integration is generally underpinned by a technological determinism that overlooks the cultural and administrative (or political) barriers between countries. If you ignore cultural and political factors, it is feasible to believe that borders soon won’t matter; if you don’t, though, I think it is impossible.

Social responsibilities. It is clearly difficult to write a blog about what globalization means for business without engaging with some of the social issues, including the distributional ones, that it raises. And without making some value judgments.

I also sensed from comments an appetite for additional discussion of a number of areas, of which two stood out for me:

Connecting to “mainstream” strategy. There seemed to be some appetite for connecting the perspectives on global strategy advanced in my blog to “mainstream" or single-country strategy. Thus, more than one comment connected arbitrage strategies with low-cost strategies. I think this isn’t quite right—I can think, for instance, of cultural arbitrage as underpinning differentiation in many snobby products. But I agree with the broader sentiment that it would be useful to connect some of what we learn about global strategy back to single-country strategy.

The shape of things to come. There seems to me to be considerable interest, fuelled no doubt by turbulence in the financial markets and elsewhere, in having more discussion of what lies ahead for globalization. I dealt with one possibility, a recessionary cycle/shock, in my “Global Strategies for Uncertain Times” posting on October 22. And I’ll continue to deal with this broad area, starting with my next post, on things to look out for in 2008.