This paper seeks to analyze the claims made by Jaffrey James in his article. To a greater extent, the statements made by Jeffrey in his essay were binding to and fairly representative of the economic conditions that prevailed during the time of publication. This notwithstanding, it is prudent to note that trends in the global economy have changed significantly in the last 10 years. Information technology almost dictates all aspects of business today. Computers, fax machines and internet have revolutionized the business world (Barrera, 2008). Despite these fundamental changes, Jeffrey James claims on the impacts of technology on the global economy still hold.
Claims in the Article
The article claims that whereas information technology is crucial for the growth of international trade, its adoption by a given country is not a guarantee of trade benefits from the international trade. This is specifically true in the case of developing countries, whose balance of payment from international trade has not been impressive. Kieso et al espouse that developing countries suffer economic exploitation from their developed counterparts in international trade (Kieso et al, 2012). This is because technology alone in the absence of primary natural resources like oil cannot provide a strong economic base to facilitate positive returns. James claims that in order for information technology to benefit developing countries, these countries should adopt appropriate technologies that present them with a comparative national advantage. This claim is valid and true to the global economy because developing countries can only attain comparative advantage by producing at a lower cost, which is facilitated by cheap intermediate technology (Abele, 2008).
Furthermore, his claim that the witnessed advancement in information technology has made international trade both attractive and viable is true and valid despite the time lapse between 2001 and 2012. Informational technology has reduced the delivery of either raw materials or finished goods from days or even months to hours (Lawlor et al, 2007). For example, an apparel manufacturing company in the U.S can make a clothing specification order to suppliers in China through the Internet and make direct payments through online wire transfer. This has simplified international trade and consequently made globalization attractive. (Plummer, 2006). The backdrop of this, however, has been the transfer of trade from initial markets, which are not yet covered by the information technology network, mostly developing countries. This refutes James’ claim that globalization has but clear benefits to countries that adopt it (Martin Wolf, 2004).
Additionally, James’ claim that there is the need to simplify the complexities denoting the global integration parameters augers are postulated in the article. This is because, as he rightly observes, individual countries are not well endowed in terms of resources, as such, and there is the need to have economic policies that are not aimed at integrating global economies at the expense of economic stability of individual countries. Consequently, policy makers of every country should equally tailor to make economic policies to suit their status while appreciating the importance of integration. This follows that, in his article, James was alive to the fact that there will come a moment when economic competition would need to be slowed for the sake of safeguarding a country’s domestic resources. It is out of this analysis and James’ ability to study the future economic status that I hold his article valid to the current state of economic integration (Yeoh et al, 2007).
In conclusion, Jeffrey James’ article authoritatively tackles the various issues of globalization and economic transformation. Additionally, his sentiments are by far valid to the modern times despite it being a decade old.