[.ca] End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (ISBN 0684825287)

pernicious AND badly argued:
Omae Ken'ichi writes from the perspective of a radical of the global elite. Should the various states of the world use welfare programs or social protections to blunt popular opposition to the exploitation and structural violence inherent in the free market system? Never! Omae demands that all social programs be abolished so that "global solutions will flow \ovia the market\c to where they are needed without the intervention of nation states". This is prima facie ridiculous, and Omae gets away with it only with remarkably vague explication and by refusing to entertain criticisms. Even libertarian ideologues must admit that only those problems whose solutions can be made profitable would thus be solved -- and since most of the world is poor, no solutions will be forthcoming (consider AIDS in Africa). But the problems with this book extend well beyond the notion that the market will solve the world's problems if given a chance. The list is long (including no consideration of the environment, cultural diversity, or poor countries), but most disturbing is Omae's condemnation of democracy. He believes sovereign governments are the corrupt instruments of special interests -- true enough, but a humane solution is not based on giving free rein to the corporate puppetmasters. Morever, Omae explicitly opposes the principle of one person, one vote: "The tyranny of modern democracy is that it tends to give equal weight to votes before contributions to the maintenance of society as a whole are taken into account". Omae's solution, then, is to concentrate economic power even more than is currently the case in the hands of those rewarded by the market (generally the most ruthless, greedy, or lucky) while cutting the vast majority out of the process altogether. In other words, establish a formal oligarchy, instead of our current informal oligarchy hidden behind sham elections. These conclusions are pernicious, and Omae's arguments so weakly supported that this book is not even useful for understanding the thinking of those who favor greater corporate control of the globe.

You must read beyond the title:
The title suggests that nation states and government in general are things of the past, a world-scale right-wing libertarian vision come to life. That's not quite true. Now 5 years after this book was written, in so many ways, the world either already is what Ohmae said it will be, or it is well on its way. The "End" is not so much a dissolution of national governments, but their growing irrelevance. Fewer and fewer consumers still regard Honda and Toyota as Japanese car manufacturers because so much of their assembly and even machining is now performed in the USA. If Motorola sells portable phones to Japan it does not necessarily benefit Americans, because the phones might be manufactured in Indonesia. The shareholders and other departments of the company might benefit because of new business generated, but it is possible that all employees and shareholders come from Asia or Europe themselves, even if Motorola was originally established in the US. The nation state might last through the end of this lifetime (though unlikely longer than that), but it is less and less an economic entity, rather a final vestige of nationalistic sentiments, the modern and future "opium of the masses." Ohmae reminds us that terms like GDP and GNP are outdated and deserve reconsideration, considering that every large nation state has successful enterprises spaced out among uncompetitive industries and unproductive locales. Gross "Regional" Product might be a more accurate yardstick. A good companion book to this one might be "Jihad vs. McWorld" by Benjamin Barber. That book emphasises that the so-called Transnational Corporations might as well be called anti-national corporations. Consumers scarcely know or care where the banks and manufacturers who provide them with goods and services call home, and the corporations care even less about the nationality of their customers, beyond the point that it might provide information about their purchasing habits.

The irrelevance of politicians:
The concept of nation state as it is today, is relatively new. Kenichi Ohmae's thesis is that it is already out of date. Nation state has become an excuse for all manner of political ills and goals that are irrelevant to the majority of the public. Kenichi shows that when leaders ignore geopolitical boundaries and encourage cross border cooperations, the result is far more beneficial than the old nationalism. However as nations become less relevant, organisations such as the European Union are to an extent taking their place. The Author argues that these are no more relevant, they are new nation states rit large. In their place, he argues for greater regional cooperation, transending boundaries, not building exclusive trading blocks, but maximising the potential of a city, region or country, through truly international division of labour. The title can be misunderstood, by those who do not read the book, but the driving argument, is that in their current guise, nation states risk becoming irrelevant to the very people that they claim to serve. Left leaning social democrats, will disagree with his theory, as will old style conservatives. Those of you who wish to live in a more connected less divisive world, will find the book a breath of fresh air.

Political discourse disguised as economic analysis:
After proclaiming in an earlier book that we are now living in a 'borderless world', Ohmae now writes about the 'end of the nation state'. Ohmae's work is very popular among geographers who like to use it as an antidote to their own research and perspectives. They claim that national borders still matter and, in general, that space has become more rather than less important. Ohmae has allegedly not understood this. So, I expected Ohmae to argue that the nation state didn't matter any more. But he did not do this. On the contrary, all his examples show that the nation state is still very important. Rather than proving that the nation state does not matter any more, Ohmae shows that people like him can be very frustrated by the actions of nation states. He basically argues that the nation state hinders the market and therefore should be dissolved. He tells us that we should give managers of multinationals all the space and freedom they need so we can benefit from the blessings of the market. Ohmae equates market forces with freedom and prosperity and associates the nation state with repression and corruption. Rather than an economic analysis, his book is a political agenda for right-wing politicians and the managers of TNC's. I think that most people who question the benevolence of the market, will be very irritated by the way Ohmae confuses his own personal interest and the interests of the economic/managerial elite in general with the public interest. I'm one of those people and I can't say that I gained a lot of knowledge from reading this work. Nevertheless, I have to say that Ohmae presents his arguments in a very challenging way. That makes the book interesting in at least one respect, and I guess that people who share his political view will therefore enjoy the book. I didn't enjoy it and I hope that other people will also read between the lines and see that business gurus like Ohmae represent the interests of a small minority (mainly share holders of TNC's) rather than the general interest.

I guess they read another book:
The End of the Nation State was profound when it was written. It's simple argument was that the power of government would diminish as the ability of people to communicate across lines increased. A simple idea that has been proven time and time again since the book was written. Does he suggest that governments will disappear - not really. What he does suggest is much more subtle - he talks about linkages - for example Tiajuana and San Diego - where the links between the two is more important to the area than either the link of Mexico City to Tiajuana or San Diego to Washington - trade and communications become linked more closely than regulation. Another example - Japanese who could not buy blue jeans at a reasonable price in country discovered ways using federal express to get jeans outside the tariff. All of those are great examples of the benefits and expansions of trade. His conclusion - reinforced in later works and also in a number of other books on the subject (if not in practice and observation) - is that the ultimate beneficiaries of globalized trade are individuals. See for example Future Perfect. For a slightly different view see John Seeley Brown's recent book on the social nature of information - Brown argues that nation states will continue - which is not a direct response to Ohmae but still an interesting perspective.