By showing both sides, A Future Perfect can help people to understand other involved parties or at least encourage them to cross limited horizons, thereby fostering objective discussions about our mutual future.
The authors cite interesting examples and base their arguments on economic theories without turning to a business language that might be hard to understand for a non-MBA reader. It's not a book that will teach you all you have to know about globalization or offer the magic bullet but it allows you to understand the forces (technology, capital & management) that drive globalization and why the term globalization is a welcome scapegoat for mismanagement, regulation and corrupt politicians.
"Future Perfect" also has lots of anecdotes , but somehow it feels like these anecdotes fit into an intelligent discussion, rather than being part of some breathless voyage of discovery like in Friedman's book.
Another difference is in coining of new terms. Friedman has a tedious list of terms like DOSKapital, glocalism etc . Micklethwait and ALdridge also coin terms. But more often they borrow refreshing terms from other authors and thinkers - and the result is much better. This also means that these authors are able to draw on the history of ideas , especially since the Enlightenment. And they do so by making these ideas extremely germane to the current discussion.
For instance, one of the great examples in the book is that of John Maynard Keynes who went from being an unmitigated free-trader to a proponent of protectionism and back to free trade again. This short but brilliant biographical sketch helps illustrate how fickle the world of ideas can sometimes be, and how the pendulum can swing in the other direction. This is to remind the "inevitability" school of thought that politics and local issues matter a LOT. Technological determinism is but a small part of the story. Globalization is not irreversible. Globalization appeared irreversible earlier too, and it was reversed quite easily by protectionst barriers and World Wars.
Also Micklethwait and Aldridge are too wise to indulge in the kind of exaggerated dramatization Tom Friedman indulges in. For instance, based on Intel's reluctance to enter France because of its restrictions on encryption technology, Friedman rushes to say - If France were a stock , I'd sell it. I am sure that if Micklethwait had dealt with the same question, he would have reached the more correct conclusion - yes, Intel's aversion to France is a problem for France, but not as big a problem as the technological determinists would have it.
This book examines almost every aspect of globalization critically. Is electronics responsible for the volatility of short-term capital? Yes and no. Is geography irrelevant in the global world? Yes and no. Is American culture really riding roughshod over local concerns? Yes and no. Is it really a winner-take-all world? Yes and no. And so on.....
Ultimately , for good understanding , you have to quantify, no matter how imprecisely. How interconnected are we really through trade? If Asia vanishes overnight, what effect will it have on the US economy? Once you start asking these questions, you reach a nuanced and mature understanding. Yes, trade as a share of GDP is rising. Yes, more globalization should mean more worldwide specialization and exchange, that is , more trade. Still there are important limits to this process, and domestic economies will remain extremely large. This book engages in this type of illuminating analysis , and does not rely on mere storytelling.
The book also spends lot of time addressing the critics and the sceptics of the globalization process. This is in contrast to Tom Friedman's book where his only (facetious)answer is something like - "Okay, the electronic herd is coming, if you don't heed its demands, you'll pay a heavy price".In this book, inequality, rich nations versus poor, shortterm capital flow versus capital controls, cultural hegemony versus cultural plurlaism - these are issues that are discussed in wonderfully more sophisticated fashion. The sceptics are met head on. Intelligent scepticism is countered. Stupid scepticism is dismissed. The authors offer their own answers and solutions, but they are wise enough to discuss all the caveats.
Also I haven't been able to spot any glaring mistakes in analysis in this book. As opposed to Tom Friedman's book, where he sometimes hopelessly mixes up chains of reasoning. For instance, Tom Friedman's book makes a weird connection between the winner-take-all phenomenon , and the fact that real incomes at the bottom are falling. Surely, technological change , and the resulting fall in demand for unskilled labor, is the strongest causal factor behind the falling wages. The winner-takes-all phenomenon can at best be a secondary factor. Micklethwait's book doesn't suffer from these kinds of bloopers.
Ultimately a good book, a complete book as far as coverage of topics go, and also entertaining reading.This may be the best book in its genre.... After reading this book , I am now terribly eager to read their earlier book about "Witch Doctors" .