It just seems a bit, well, incomplete.
1. They spend a lot of time worrying about the balance of trade. On the one hand, they talk against mercantilism and label it as "bad," but on the other, they attribute Japan's technological advance as the reason for its trade surplus. Nevermind that the trade surplus has gotten higher during the worse parts of their extended economic crisis, or that the US trade deficit has gotten more negative during the longest expansion in our history.
2. Countries are NOT corporations. They assert that there are production chains (of a sort), in which there are companies that invent, others that innovate, and still others that manufacture. So, by this line of reasoning, the US (with its great commitment to basic research) is an inventor, Japan (with its great commitment to reinventing the wheel/ improving existing technology) is an "innovator," and China (with neither the capability to invent things, nor "innovate" them) is a manufacturer. Is this really what one observes in real life? The United Kingdom may actually have MORE publications in basic research (when adjusted for the population size) than the US, but its economy is no more productive than that of, say, Singapore. In fact, the GDP percapita in Singapore is actually HIGHER than in the UK.
3. There have been more chances for China to get involved in world trade and "The Global Economy," than the authors mentioned. But each time, they have failed. The authors threw this out, but did not spend enough time detailing any of the examples that they gave. For example: The authors asked if China was "able" to innovate. Rather than speaking of this in terms of their infrastructure (insufficient access to public universities, etc) and organization, they gave some vague, grasping reasons for their failure.
4. What does a "technology trade balance" mean? France has a negative balance of trade with roughly 40% of the number of patent applications as the USA (which has a huge postive balance of trade in that area). Japan, on the other hand, has a balance less than 1/15th of that of the US, but with three times the number of patent applications. Does this mean that foreigners find that their investment in technology goes further in France and choose to invest it there (hence the negative balance of trade)? Does this mean that the average patent is less fruitful in Japan than in the USA? There is almost no discussion of this chart in the text.
In summary, I would prefer just a bit more detail/ gravitas and a little less Japanese chauvinism in this book.