Revered Professor Dr.Sanjeev Bansal,

Globalization is an international tool often raises an accompanying set of political, social and cultural concerns. As the world continues to get smaller and more intertwined, there will naturally be a sense of discomfort and even disorientation as we adapt to a free flow of ideas, capital and cultural norms. Significant public discussion has surrounded these topics, but my is not to enter directly to the debate. Instead I will focus on fundamental issues at stake for individuals and corporations.

I truly believe that for companies to succeed in the current economic environment, they must regards globalization as a force of gravity. It is a fundamental reality of our new world, and it can't be altered or ignored. Rather, the business model and the management approach must fit the external forces.

Two examples have received significant coverage in the United States business press: Ford Motor Company and Dell Computer. Each of these has come up against the truth of globalizing world:the old models that sustained highly successful businesses in the past have slowly deteriorated.

Ford CEO Bill Ford directly addressed this topic in the October 2, 2006 issue of Fortune Magazine, where his email to employees was reprinted "the business model that sustained us for decades is no longer sufficient to sustain profitability". In the case of Dell, direct selling, the very essence of their businesses, no longer offers a unique value proposition.

The problems experienced by these two corporate giants were similar in many ways. It should come as no surprise that in a globalizing world, the challenges that encounter are much more uniform given the greater degree of interconnectedness.

That is, the pressures driving these challenges are very intense in nature, and the challenges themselves represent the effect of huge ventures shifts and underlying economic factors.

In aggregate, these forces are tremendous, making the need to adapt even more pronounced.vThe stakes have been raised, and the costs reflect not only local economic, cultural and regulatory scenarios, but rather those from all over the world.

Let's state exactly what these challenges are: a "nanosecond culture, and hyper-competition". Nanosecond culture mean that change is extraordinary rapid and diffuse. Companies ought to embrace the change and leverage it for future growth. This is because the cost of failing to see these changes and adapt accordingly means that a company will not only face a disadvantage in its native market, but will face difficulties in the global context as well. Anticipation is better than prediction.

Hyper-competition refers to the fact that a company may not be going directly against another company in their industry, but also players from other industries. A good example comes from the airline industry, which faces videoconferencing as a real threat. This examples is also salient because it points out the subtleties involved with hyper-competition. A business traveler may fly from Chicago to Shanghai to first establish a new relationship and build a team, but the subsequent meetings could take place via videoconference with thousands of miles between the stakeholders.

In the end the nanosecond culture and hyper-competition are really two sides of the same coin. They both underscore the need for companies to constantly differentiate and innovate, since there is an increasing number of options available to consumers and the relatively little time that companies have to make an impression on them.

In oder to overcome these upcoming challenges hat we need to develop the new mindset, companies needs to create a framework that incorporates growth, innovation and leadership. These three pieces work in conjunction with one another, and so the absence of innovation can signal both limited opportunities for growth and leadership problems. Similarly, an absence of disciplined and values driven leadership will often stunt the pursuit of growth and innovation.

Regards

Senapathy

Ethiopia

Since the word "globalization" has become above all a slogan, the connection can be nothing.

Am in line with Vadim S. Gorshkov

One of the dangerous political effects is the shrinking of the social middle classes in market economies.

I see a correlation if there is the assumption that the enterprise is already born digital - a condition that allows it to reach the entire planet.

Globalization as a phenomenon has continued to shrink national boundries and because its promoters are targeting markets, resources as well as cheap labor from Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Using the neo-marxist strand of analysis, the nexus between globalization and entrepreneurial development can be properly understood when looked from relationship. First, the expansion of global capital has necessitated the need for the promoters of globalization to phantom ways like making it an integral policy for African nations to democratize and liberalize their economies through the instrumentality of bretton woods institution (IMF/WB). This is not only a tactics to get African leaders ensnared in the web of debt but also a ploy to keep Africa perpetually insolvent. Second, the idea of entrepreneurial development was promoted by the same click that who knew right from the word go that African technological advancement is at its lowest ebb and cannot match that of Europe. They therefore see this as an opportunity LAUNCH their commodities and worn out goods to African markets.

Entrepreneurial development within the context of African perspective denote that individuals citizens are supported by their respective national governments in accessing soft loan that will help them develop their talents and improve their lots. The jack port lies in the fact that the corporate media have psychologically altered the taste of African leaders and their followers to always prefer European made good and services. This trends have discourage the development of entrepreneurial drive by Africans. This is because the resources are not always available and in cases where the resources are available, there is low patronage that it becomes seemingly impossible for local entrepreneurs to have a break through.

In conclusion, I submit that there is a disproportional relationship between globalization and entrepreneurial development. While globalization is a trend in economic development which no nation can afford to ignore or exist in isolation (economic autarky), the concept of entrepreneurial development should be seen from a country-to-country specific because the politico-economic conditions in a country plays a significant role in making it a success or otherwise.

Basheeer

University of Abuja-Nigeria.

I think globalization has brought more benefits than threats and costs to entrepreneurial development in general.

Globalization has brought more opportunities to entrepreneurial enterprises and hence may be seen as having developed further entrepreneurship. However, enterprises develop regardless of globalization. For example, Iran which is effectively cut off from global markets, still provides for a good deal of enterprises that are both public and private or both. There is some good evidence from ancient Mesopotamia, some 10, 000 years ago, that provide for entrepreneurial activities and consequently enterprise development. In fact globalization is far from anything new, further and for example see trade interactions between the Ancient Roman Empire and China and India, via Egypt, the later silk road, and Marco Polo's book, etc. Thus it seems even in ancient times there was globalization. What is new though within the contemporary period of globalization, are some of the following factors, for example: the fostering global policies to facilitate globalization, the institutional global framework that enhances globalization, the increase in and speed of transportation, the relative facilitation of communications, immigration and so forth.

Thanks Sir for the wonderful insights.

Regards

Dear Sanjeev Bansal, you have raised a very interesting topic related to the impact of the globalization process on developing countries or countries that are just entering the global economy. I will show this phenomenon on the example of the economy of my country, Poland in the 1990s and after joining the EU in 2004. After 1989, over 2 million micro-enterprises were established in Poland, which were mainly involved in trade (sales on the internal market) and small production of consumer goods. After the economy opened in 1991 to duty-free imports from the EU, multinational corporations from highly developed Western countries invaded. Small Polish companies grew and provided employment to several million workers as long as the competitive pressure of Western companies was low. The rapid influx of transnational corporations from the second half of the 1990s led to the spectacular decline of micro-enterprises, especially in the retail and processing industries. Large international corporations had a competitive advantage and not only took away the market, but above all took the best employees from small companies. However, small business did not give up and found market niches for themselves in the production and services of such goods, which were not very profitable to sell in Poland to large corporations due to low margins. However, after Poland's accession to the EU, there was another boom in entrepreneurship, this time on a smaller scale than in the 1990s, and this time within the sector of new technologies and related to agricultural and food production, forwarding services, logistics and modern consulting services, medical, tourism and hotel industry. In the 21st century, Polish small companies used the advantage of the business education process (new, modernly educated staff) and access to EU aid funds. In conclusion, globalization has a negative impact on small business and entrepreneurship when it is unprepared to compete with companies operating on global markets for years. On the other hand, participation in globalization is beneficial for small companies and stimulates entrepreneurship when the country has well-educated young people who know foreign languages and technologies and has access to financial capital necessary in the investment process. Best regards Dariusz