What questions can be asked of this case study ?

Until 2008 going global seemed to make sense for just about every company in the world. Western markets were extremely competitive, population expansion had slowed and incomes had flattened, and corporate operating costs were rising. Developing nations, by contrast, boasted population growth, rising salaries, relatively low wages, and a welcoming climate for foreign investment. As distances minimized because of modern transportation and communication technologies, chasing growth globally became universally logical, and trade and capital flows flowed. In the aftermath of the recent global recession, we've entered a different phase, which I callguarded globalization.

Thegovernments of developing nations have become wary of opening more industries to multinational companies and are enthusiastically protecting local interests. They choose the countries or regions with which they want to do business, pick the sectors in which they will allow capital investment, and select the local, often state-owned, companies they wish to promote. That's a very different flavor of globalization: slow-moving, selective, and with a heavy dash of nationalism and regionalism.

Several factors have contributed to this trend. One, many governments find it risky to continue opening industries to foreign competition, because local companies and consumers often attempt to block new entrants. Two, some countries have built large foreign exchange reserves and boosted exports, so they are no longer trying to attract large amounts of foreign investment. Three, governments are defining national security more broadly. As financial instability, cyber intelligence, and increases in food prices, for instance, become global issues, the financial services, information technology, telecommunications, and food sectors have all been politicized.

State capitalism, which distorts the workings of free markets and thus considerably alters globalization, has become popular in emerging markets other than China, such as Russia, India, and Brazil. Leaders in those countries know from experience that the market is crucial to growing the economy and improving living standards. But they also realize that if they allow the market to decide which companies win, they risk losing political power, because they will no longer control job creation and their citizens' living standards.

The objective of state capitalism is to control the wealth that markets generate by allowing the government to play a dominant role through public-sector companies and politically loyal corporations. Whereas the free market system's motive of maximizing profits and growth is economic, state capitalism's goal is political: to control economic development and thereby maximize the incumbent regime's chances of survival.