The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention - Thoughts?

Question

In Thomas L. Friedman's 1999 book The Lexus and the Olive Tree the following theory was presented: "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's". While that statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, his point was that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. While the observation may be true, the conclusions to be drawn are unclear. The global expansion of McDonald's restaurants is a relatively recent phenomenon when put into the context of the history of warfare, and, with a few notable exceptions, has proceeded into relatively stable markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_McDonald's_franchises#Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention

So? What do you think?

Answer 1

In my MBA program we talked about the "Big Mac Index", an inexact way of identifying the relative strengths of two countries currency by comparing the cost of a big mac in the two countries.

This is simlar but people are taking it too literally. Friedman was simply pointing out that commerce is a great deterrent to war. McDonald's is used because it is a visible example that can be quickly grasped.

"The World is Flat" contains similar thoughts in terms of how globalization affects nations and their interactions.

Answer 2

Wikipedia says: In his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman proposed The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, observing that no two countries with a McDonald's franchise had ever gone to war with one another, a version of the democratic peace theory. The theory was never true; For example the 1989 U.S. intervention in Panama (both countries with McDonalds). Shortly after the book was published, the NATO bombing of Serbia proved an exception to the theory, though in a later edition Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule: the war ended quickly, he argued, partly because the Serbian population did not want to lose their place in a global system "symbolized by McDonald's" (Friedman 2000: 252–253). It should be noted that Friedman framed this theory in terms of McDonald's Golden Arches "with tongue slightly in cheek" (Friedman 2005). Recently, Friedman has updated the theory with the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention (Friedman 2005). In 2006 McDonalds hosting nations Israel and Lebanon fought a war [1] which could also be considered evidence against the Golden Arches theory (It is not clear whether Israel was attacking Lebanon or just Hezbollah, and if Hezbollah owned any McDonalds franchises). Basic idea is that free trade prevents wars. The concept is at least partially true, but his McDonalds description is over simplified and thus not valid.

Answer 3

The more you both have to lose, the less likely you are to be violent with each other. As we move into the future of mankind, we are becoming so interdependant that war is becoming unthinkable to more people all the time. There are still, however far too many on the planet with nothing to lose, so peace is still far from being the same for everyone.

Answer 4

It's very interesting, but I am of the opinion that it's the symptom, not the cause. There is also not much data, in terms of history McDonald's has not been around for long.

They won't move in until a country is reasonably stable. once there in, they won't stay unless the nation is stable and the people continue buying. if it destabilizes, they pull out. If that nation goes to war, It still holds true. It's not a good indicator.

Answer 5

Honest answer? No offense? This was information that I could have lived without.