The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman famously wrote a book, ‘The Lexus and the Olive Tree’ in the concluding years of the 20th century. In Friedman’s formulation, Lexus stood as a metaphor for modernity(globalisation) and the olive tree one for tradition. All in all, Friedman was bullish about globalisation, deeming it to be the defining feature or a large megatrend that would reshape the world in fundamental ways. Events and even trends corroborated and validated Friedman’s claim: capital flows crisscrossed the globe, as did people flows; state sovereignty – a feature of the Westphalian order – was getting malleable and so on. In this schema, the nation-state was held to be an irrational construct, an obstacle in the way of progress defined by a certain economic philosophy, that was intellectual and maiden of the 3rd wave of globalisation, that could be traced to mid-1970s.

But, fast forward a couple of decades: globalisation is in crisis and the nation-state is making a comeback. The ‘walls’ are going up again and the world is retreating into itself. While this might be in the nature of a pause or hiatus in the larger grand historical perspective, but mellow-balisation or slow-labialisation is real, a trend that will only get exacerbated in the post-COVID-19 world. Friedman then was ‘irrationally exuberant’. What explains the halt to the onward march of globalisation?

The answer lies in the metaphor of the olive tree.

&nbsp;Man(woman), in the final analysis, is intensely tribal and is, as opposed to certain theories wired to be so. Mankind’s tribalism gets kind of reified in his or her desire for a stable identity. (Multiple identities in oneself, might even be unnatural and lead perhaps to the rebellion of the core self against assumed identities). It is, say in a Western context, only the second or the third-generation immigrant cohort that can be said to be rather fully integrated. The first or even the second-generation cohort are in a constant battle to negotiate their identities with their selves and host societies.

But, more eloquently, or tellingly, it is in larger projects that the battle or quest for identity becomes more powerful and salient. Here Brexit, the United Kingdom’s divorce from the European Union might be a case in point. While, for instance, a man or woman from Bath in the UK will have more in common with people from the same region than Yorkshire and while classes are also a constituent in the make-up of identity, in the sense of immediacy, but the larger British identity accords reassurance and connect between this identities-emotionally and psychically. This holds despite the fact Britishness is also a construct, or in the formulation of Benedict Andersen, an imagined community that, obiter dictum, had an outward-looking thrust during the heyday of imperialism but turned inward after that.

It was this sense of emotional and psychic reassurance that the larger European project fractured. The man(woman) from Bath would rather be anchored to Britain and the attendant idea of ‘Britishness’- a category that was, in his or her mind already under assault by the multiculturalisation of his or her country. Slowly but inexorably, the core self rebelled against a project and its vague ideational boundaries, porous as they were. The result was foreordained here.

This is happening in various permutations and combinations across the world. The post-colonial intellectual, in an attempt to create an identity for his or her newly liberated country, tried to wed the country together by creating ideational and intellectual constructs, that were more Lexus than the Olive Tree. But, while this elitist construction succeeded for a while, in the ultimate analysis, the more emotive and visceral aspects of identity are gaining in salience.

Is project modernity, in the sense of fashioning a ‘new’ man by and through intellectual devices and state structures a failed one? Probably. Social engineering of this sort is doomed unless and until allied to the emotional and emotive aspects of the soil. But project modernity has not entirely failed. It has chalked some notable successes but when it comes to modernity and tradition, there is tension and even conflict between these.

Modernity, to paraphrase Emile Durkheim, can be an intensely alienating process, with no endpoint. And, when this alienation hits, man(woman) seeks refuge in community or the nation. This is what explains Brexit and similar movements across the world, populist or otherwise. In this sense then, the Olive Tree always trumps the Lexus! 
 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman famously wrote a book, ‘The Lexus and the Olive Tree’ in the concluding years of the 20th century. In Friedman’s formulation, Lexus stood as a metaphor for modernity(globalisation) and the olive tree one for tradition.

The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman famously wrote a book, ‘The Lexus and the Olive Tree’ in the concluding years of the 20th century. In Friedman’s formulation, Lexus stood as a metaphor for modernity(globalisation) and the olive tree one for tradition. All in all, Friedman was bullish about globalisation, deeming it to be the defining feature or a large megatrend that would reshape the world in fundamental ways. Events and even trends corroborated and validated Friedman’s claim: capital flows crisscrossed the globe, as did people flows; state sovereignty – a feature of the Westphalian order – was getting malleable and so on. In this schema, the nation-state was held to be an irrational construct, an obstacle in the way of progress defined by a certain economic philosophy, that was intellectual and maiden of the 3rd wave of globalisation, that could be traced to mid-1970s. But, fast forward a couple of decades: globalisation is in crisis and the nation-state is making a comeback. The ‘walls’ are going up again and the world is retreating into itself. While this might be in the nature of a pause or hiatus in the larger grand historical perspective, but mellow-balisation or slow-labialisation is real, a trend that will only get exacerbated in the post-COVID-19 world. Friedman then was ‘irrationally exuberant’. What explains the halt to the onward march of globalisation? The answer lies in the metaphor of the olive tree. Man(woman), in the final analysis, is intensely tribal and is, as opposed to certain theories wired to be so. Mankind’s tribalism gets kind of reified in his or her desire for a stable identity. (Multiple identities in oneself, might even be unnatural and lead perhaps to the rebellion of the core self against assumed identities). It is, say in a Western context, only the second or the third-generation immigrant cohort that can be said to be rather fully integrated. The first or even the second-generation cohort are in a constant battle to negotiate their identities with their selves and host societies. But, more eloquently, or tellingly, it is in larger projects that the battle or quest for identity becomes more powerful and salient. Here Brexit, the United Kingdom’s divorce from the European Union might be a case in point. While, for instance, a man or woman from Bath in the UK will have more in common with people from the same region than Yorkshire and while classes are also a constituent in the make-up of identity, in the sense of immediacy, but the larger British identity accords reassurance and connect between this identities-emotionally and psychically. This holds despite the fact Britishness is also a construct, or in the formulation of Benedict Andersen, an imagined community that, obiter dictum, had an outward-looking thrust during the heyday of imperialism but turned inward after that. It was this sense of emotional and psychic reassurance that the larger European project fractured. The man(woman) from Bath would rather be anchored to Britain and the attendant idea of ‘Britishness’- a category that was, in his or her mind already under assault by the multiculturalisation of his or her country. Slowly but inexorably, the core self rebelled against a project and its vague ideational boundaries, porous as they were. The result was foreordained here. This is happening in various permutations and combinations across the world. The post-colonial intellectual, in an attempt to create an identity for his or her newly liberated country, tried to wed the country together by creating ideational and intellectual constructs, that were more Lexus than the Olive Tree. But, while this elitist construction succeeded for a while, in the ultimate analysis, the more emotive and visceral aspects of identity are gaining in salience. Is project modernity, in the sense of fashioning a ‘new’ man by and through intellectual devices and state structures a failed one? Probably. Social engineering of this sort is doomed unless and until allied to the emotional and emotive aspects of the soil. But project modernity has not entirely failed. It has chalked some notable successes but when it comes to modernity and tradition, there is tension and even conflict between these. Modernity, to paraphrase Emile Durkheim, can be an intensely alienating process, with no endpoint. And, when this alienation hits, man(woman) seeks refuge in community or the nation. This is what explains Brexit and similar movements across the world, populist or otherwise. In this sense then, the Olive Tree always trumps the Lexus! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Blog: The tension between modernity and tradition is real

The third wave of globalisation, which some hold has veritably ended, presented an array of choices and challenges to firms of all sizes and forms. The whole world was a potential market for firms, as barriers to trade, commerce and business fell rapidly.&nbsp;

Technological advances made it possible even for small firms to set up ‘global shops’. ‘Thinking global’ and holding an international mindset became mantras and buzzwords. &nbsp;

While management gurus dwelt on these themes and popularised these, going global presented conceptual, structural and emotional challenges. How was a firm to organise itself? What structures and practices should it adopt? What management philosophy was the most prudent and germane? Should be firm be global and local? How would the new global or glocal orientation impact and determine hiring and management practices? If, say, the global manager had to mobile and ‘rootless’, was there a price to pay for this? And last, but not the least, was the firm going global to remain rooted in its headquarters with tinkering at the edges or go native?

Different firms adapted to the opportunities and challenges presented by globalisation differently. But, there were a few common thematic areas of concern and review like, for example, the multidivisional firm catering to a homogenous domestic market was no longer the panacea to organisational design and structure. Firms adopted different structures that helped them cope with the demands and needs of a global market.

While firms like McDonald that had standardisation built into them could with a wee bit of variation and adjustment to local tastes could get away with its peculiar management practices, other firms had different approaches. Many remained rooted in their countries of origin, but gave managers in other counties some degree of autonomy and discretion. A few delegated power to managers of other countries and tried to develop a synthesis.

But, whatever a given management practice a firm adopted, cultural differences presented a challenge. The question was how to maintain coherence and cohesiveness given the diversity of talent available in the global market place? One answer that presented itself was to socialise managers into the broader and larger philosophies of a firm and role rotation.&nbsp;

The premise appears to have been that this would create a workable synthesis that would gel with the objectives of firms. However, problems inhered in this approach; the main pertained to acculturation, culture shocks and personality changes of managers.

Another approach that was tried and is practised to some extent contemporarily is a virtual workplace wherein a given manager or technocrat did not have to move from his or her home. Technological advances made it possible to work from remote locations. This approach also helped in cost reductions.

The menu of choices that firms had was many and each chose what seemed to be the best fit for it. But now, it is held that globalisation is in retreat and the world is deglobalising. Would this impact firms’ choices of hiring, locational, basing and management choices and decisions? It would appear that while globalisation may have slowed, it may not be irreversible, especially vis a vis firms and their needs for value, profits and market shares and competition thereof. In this schema then, firms might not retreat from going global but might adapt till there is more clarity. However, the business will not atrophy and insular given that expansion for most businesses and firms is in the nature of an imperative. What then would be the most appropriate hiring and managerial practices for firms in a changing environment?

The world contemporarily remains fluid-politically, economically and culturally but a firm with an international or even global orientation still has choices about hiring and management practices. There still exists a global market for talent. A parochial and narrow approach to hiring would mean that firms choose and pick talent only from their home bases but this homogeneity could potentially undercut them and present a competitive disadvantage. The yardstick for firms with respect to hiring talent, and developing a robust skill base should be merit. An ethnocentric approach even though has some advantages but, in the final analysis, nothing beats talent and merit. Besides the utilitarian benefit that talent and meritocracy offer, there is also the aspect of inherent good involved in it.

But a global talent pool and hiring from it presents cultural problems. Cultural differences might be the chasm that a firm might flounder into. Can it be obviated? The answer is yes. Key is developing and cultivating intercultural competences, sensibilities and sensitivities under the overall management rubric of firms. &nbsp;

Firms inhabit a world that is on the cusp of a transition. While some aspects of these transitions might be ephemeral, others could be enduring. But a commitment to hiring from a global talent pool and retaining the best talent would be something that firms should not forfeit. This might even constitute a public good that also contributes to value generation for firms. The choice then between ‘going native’ and remaining rooted becomes superfluous as a given firm with a diverse talent pool becomes a microcosm of the world itself!

&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The third wave of globalisation, which some hold has veritably ended, presented an array of choices and challenges to firms of all sizes and forms. The whole world was a potential market for firms, as barriers to trade, commerce and business fell rapidly.

The third wave of globalisation, which some hold has veritably ended, presented an array of choices and challenges to firms of all sizes and forms. The whole world was a potential market for firms, as barriers to trade, commerce and business fell rapidly. Technological advances made it possible even for small firms to set up ‘global shops’. ‘Thinking global’ and holding an international mindset became mantras and buzzwords. While management gurus dwelt on these themes and popularised these, going global presented conceptual, structural and emotional challenges. How was a firm to organise itself? What structures and practices should it adopt? What management philosophy was the most prudent and germane? Should be firm be global and local? How would the new global or glocal orientation impact and determine hiring and management practices? If, say, the global manager had to mobile and ‘rootless’, was there a price to pay for this? And last, but not the least, was the firm going global to remain rooted in its headquarters with tinkering at the edges or go native? Different firms adapted to the opportunities and challenges presented by globalisation differently. But, there were a few common thematic areas of concern and review like, for example, the multidivisional firm catering to a homogenous domestic market was no longer the panacea to organisational design and structure. Firms adopted different structures that helped them cope with the demands and needs of a global market. While firms like McDonald that had standardisation built into them could with a wee bit of variation and adjustment to local tastes could get away with its peculiar management practices, other firms had different approaches. Many remained rooted in their countries of origin, but gave managers in other counties some degree of autonomy and discretion. A few delegated power to managers of other countries and tried to develop a synthesis. But, whatever a given management practice a firm adopted, cultural differences presented a challenge. The question was how to maintain coherence and cohesiveness given the diversity of talent available in the global market place? One answer that presented itself was to socialise managers into the broader and larger philosophies of a firm and role rotation. The premise appears to have been that this would create a workable synthesis that would gel with the objectives of firms. However, problems inhered in this approach; the main pertained to acculturation, culture shocks and personality changes of managers. Another approach that was tried and is practised to some extent contemporarily is a virtual workplace wherein a given manager or technocrat did not have to move from his or her home. Technological advances made it possible to work from remote locations. This approach also helped in cost reductions. The menu of choices that firms had was many and each chose what seemed to be the best fit for it. But now, it is held that globalisation is in retreat and the world is deglobalising. Would this impact firms’ choices of hiring, locational, basing and management choices and decisions? It would appear that while globalisation may have slowed, it may not be irreversible, especially vis a vis firms and their needs for value, profits and market shares and competition thereof. In this schema then, firms might not retreat from going global but might adapt till there is more clarity. However, the business will not atrophy and insular given that expansion for most businesses and firms is in the nature of an imperative. What then would be the most appropriate hiring and managerial practices for firms in a changing environment? The world contemporarily remains fluid-politically, economically and culturally but a firm with an international or even global orientation still has choices about hiring and management practices. There still exists a global market for talent. A parochial and narrow approach to hiring would mean that firms choose and pick talent only from their home bases but this homogeneity could potentially undercut them and present a competitive disadvantage. The yardstick for firms with respect to hiring talent, and developing a robust skill base should be merit. An ethnocentric approach even though has some advantages but, in the final analysis, nothing beats talent and merit. Besides the utilitarian benefit that talent and meritocracy offer, there is also the aspect of inherent good involved in it. But a global talent pool and hiring from it presents cultural problems. Cultural differences might be the chasm that a firm might flounder into. Can it be obviated? The answer is yes. Key is developing and cultivating intercultural competences, sensibilities and sensitivities under the overall management rubric of firms. Firms inhabit a world that is on the cusp of a transition. While some aspects of these transitions might be ephemeral, others could be enduring. But a commitment to hiring from a global talent pool and retaining the best talent would be something that firms should not forfeit. This might even constitute a public good that also contributes to value generation for firms. The choice then between ‘going native’ and remaining rooted becomes superfluous as a given firm with a diverse talent pool becomes a microcosm of the world itself! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Between going ‘native’ and remaining ‘rooted’, do global companies have a choice?

The leadership crisis is continuing in the world. Despite their economic might, the leadership in Europe, the US, UK, China and Russia are battling severe challenges. Most headlines in global media are about crises in these regions.&nbsp;

If we step back and look at the conflict zones, there are more in the developed world than in emerging economies. The trade flare-up between US and China is not surprising if you look at economic history. North America and Europe have dominated the global economy for so long that they are shaken up by competitive behaviour.&nbsp;

Remember the 1980s when Japan rose to a level when it was buying up companies in the US. The entire country stood up to demonise the rise of Japan amid fears that most American companies would be acquired by the Asian giants.&nbsp;

When the Asian tigers climbed up the economic ladder in the 1990s, there was excitement and anxiety in equal measure. While their rise expanded the markets for Western companies, it also created firms that could successfully compete with American and European giants.&nbsp;

The large conglomerates from South Korea, smart services companies from Singapore and low-cost manufacturing outfits in Philippines offered continuing competition to Western companies.&nbsp;

Europe is facing a crisis caused by Brexit and the looming threat of Russia. Between the self-inflicted problems of UK and Russia’s attempts to take back its old territories, Europe is focused on its own immediate future.&nbsp;

The rise of China has brought back fears of Japan in the minds of the American government. Hence, the US-China trade war. While Japan wanted to build its economic strengths, China is clear about being a global geo-political influence, prompting the US to take on them. European Union (EU) members are split on China since some are keen to take all the support they can for their stagnating economies.&nbsp;

The resulting chaos in the developed world is driving a new wave of leadership to take charge of various regions in the world. They are now reducing the influence of large economies by deciding what is in their own interest.&nbsp;

In Africa, leaders like Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, are showing the way ahead for the continent. Rwanda has emerged as economic dynamo and also a key member of the increasingly cohesive East African Community.

In recent months, it has taken big strides to reduce its dependence on aid while encouraging FDI.&nbsp;

Volkswagen has set up a factory in the country while a plan is being rolled out to convert its capital Kigali into a global financial centre. “We are offering ourselves to the world as proof of concept country. We are inviting companies to test their ideas for Africa in Rwanda. If it works here, it can be scaled up in the region,” Richard Sezibera, foreign minister of Rwanda, told me in a conversation recently.&nbsp;

The reforms for the African Union initiated by President Kagame will help the countries cooperate among themselves. Similarly the Smart Africa initiative of 24 countries triggered by President Kagame is working to use technology and broadband access to create knowledge economies in the region.&nbsp;

Leaders in the African continent realise that overdependence on the EU and the US will be counterproductive. They have to lead their own way if they seek genuine economic independence.&nbsp;

The world was seemingly stable when US and Europe dictated the global economic order. Armed with their economic might and multilateral institutions controlled by them, they were able to create a global market for their products. They were not so open about allowing global products to enter their own market. After spending decades trying to open up emerging markets, the Western economies are busy closing their own.&nbsp;

At the Horasis Global Meeting in Lisbon earlier this year, it was clear that the EU and the US will have to reconcile to a new world order where they would have to give space to leadership from other parts of the world. “While vigorous nationalism is rising, countries should avoid isolation caused by protectionism,” Frank-Jürgen Richter, chairman of Horasis, said.&nbsp;

Globalisation will work only if it inspires goodwill and is conducted transparently, said Jose Manuel Barroso, vice chairman, Goldman Sachs International and former President of the European Commission.&nbsp;

“Currently those who take initiatives are on the extremes, what we need is a more enlightened leadership: not only political, but corporate leadership as well,” he stated.&nbsp;

In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is driving change not just for India, but also countries in the Indian Ocean and the BIMSTEC region. The BIMSTEC countries include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar and Bhutan.&nbsp;

At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Bishkek, Modi made it clear that emerging markets will create their own growth path. While collaboration with western economies will remain important, self-interest will influence economic policies. Modi is pursuing strong relations with China, Russia, EU and US independently, to carve a clear position for India in the world.&nbsp;

The conflict among the economic giants will fester and could even escalate over the next few years. This is now the ideal time for the new wave of leadership to control the destinies of its people, long in the hands of colonial and neo-colonial forces. The billions in Asia and Africa deserve this shift in power.&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-rattling-old-world-order-2762411">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The leadership crisis is continuing in the world. Despite their economic might, the leadership in Europe, the US, UK, China and Russia are battling severe challenges.

The leadership crisis is continuing in the world. Despite their economic might, the leadership in Europe, the US, UK, China and Russia are battling severe challenges. Most headlines in global media are about crises in these regions. If we step back and look at the conflict zones, there are more in the developed world than in emerging economies. The trade flare-up between US and China is not surprising if you look at economic history. North America and Europe have dominated the global economy for so long that they are shaken up by competitive behaviour. Remember the 1980s when Japan rose to a level when it was buying up companies in the US. The entire country stood up to demonise the rise of Japan amid fears that most American companies would be acquired by the Asian giants. When the Asian tigers climbed up the economic ladder in the 1990s, there was excitement and anxiety in equal measure. While their rise expanded the markets for Western companies, it also created firms that could successfully compete with American and European giants. The large conglomerates from South Korea, smart services companies from Singapore and low-cost manufacturing outfits in Philippines offered continuing competition to Western companies. Europe is facing a crisis caused by Brexit and the looming threat of Russia. Between the self-inflicted problems of UK and Russia’s attempts to take back its old territories, Europe is focused on its own immediate future. The rise of China has brought back fears of Japan in the minds of the American government. Hence, the US-China trade war. While Japan wanted to build its economic strengths, China is clear about being a global geo-political influence, prompting the US to take on them. European Union (EU) members are split on China since some are keen to take all the support they can for their stagnating economies. The resulting chaos in the developed world is driving a new wave of leadership to take charge of various regions in the world. They are now reducing the influence of large economies by deciding what is in their own interest. In Africa, leaders like Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, are showing the way ahead for the continent. Rwanda has emerged as economic dynamo and also a key member of the increasingly cohesive East African Community. In recent months, it has taken big strides to reduce its dependence on aid while encouraging FDI. Volkswagen has set up a factory in the country while a plan is being rolled out to convert its capital Kigali into a global financial centre. “We are offering ourselves to the world as proof of concept country. We are inviting companies to test their ideas for Africa in Rwanda. If it works here, it can be scaled up in the region,” Richard Sezibera, foreign minister of Rwanda, told me in a conversation recently. The reforms for the African Union initiated by President Kagame will help the countries cooperate among themselves. Similarly the Smart Africa initiative of 24 countries triggered by President Kagame is working to use technology and broadband access to create knowledge economies in the region. Leaders in the African continent realise that overdependence on the EU and the US will be counterproductive. They have to lead their own way if they seek genuine economic independence. The world was seemingly stable when US and Europe dictated the global economic order. Armed with their economic might and multilateral institutions controlled by them, they were able to create a global market for their products. They were not so open about allowing global products to enter their own market. After spending decades trying to open up emerging markets, the Western economies are busy closing their own. At the Horasis Global Meeting in Lisbon earlier this year, it was clear that the EU and the US will have to reconcile to a new world order where they would have to give space to leadership from other parts of the world. “While vigorous nationalism is rising, countries should avoid isolation caused by protectionism,” Frank-Jürgen Richter, chairman of Horasis, said. Globalisation will work only if it inspires goodwill and is conducted transparently, said Jose Manuel Barroso, vice chairman, Goldman Sachs International and former President of the European Commission. “Currently those who take initiatives are on the extremes, what we need is a more enlightened leadership: not only political, but corporate leadership as well,” he stated. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is driving change not just for India, but also countries in the Indian Ocean and the BIMSTEC region. The BIMSTEC countries include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar and Bhutan. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Bishkek, Modi made it clear that emerging markets will create their own growth path. While collaboration with western economies will remain important, self-interest will influence economic policies. Modi is pursuing strong relations with China, Russia, EU and US independently, to carve a clear position for India in the world. The conflict among the economic giants will fester and could even escalate over the next few years. This is now the ideal time for the new wave of leadership to control the destinies of its people, long in the hands of colonial and neo-colonial forces. The billions in Asia and Africa deserve this shift in power. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Rattling old world order: Emerging markets should take charge

Facebook said on Thursday it had completed a successful test flight of a solar-powered drone that it hopes will help it extend internet connectivity to every corner of the planet. 
 
Aquila, Facebook&#39;s lightweight, high-altitude aircraft, flew at a few thousand feet for 96 minutes in Yuma, Arizona, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a post on his Facebook page. The company ultimately hopes to have a fleet of Aquilas that can fly for at least three months at a time at 60,000 feet (18,290 metres) and communicate with each other to deliver internet access. 
 
Google parent Alphabet Inc has also poured money into delivering internet access to underserved areas through Project Loon, which aims to use a network of high-altitude balloons to made the internet available to remote parts of the world. 
 
Yael Maguire, Facebook&#39;s engineering director and head of its Connectivity Lab, said in an interview that the company initially hoped Aquila would fly for 30 minutes. 
 
&quot;We&#39;re thrilled about what happened with our first flight,&quot; Maguire said. &quot;There are still a lot of technical challenges that need to be addressed for us to achieve the whole mission.&quot; He said he hoped the system might be brought into service &quot;in the near future&quot;. 
 
Zuckerberg laid out the company&#39;s biggest challenges in flying a fleet of Aquilas, including making the plane lighter so it can fly for longer periods, getting it to fly at 60,000 feet and creating communications networks that allow it to rapidly transfer data and accurately beam down lasers to provide internet connections. 
 
Maguire said Aquila will go through several more test flights and hopes it will soon break the world record for the longest solar-powered unmanned aircraft flight, which currently stands at two weeks. 
 
Facebook, which has more than 1.6 billion users, has invested billions of dollars in getting more people online, both through an initiative called internet.org - which offers a pared-down version of the internet to poor areas - and by building drones. 
 
(Reuters)

Aquila, the lightweight and high-altitude aircraft, aims to provide internet connectivity around the globe

Facebook said on Thursday it had completed a successful test flight of a solar-powered drone that it hopes will help it extend internet connectivity to every corner of the planet. Aquila, Facebook's lightweight, high-altitude aircraft, flew at a few thousand feet for 96 minutes in Yuma, Arizona, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a post on his Facebook page. The company ultimately hopes to have a fleet of Aquilas that can fly for at least three months at a time at 60,000 feet (18,290 metres) and communicate with each other to deliver internet access. Google parent Alphabet Inc has also poured money into delivering internet access to underserved areas through Project Loon, which aims to use a network of high-altitude balloons to made the internet available to remote parts of the world. Yael Maguire, Facebook's engineering director and head of its Connectivity Lab, said in an interview that the company initially hoped Aquila would fly for 30 minutes. "We're thrilled about what happened with our first flight," Maguire said. "There are still a lot of technical challenges that need to be addressed for us to achieve the whole mission." He said he hoped the system might be brought into service "in the near future". Zuckerberg laid out the company's biggest challenges in flying a fleet of Aquilas, including making the plane lighter so it can fly for longer periods, getting it to fly at 60,000 feet and creating communications networks that allow it to rapidly transfer data and accurately beam down lasers to provide internet connections. Maguire said Aquila will go through several more test flights and hopes it will soon break the world record for the longest solar-powered unmanned aircraft flight, which currently stands at two weeks. Facebook, which has more than 1.6 billion users, has invested billions of dollars in getting more people online, both through an initiative called internet.org - which offers a pared-down version of the internet to poor areas - and by building drones. (Reuters)

Facebook's solar-powered drone successfully completes test flight

global-access

Global Access, News on Global Access, stories on Global Access, articles on Global Access, Global Access stories at Wion, Global Access news, Global Access latest news

global access

Blog: The tension between modernity and tradition is real

Between going ‘native’ and remaining ‘rooted’, do global companies have a choice?

Rattling old world order: Emerging markets should take charge

Facebook's solar-powered drone successfully completes test flight