Paul Musgrave has a very interesting article on The Beautiful, Dumb Dream of McDonald’s Peace Theory and how the theory falls apart. The latest blow comes from McDonald’s and Burger King franchises in Azerbaijan weighing in on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with clear pro-Azeri messages on social media. Musgrave points out the irony of “a company once held up as a disincentive to war becom[ing] a participant in one.” (The posts have since been deleted and both companies did not comment on political speech from franchisees.)
While Armenia does not have a McDonald’s, so in this case the theory somewhat holds, other conflicts have involved two parties with McDonalds. NATO bombed Serbia shortly after Friedman’s book came out, but technicalities could get around this case disproving the theory. Since then, however, the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008 Georgian-Russian War, and the 2014 Crimean crisis all involve “militarized disputes” between nations that both have McDonald’s.
Ultimately, the Golden Arches Theory isn’t really about McDonald’s, but about the theory of capitalist peace. McDonald’s doesn’t even begin operations in countries that haven’t reached a certain level of economic development. Capitalist peace suggests that economic development and integration is the way to maintain peace among nations. While this theory has had some merit, Musgrave points out the theory doesn’t account for countries choosing other values over economic gain. Uncertainty over the United States’ commitment to preserving the international order encourages nations to accept economic pain as a necessary consequence of improving their own security.
As the effects of global climate change continue to make themselves apparent, it would be reasonable to assume even more nations will find conflict with other McDonald’s nations worth the cost. Ultimately, scarcity invites competition and as resources become even more scarce, countries will likely be pressed to ensure their own survival. If the Coronavirus pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that there is a large segment of the population that simply cannot be moved to do the right thing for the protection of others. Convincing nations to cooperate and tackle climate change together rather than compete for scarce resources without devolving into even more armed conflicts will be an extraordinary challenge. Idealistic theories of Golden Arches and an unending American hegemony are unable to meet the moment.
Stephanie,
I liked your challenge of Friedman’s “Golden Arches” theory! Of course, I don’t think he meant it to be taken as grand theory–like Realism–but as a way of understanding the evolving nature of global affairs, at least as of when he wrote the piece. But I also liked your frame of “capitalist peace,” because that is really what the market penetration of global corporations is all about–i.e., it must be generally safe for them to operate and not just in the near term. Clearly, there have been, and will continue to be, some exceptions to the rule.
And there is certainly a strong possibility that the growing climate crisis could force the entire world toward a state of autarky, though one hopes that other solutions will be found. As you may know, I teach an entire course on “The Policy Implications of Global Climate Change.” If you will still be enrolled next fall, I would be delighted to have you enroll in the course when I teach it again!
–Professor Wallerstein