Do we know what the Impact of Globalisation is on follower Nations or Companies in the area of innovation and or creativity?

The most punted line of reasoning within South Africa is, "Do not Reinvent the Wheel". As a result of this reasoning, South Africans take study tours or they invite smarts from every where else than from South Africa to learn or be told of what the world has been able to do. This essentially means we copy, we imitate irrespective of context (education, culture, economic standing, political environment etc.) Essentially what this means is that there is less original thinking happening except for thinking on where from to import. This thinking has been sold mostly by the so called big Consulting houses as they assert their already built/developed knowledge vaults and intellectual capital.
I want to argue that this is setting companies and nations back. Some may argue otherwise BUT the fact is that where a nation or a company cannot build and nurture its own Intellectual Property - there is every chance that such a nature or company can never be a world beater/leader in the long term.
The question is, have studies been undertaken to quantify the impact both to companies and nations whose strategies revolve mainly around imitating practices (so called "best practices") from elsewhere. It is however accepted that imitating is a strategy but how sustainable is this strategy. It would be interesting to hear more views on this subject.

Sustainability should be weaved in all strategy options chosen

Companies/Organisations continually formulate or review their strategies to keep up the navigation imperative of all strategies. Some organisations are forced into strategising because of declining revenues which in most cases is the symptome of underlying problems, as opposed to strategising because they want the organisation to always be on top of its game and reinventing itself timely in any economic cycle. Their first, easier and short termism "strategy option" is staff reduction to mitigate the revenue decline. However staff reduction has unintended consequences such as making the company anorexic and thereby blunting its capacity for growing the business further than the immediate client/customer base and or current service/product offerings. We are seeing companies that were caught napping by the economic meltdown, stumble from strategy to strategy as they try to stabilze their companies and keep them as going concerns. This short-termism cannot be sustainable. What we find missing here is the sustainability imperative that every strategic choice taken must lead the organisation to. Sustainability has to be a long term view and once taken, everything being equal, companies must try at all costs to stay the course in pursuing the strategic choice. Companies stumbling from strategy to strategy needs to evaluate whether their strategies has infused in them elements qualifiable with sustainability beyong the short term. 

The Value of the Strategist Knowledge Worker -

The value of the Strategist as a knowledge worker should be in spotting those key blind spots that many an executive and senior/top management in the business could be oblivious to due to their focus on stoking the fires of the current business.
If this assertion is true, why did supposedly nimble companies finding it difficult to navigate the implications of the 2008 economic metldown. Job losses could an indication that the majority of the companies out there were caught off guard BUT still could not in a timely manner starve off the threat to their staff's jobs and in the process failed to retain some of the valuable business they may have been providing.
Where were the strategists in these companies and what could they offer which proved less appealing to the majority of employees? How are these obviously ruffled employees supposed to still have belief in the notion and concept of strategy? We should do more, we should be able to always be helping introduce new business lines/portfolios.

The tills are ringing, is it because of your strategy?

Strategy development is a supposed to be a dynamic process whose intended outcomes should be a better company in the eyes of all KEY stakeholder, namely Customers; Shareholder; Employees; Suppliers; Competitors; Management; Boards, etc.
Whether a consulting entity helped the strategy development process or you knuckled down and developed this yourself, beyond a specific defined and agreed to date, the tills must start to ring to show that the strategy was to an extent spot on. What if the tills ring BUT its not because of the approved strategy. What if your employees adapted your strategy to ensure that the tills ring in the short term thus guaranteing their bonuses? Does it really matter in the short-term or what about in the medium term and eventually in the long term? What if you are responsible for generating short term gains with the hope that the mid to long term will take care of itself? What rules exist to mitigate gainst these shortsighted  behaviours. Should strategists be on the look out for such practices and disown them?