The Economist gets outsourcing wrong (sub). The article basically focuses on the (aggregate) economic benefits, and then jumps into talking about how outsourcing can results in higher quality and greater flexibility, completely ignoring all the recent data about exactly this stuff not happening as planned.
It also doesn't consider the strategic impacts: competence erosion, the loss of variety, and massive coordination and compromise costs. Economi benefits at the macro level are nice, but they're irrelevant strategically unless firms can capture some of the rent.