Is Globalization In Reverse? – Analysis

The contours of globalisation are being reshaped. The Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump mark a strong anti-globalisation sentiment even as leaders in China, India and Russia successfully marry nationalist rhetoric with a cleverly crafted overseas strategy, premised on the very tenets of globalisation. There seems to be a ‘pause’ in the unbalanced progress of globalisation of the last three decades—and this could have many positive outcomes.

By Rohinton Medhora*

Is globalisation in reverse? The question animates discussion. The evidence is mixed at best, and does not warrant some of the more dire scenarios [1] being bruited about. But globalisation’s contours are changing, and this is not a bad thing.

The Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump are presented as Exhibits A and B of the manifestation of a change in public attitudes to globalisation. These votes did show the power of populist electioneering, much of it having a strong anti-global tinge to it. But in Brexit, turnout by age and socio-economic characteristics played a crucial role [2] in the final result. Turnout was high among older and non-urban voters and low among younger urban ones. Had the turnout been reversed, the results would have been different.

In the case of the United States election, President Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost three million votes. Besides, not all votes for his ticket reflected anti-global tendencies just as not all votes for the Hillary Clinton ticket embodied pro-global sentiments. The electoral college system magnified what was a qualified victory into a seemingly overwhelming one. Neither the British nor the U.S. votes suggest a large change in underlying attitudes to globalisation.

Other smaller, but no less troubling, instances currently cited, such as elections in Hungary and the Philippines, appear to be driven as much by domestic considerations as by perceptions about the world writ large. There are important unknowns about what the continued strength or ascension of leaders in China, India and Russia signifies. While each of them, and especially President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has espoused nationalist rhetoric, they have also embarked upon a series of ventures that project their countries overseas and craft a global strategy that is premised on the very tenets of globalisation—trade, and more generally economics first, international alliances, and an eye to making the best of the information age. How else do we explain Prime Minister Modi’s visits to 45 countries, (many of them repeat visits) and the resulting accords? China is on nothing less than a global tear, with the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Silk Road Initiative, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and positioning itself [3] as (at least) half of a “G2”.

Such multi-country surveys [4] as there are suggest that support for globalisation, especially its economic aspects, is stronger in emerging countries than in developed countries

, and that attitudes towards it are more positive among young people than older ones. But on political and social issues, such differences disappear, or at least require nuance [5] in interpretation. We must recognise that the sample size of such surveys is minuscule and seldom representative of the population as a whole, and that we do not have enough of a time series in the results to discern trends.

The broad storyline of support for globalisation in developing countries (especially the larger ones) and scepticism about it in developed countries is consistent with the underlying economics. Writing in 1995, Adrian Wood was among the first to present globalisation as it was likely to unfold [6], and its implications. To wit, so long as globalisation was driven by freer movement in goods, services and capital, educated and skilled workers in developed and developing countries would benefit, while unskilled workers in developing countries would gain at the expense of unskilled workers in developed countries. When coupled with the lack of compensating [7] retraining, safety net and other social policies in developed countries (especially the U.S. and U.K.), the resulting backlash was predictable.

Globalisation, particularly in trade, has always been a hard sell [8]. The International Trade Organization, proposed at Bretton Woods in 1944, never got off the ground because of opposition in many countries’ legislatures, especially in the U.S. It wasn’t until 1995 that the World Trade Organization came into being. By then, the GATT Rounds had lowered tariffs to the point where only the tough nuts—like agriculture and a host of “behind the border” issues like competition and investment policy—remained, grinding multilateral global trade negotiations to a crawl.

What next? As the contours of globalisation are reshaped, a pause might seem like reversal. It isn’t; the pause might even be desirable. The globalisation of the past three decades has been unbalanced – high in movement of finance and the spread of information and communications technologies; medium in trade in goods and services; and low in movement of people and the development of regulatory and other policy responses at the national and supranational levels. If the pause is about, at the very least, managing global capital movement more sensibly, developing regimes to promote green technologies and their spread, building up an arsenal of domestic social policies [9], and, more broadly, creating a national consensus around a country’s place in the world, then it will be time well spent.

Meanwhile, there is one wild card that no one appears to control. Technological change in areas come to be known as the fourth industrial revolution [10] proceeds apace. We do not know all the risks and opportunities that this movement presents, and—crucially—to whom they will present themselves. But technology is at least as powerful a driver of economic change [11]—and vitally, job displacement—as government policy is. In the absence of a clear sense about this trend, policy responses will either be non-existent or imperfect. The seeds of a reaction to the next wave of globalisation are already being sown, and it too will seem mistakenly like reversal.

About the author:
*Rohinton P. Medhora
is President, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada. Rohinton is also on twitter, and his handle is @RohintonMedhora.

Source:
This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References:
[1] Barbieri, Pierpaolo, ‘The Losers of Deglobalization’, Foreign Affairs, 13 November 2016, <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-13/losers-deglobalization>

[2] Burn-Murdoch, John, ‘Brexit: voter turnout by age’, Financial Times, 24 June 2016 <http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/>

[3] Xi, Jingpin, ‘Opening Plenary at Davos 2017’, speech delivered at Davos, 17 January 2017, <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/full-text-of-xi-jinping-keynote-at-the-world-economic-forum> (Accessed on 8 February 2017)

[4] ‘What the world thinks about globalisation’, The Economist, 18 November 2016, <http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-12>

[5] ‘Faith and Skepticism about Trade, Foreign Investment’, Pew Research Center, 16 September 2014, <http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/09/16/faith-and-skepticism-about-trade-foreign-investment/>

[6] Wood, Adrian, ‘North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality: Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World’, Oxford University Press, 1995

[7] Atkinson, Anthony B., ‘Is Rising Inequality Inevitable? A Critique of the Transatlantic Consensus’, United Nations University, November 1999, <https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/AL03-1999.pdf>

[8] Medhora, Rohinton P., ‘Refreshing Global Trade Governance’, Council of Councils, 19 January 2017, <http://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global_memos/p38685>

[9] Daniels, Ronald J., Michael Trebilcock, ‘A Better Way to Help U.S. Victims of Free Trade’, Bloomberg, 2 December 2016, <https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-02/a-better-way-to-help-u-s-victims-of-free-trade >

[10] Schwab, Klaus, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’, World Economic Forum, January 2016, <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Media/KSC_4IR.pdf>

[11] Rotman, David, ‘How Technology Is Destroying Jobs’, MIT Technology Review, 12 June 2013, <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/>


Enjoy the article?

Did you find this article informative? Please consider contributing to Eurasia Review, as we are truly independent and do not receive financial support from any institution, corporation or organization.


 

Gateway House

Gateway House

Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations is a foreign policy think-tank established in 2009, to engage India’s leading corporations and individuals in debate and scholarship on India’s foreign policy and its role in global affairs. Gateway House’s studies programme will be at the heart of the institute’s scholarship, with original research by global and local scholars in Geo-economics, Geopolitics, Foreign Policy analysis, Bilateral relations, Democracy and nation-building, National security, ethnic conflict and terrorism, Science, technology and innovation, and Energy and Environment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CLOSE
CLOSE