Politics

Деконструирование деглобализации

Sep 12, 2017 Harold James

ПРИНСТОН – Яростная риторика президента США Дональда Трампа и его советников по вопросам торговли и иммиграции заставили некоторых задуматься о том, не оказалась ли глобализация под угрозой в современную эпоху. Если это так, еще более уместный вопрос заключается в том, будет ли ее конец сопровождаться насилием.

На фондовых рынках продолжает нарастать нервозность из-за воспоминаний о тех моментах в прошлом, когда международной экономической интеграции был дан обратный ход. Новые торговые войны или военные конфликты вполне могут разрушить сложные коммерческие взаимосвязи, которые обеспечивали процветание со времен второй мировой войны.

В предыдущих эпизодах деглобализации катастрофические события, такие как первая мировая война или финансовый крах 1929 года, нарушали потоки товаров, финансов и людей, связывавшие страны воедино. Одним из результатов этих кризисов было то, что национальная принадлежность и гражданство становились ключевыми компонентами политической и общественной жизни.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Harold James

Writing for PS since 2001
215 Commentaries

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University. A specialist on German economic history and on globalization, he is a co-author of The Euro and The Battle of Ideas, and the author of The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History of the Legendary German Firm, Making the European Monetary Union, and The War of Words.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

Madurai Padmanabhan Sep 18, 2017

Globalisation since WWII "led to prosperity" of a chosen few based on the order determined by a few chosen nations. The lack of inflation in the developed markets, debt and inequality have brought the realities of the developing world to the "Unchosen" in the developed world. Meanwhile the "unchosen" nations believe they should have a say in the new order, so that the redistribution of international trade growth is not privileged to those who came first with more capital. China's BRI is an attempt to redeploy its own minted capital, that has perhaps hollowed the coffers in other sovereigns.
Under these circumstances, deglobalisation should lead to a new balance. New players, new geopolitical realities, new power relations and maybe even new political systems. Disruption is not just a technological phenomenon. People in the know trigger it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Sep 17, 2017

There is an ebb and flow throughout the natural world, Mother Nature's world. Evidence of this exists in the private sector as companies go from centralization to decentralization, back and forth. History shows us the same happens in the sovereign world via the growth and contraction of empires.

At some point trends can reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. When that happens there is movement the other direction. This is where we appear to be in the globalization trend.

The current globalization trend started in the 1970s, gained traction in the 1980s, significant momentum in the 1990s, then probably peaked out in general value creation for developed economies in the 2000s. Now the US middle class is declining so voter focus naturally turns inward.

The changing direction risk comes from the pace of that change.

Four decades of growing globalization created sizable and now relatively mature infrastructures. Growing interconnectivity created growing interdependence. Tearing these infrastructures down over night results in the negative outcomes discussed in James' essay. But history has shown us it is hard, if not impossible, to accept a gradual change of socioeconomic tide moving the opposite direction.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" was the attitude taken as the decentralization (globalization) trend proceeded to grow momentum. But once there's recognition that something is "broken" the nature of society is to demand an immediate solution.

It is important to find the likely catalyst(s) that can lead to a rapid unraveling resulting in chaos. What institution(s) today are key to the current global environment maintaining its status quo?

The two most interesting possibilities are the threats to data security and fiat currency. The former continues to challenge us today while the latter came under obvious attack during the global financial crisis.

As we see today, there's no slowing down the threats to data security. And our solution to fiat currency risk has been the massive fiscal deficit and monetary stimulus growth since 08/09.

Unfortunately, reversions to the mean generally don't happen gradually. It's generally a matter of when not if.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dick Mazess Sep 17, 2017

This entire article examines the emotional and ideational sequelae of undelying changes in technological and economic structures, and their political manifestations (ex: internationalization of corporatocracy), as if these cultural personality traits were the causes of change not the inevitable consequences.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose Oyola Sep 17, 2017

Global warming effects have exacerbated the impact of globalization on income inequality. Inflows of immigrants from North Africa and Middle East are triggered partly by worsening agricultural conditions in those areas.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 15, 2017

Harold James says anti-immigration and anti-globalisation rhetoric predates Trump's fiery rants on "trade and immigration." His policy might confirm the "deglobalisation" process, but not accelerate it. If ever the "current era of globalization is now at risk," perhaps because our finance, trade and globalisation have reached their peak. Globalization seems have slowed since the 2008 financial, with "smaller" financial flows today; and, "since 2014, international trade has grown at a slower rate than production for the first time since WWII."
The author's "pertinent question is whether the end (of our globalized economy) will be accompanied by violence." While Trump had during his campaign signalled a US retreat from securing the current global order, China seems willing to take the place with its own "Marshall Plan" that could cost up to $1 trillion. Since Xi Jinping took office in 2013 he launched his “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims "to unite Eurasia through infrastructure and investment."
In the face of "previous episodes of deglobalization," today's leaders see an incentive to uphold the status quo. Economic nationalism - like protectionist policy - was toxic and had led to "catastrophic events such as World War I or the financial crash of 1929," disrupting "the flows of commerce, finance" etc. The two World Wars and other major conflicts "were all preceded by financial crises," caused by "wild exuberance" - the 1907 crash; and the 1929 crash, the 1931 European banking crisis, and the Great Depression between 1929-1939.
But history had seen the "same pattern of reversal and disintegration" towards the end of the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty. Historians say the American and the French Revolutions were also "deglobalizing" events that rejected "foreign rule" or foreign alliances, striving for self-determination and asserting "new rules of citizenship."
What is a paradox is that, with the help of science and technology the "modern political society is predisposed toward deglobalization." We learn very soon "when the emotional balance of a society changes," thanks to the power of emotionally-laden rhetoric and the ability of leaders to directly communicate with the public. Opportunists and populists emerge from "social turmoil" and their "governing mentality leads to rash, short-sighted, inconsistent, and otherwise bad decisions." In a world of interdependence, "when poor decision-making in one country adversely affects other countries, it can then trigger a vicious circle of retaliation and escalation."
The author identifies "three related emotions, in particular, /that/ have fueled backlashes against globalization: fear, suspicion, and anomie." These strong feelings are intrinsically linked to the dark side of our human nature. When people are greedy, they also fear of losing their gains; uncertainty fuels anxiety and "suspicious minds" often develop into paranoia. As a result foreigners are being scapegoated and globalization is seen as an undercurrent that aims to "erode core values," identity and way of life etc.
The past has shown that "tackling the emotional roots of deglobalization will require an enormous feat of social imagination. The task before us is nothing less than to reestablish a universal sense of human dignity and purpose." While the forces of globalization may be receding, the author says "there is one major area of international connectivity that shows no sign of declining: the exchange of information. Global data flows will continue to increase, constituting a growing share of economic value."
It remains to be seen whether "digital globalization also /creates/ new sources of meaning." But there is the fear that "the new interconnectivity has the paradoxical effect of making people feel more isolated and adrift, those people will pick old imagined certainties over globalization any day." We human beings are creatures of habits. It is easier to stick to the familiar than to face the challenge our interconnected world brings.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Sep 12, 2017

'Social turmoil often gives rise to new leaders whose governing mentality leads to rash, short-sighted, inconsistent, and otherwise bad decisions.' (H James). As against the rash, short sighted, inconsistent, and otherwise bad decisions that lead to the current social turmoil. Or did this social turmoil drop off a Xmas tree. 'Experimental artists and social-media experts would say... '... anything but their prayers. Thespians are not actually much use other than in theatre. You are surely not suggesting experimental artists set social policy are you. It is exactly the shortsighted rash administration decisions and policy, that created the current globalism mess which is seen as disenfranchisement by voters who wish to see local decision making not edicts and demands issued from afar. The entire definition of democracy is local decision making whereas globalism is decision making made from afar, which is why globalism will be neutered by democracy. The two cannot co-exist equally, one has to have dominance, and that will be democracy.
- Mike Green Sep 12, 2017
  
  globalization is on the decline because it was a lie. instead of allowing US companies and THEIR EMPLOYEES to grow internationally, expand and prosper. globalization destroyed the middle class and benefitted only the stockholders and upper management.
  - Francisco Coelho Sep 13, 2017
    
    Globalization is not about US. It's about human kind. In what concerns human development, globalization itself has made infinitly more good than evel, specially among the developing economies.
    - Steve Hurst Sep 15, 2017
      
      Francisco. You can consider it a positive if you want but that is irrelevant to the losers in the West who have reached sufficient numbers to influence the ballot box. Globalisation is a wealth transfer from West to developing and from the majority to the 1%. It is also about the delivery of never ending volumes of foreign labour into the labour supply and demand balance in favour of capital. Governments are elected by local citizens to deal with local needs and security not far off remote needs of other countries and their citizens
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Sep 12, 2017

Donald Trump , even if wins second term , will be gone forever. But Trumpies will get to know power and blood and it will be a turning point. in world order. Every body for himself!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/NmFk1Jsru

Деконструирование деглобализации

Subscribe to PS Digital

The Clash of the Data Titans

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Деконструирование деглобализации

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification