In my view, Raghuram Rajan is wrong. The world is not a haven for the "upper middle class". It is a haven for the top 0.5%. And, in India, that may be the top 0.005%.

“Starting mainly in the 1980s, governments allowed goods, services, capital, and data to move across borders, with few controls. Market capitalism triumphed, and its economic rules applied worldwide”
Nonsense! In 1988, with Basel I, and later II and III basically global risk weighted bank capital requirements were introduced. These directed/distorted the allocation of bank credit. The following confession should suffice. “The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which bank capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages” Paul Volcker, 2018
For true market capitalism to exist, credit needs to be allocated based on risk adjusted interest rates, and not based on risk adjusted returns on some regulatory decreed equity.

Rajan is not quite correct. The world has become a nirvana only for a specific segment of only a specific sort of the 1%. There are extreme anomalies based on their premise
or non-perception of any conceptual idea of any type, form or projection of any state of any real or imagined nirvana.

BTW, I found the Peterson Directory of Secondary Educational Institutions quite handy, when I used the directory to make the decision to discover an appropriate school for my son.

RE:"And it is currently unclear whether they can reconcile the two agendas." Personality maneuvers cannot replace the lack of focused enlightened thinking of poor leaders. Their fallacy is the continued focus on only generating money. The real need is to focus all efforts on education of each citizen. Their fallacy is only "creating" faulty, destructive and counter-productive mechanisms and application of poor thought with no purpose.

"Belonging" is a social phenomenon satisfied through the security provided by being a respected and considered member of either the nation (as favored citizen), the elite economic class or an established member of a religious group that supports your self-esteem and sense of your own self-value within your group.

Re the last sentence in this piece, "The old globalization is dying, but the new one has yet to be born", the old globalization was the political takeover of the world by the financial elites in their member nations and the glorification of their status (Communists in China, Oligarchs in the EU and Russia, and the controllers of the Banking/Financial markets in America).

The old global order is dying because those who control the world financial system have used their power to coopt political power worldwide which has diminished the value of "Belonging" to any group other than the financial Elites (e.g. religious, citizen, race, etc.).

The only meaningful "Belonging" under the [old] Global New World Order was to be one of those financial elites that controlled everyone's lives through their political power. If you did not comply with their wishes you were impoverished -- which is what happened to American Workers who [unionized] wanted 'exorbitant' wages -- as the world financial Elites took their jobs overseas and left them bereft in their own country. Your citizenship meant/means nothing to them because they have no national loyalty, and under the political power they gained through abusing their financial power they made enemies out of all other groups that previously held social meaning (religion, national citizenry, community).

I can only conclude that a 'new globalization' is nothing more than the rise of "Governments of the People, by the People, for the People" against governments of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

In other words, the change from the old globalization to the new one is nothing more than a worldwide Democratic Socialist Revolution against an abusive Internationalist World Financial Order that regards "The People" as "The Problem".