|
The tensions embedded within von Herder’s tightly interwoven tapestry
leave the future path of globalization uncertain. On the one hand, countries
may decide that the threats are too great and retreat to a more isolated
position. On the other hand, globalization has proven itself time
and again to be an adaptive phenomenon that takes more steps forward
than back. Below are three scenarios that sketch different possibilities of
how globalization may evolve between now and 2015.
The Rise of Localization
In the first scenario, the rise of localization, mounting security threats and
economic uncertainty start to unravel the threads of globalization.
Protectionism and nationalism proliferate. New security regulations
restrict the cross-border movements of potentially harmful cargo,
people, and money. Consequently, international trade and investment
slows substantially. Income inequality both between and among nations
rises sharply. Caught in a cycle of worsening economic conditions, even
traditionally free-market governments respond to intense public pressure
to safeguard jobs. Exporting nations in Asia seek restitution
through the World Trade Organization (WTO), but the multilateral
institution is unable to enforce free trade rules without the consensus of
the advanced economies. Countries dependent on export-led growth,
such as China, suffer serious economic setbacks. As international organizations
lose their power to enforce global rules, they become little
more than debating societies. Global problems, such as international
terrorism, infectious disease, and environmental degradation, lack the
institutions to develop workable global solutions. Countries instead opt
for limited bilateral and regional arrangements.
Many protectionist regulations are implemented to bolster “national
champions”—businesses that reflect each country’s comparative advantage
or its strategic interests in certain crucial industrial sectors. These
companies are granted limited monopolistic power at home in the hopes
that they will become more competitive on the global market.
Multinational companies scale back their international operations, generally
limiting their scope to specific regions or small groups of affiliated
countries, where the perceived risks are low or where local trade agreements
have minimized regional tariffs and taxes.
On a psychological level, individuals are increasingly disdainful of
global culture, global brands, and global norms, and seek refuge in the
sanctuary of national identity. The anti-globalization movement, once
the domain of nongovernmental organizations and street activists, finds
growing resonance in the white-collar suburbs. Unfettered global integration
is believed to cause more harm than good. Confronted with
these fears, the representative democracies of the industrialized world
increasingly favor stability over efficiency.
Bilateral Half-Measures
In the second scenario, bilateral half-measures, countries take incremental
and modest steps toward globalization, but the pace is far slower and more
cautious than during the heady 1990s. As countries seek to maintain their
competitive advantage in the global marketplace, it becomes increasingly
tricky to paper over differences such as levels of agricultural subsidies and
the scope of intellectual property laws. Consequently, multilateral trade
and investment agreements are supplanted by regional treaties among
nations whose interests most closely converge. The world becomes a collage
of contrasting international, regional, and national norms.
With no coherent global standards on issues such as the environment
and biotechnology, companies that seek to expand globally must navigate
a complex regulatory obstacle course. As a result, all but the largest
corporations limit their expansion to a specific region, opting to dominate
in one local standard while competing in other parts of the world
on a more limited basis.
The agendas of world regions have become more divergent, owing
in part to the absence of strong international leadership. Although the
United States maintains a dominant position in the global economy, it
has limited its commitments to multilateral institutions in favor of a
more unilateralist stance. And the U.S. government no longer can claim
the moral high ground on free trade, having embraced mild protectionist
measures to enhance its own economic and military security.
The
expanded European Union still lacks the mechanisms to implement a
common political and foreign policy. A select group of poor, developing
countries that possess valuable natural resources and other industrial
inputs fare rather well, but most are still trying to find their economic
niche. Some of these countries fall back on protectionist policies; others
remain engaged in the global economy and see modest improvements in
overall standards of living.
Homo Economicus
In the final scenario, homo economicus, the world returns to the path of
ever-deepening global integration that began in the 1990s. Global
trade is on a rebound. Offshoring and other capital flows continue, and
their powerful developmental impact on Asia generates positive
returns for Europe and the United States in the form of increased purchasing
power abroad. All major economies are members of the WTO,
which has eliminated the most onerous barriers to international trade.
Still, in some specific areas, free trade negotiations have reached an
impasse, as governments find it difficult to reach consensus on several
thorny issues. Trade in services is booming, and secure digital connections
allow far-flung, truly global production and distribution networks
to emerge.
The countries that benefit the most are those, such as the United
States, China, and India, that are the most open to economic integration.
Advanced economies have relocated the bulk of their manufacturing
capacity to emerging markets. China remains the world’s manufacturing
powerhouse and more and more back-office and service functions
head to India. Developed and developing nations start to bridge the
income inequality gap. This increased globalization does not benefit
everyone, however, and the losers voice their dissatisfaction. Responding
to the public outcry over lost blue-collar jobs, governments divert
more federal spending toward social safety nets and retraining programs,
which helps mollify some of the opposition. Anti-globalization
activists remain a small, but influential, group and focus their efforts on
helping the least developed countries.
More often than not, transnational problems such as infectious diseases,
computer crimes, terrorism, and financial instability foster international cooperation among governments and institutions, since no
country can reasonably hope to completely isolate itself from such
threats. Finally, although “global culture” remains a popular buzzword,
it’s countered by the increased exposure to an ever more diverse set of
people—and all the creativity, ideas, and perspectives they bring to the
table. This return to benign globalization does not offer limitless opportunities
.but they are vast, and they penetrate many levels of society.
|
Disclaimer
