Increased global interconnection: increased cross-border flows of people, goods, energy, email, TV and radio signals, data, drugs, terrorists, weapons, carbon dioxide , food, dollars and, of course, viruses (biological or software) – It has been a defining feature of the modern world. However, the question is whether globalization has reached its peak and, if so, whether the following should be welcomed or fought.
Undoubtedly, people and goods have always circulated around the world, whether on the high seas or on the ancient Silk Road. What is different today is the magnitude, speed and variety of these flows. Its consequences are already significant and are becoming increasingly so. If the rivalries between the great powers, and the way they have been managed or mismanaged, have shaped much of the history of the past few centuries, the present era is more likely to be defined. by global challenges and the way they are treated by the world. world.
Globalization has been fueled by modern technology, jet planes and satellites on the Internet, as well as policies that have opened markets to trade and investment. Stability and instability have fostered it, the former by promoting trade and tourism, and the latter by fueling the flow of migrants and refugees. For the most part, governments saw globalization as a net benefit and generally contented themselves with letting it take its course.
But globalization, as it emerges in its various forms, can be both destructive and constructive, and in recent years an increasing number of governments and people around the world have viewed it as a risk. net. When it comes to climate change, pandemics and terrorism, all exacerbated by globalization, it is not hard to understand why. But in other areas, the growing opposition to globalization is more complicated.
Related Downloads:
Take trade, which can provide better-paying jobs in export-oriented factories or agriculture, as well as consumer goods that are often better, cheaper, or both. But exports from one country are imports from another country, and imports can crowd out domestic producers and cause unemployment. As a result, opposition to free trade has increased, leading to calls for "fair" or "managed" trade in which the government plays a more important role in limiting imports, promoting exports, or both.
A similar trend is underway in information. The free flow of ideas may seem like a good thing, but it turns out that authoritarian governments see it as a threat to their political control. The Balkan Internet in a "fragmented network". China's "big firewall" has opened the way, blocking access to online news and other suspicious websites and ensuring that Chinese users cannot access content deemed politically sensitive.
The ability of people to cross borders in large numbers has traditionally been accepted, if not welcomed. Immigrants to the United States have been the foundation of the country's economic, political, scientific and cultural success. But many Americans now view immigrants with caution, viewing them as a threat to work, public health, safety, or culture. A similar change has occurred in much of Europe.
All of this translates into a shift towards de-globalization, a process that has costs and limits. Freezing imports can cause inflation, slow consumer choice, slow the pace of innovation, and fight back with their own import restrictions. Blocking ideas can stifle creativity and prevent correction of policy errors. And blocking people at the border can deprive a society of the necessary talent and workers while contributing to the misery of those forced to flee as a result of political or religious persecution, war, gangs or famine.
Deglobalization is also doomed to failure in some policy areas. Borders are not obstacles to climate change. Closing them does not protect a country from the risk of disease, as citizens can easily go home with the infection. Sovereignty does not guarantee security or prosperity.
There is a better way to respond to the challenges and threats of globalization. Effective collective action can address the risks of disease, climate change, cyber attacks, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. No single country can be secure; unilateralism is not a serious political path.
This is what global governance (not government) is. The form of the agreements can and should be adapted to the threat and to those who wish and can cooperate, but there is no viable alternative to multilateralism.
Isolationism is not a strategy. Nor is it denial. We can stick our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, but the tide will come up and we will drown. Globalization is a reality that cannot be ignored or desired. The only option is the best way to respond.
Critics are right in a sense: globalization brings problems and benefits. Societies must become more resilient. Workers need access to lifelong learning, so they are ready for the jobs that arise as new technologies or competition foreigners are eliminating their current jobs. Societies need to be better prepared to deal with inevitable pandemics or extreme weather events caused by climate change.
Globalization is not a problem that governments have to solve; It is a reality to manage. To embrace total deglobalisation is to choose a false remedy, much worse than the disease.