"Quantifying Disruptive Trade Policies"   CESifo Working Paper No. 7382 EDWARD J. BALISTRERI , CHRISTOPH BOEHRINGER , THOMAS RUTHERFORD ,  Mainstream economic wisdom favoring cooperative free trade is challenged by a wave of disruptive trade policies. In this paper, we provide quantitative evidence concerning the economic impacts of tariffs implemented by the United States in 2018 and the subsequent retaliations by partner countries. Our analysis builds on a multi-region multi-sector general-equilibrium simulation model of the global economy that includes an innovative monopolistic-competition structure of bilateral representative firms.

In my recent VOX column I argue that deglobalisation is here and enforces a structural transformation of the world economy. Political turbulence can perhaps hasten this process. To some observers, delays to the big topical trade shocks may therefore seem to help to turn the tide. Brexit and ‘Make America Great Again’ are, however, symptoms of underlying processes that have already generated significant trade and investment uncertainty and this is already exercising a concrete impact on trade and investment flows as firms and consumers are adjusting behaviour in anticipation of further trade shocks. The delay of the deadlines provides a pause at best. It is therefore pertinent to rethink global economic governance and make it resistant to deglobalisation. Read more

Globalisation has had a profound effect on economic outcomes, especially in emerging market economies (EMEs). In particular, it is widely acknowledged to have been a major driver of the strong income growth and reduction in poverty witnessed in EMEs in the past few decades. Despite these benefits, there has recently been a backlash against globalisation and growing support for inward looking policies in many parts of the world. Against this backdrop, this volume takes stock of the EME experience with two facets of globalisation-trade and migration. It summarises different country experiences with regard to the aggregate as well as distributional consequences. In doing so, it highlights several examples and avenues for policy action to continue to harness the benefits of globalisation while limiting the costs.

Mario Arturo Ruiz Estrada, Donghyun Park, Alam Khan and Muhammad Tahir present a new model on the impact of terrorism on the Deglobalization process. The channels are faster poverty expansion, largest flows of refugees, expansion of trade protectionism, and last but not least, the dramatic expansion of economic desgrowth. They apply their DGE-Model to three Muslim countries, namely Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the period  1999–2018, a period which witnessed acceleration of Deglobalization and expansion of terrorism in those three countries. Estrada, Mario Arturo Ruiz, Donghyun Park, Alam Khan, and Muhammad Tahir. "Is terrorism, poverty, and refugees the dark side of globalization?."  Quality & Quantity  (2019): 1-13.

As usual, there is mostly continuity in Laos: solid economic growth, a strong ruling communist party, increasing dependence on China, growing inequality, and tight control of civil society. A new trend, apart from the return of a socialist rhetoric, is an official appraisal of self-sufficiency and anti-globalization. Boike  Rehbein. "Laos in 2018: Deglobalization?."  Asian Survey  59.1 (2019): 193-197.

According to economist Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, there are three risks attributed to deglobalization. These attributes are a reduction of the level of international integration of economies into long-run growth, a loss of interaction/co-movement of economies and a reduction of trade policies which would legitimize protectionism and ultimately lead to a risk of international conflict Read more here

Deglobalisation is not the mirror image of globalisation. The losers of globalisation will thus not be the winners of deglobalisation. Indeed, the vulnerable and poor will be the big losers of deglobalisation both in the Global North and Global South. Read here