Showing posts from June, 2019


What remains unclear is how deglobalization, isolationism and all the radically disruptive movements and politics in-between will shape transnational corporations’ (TNCs) ... ‘Globalisolationism’ is conceptualized as a radically non-compromising coexistence of globalization and isolationism by design, aided by new information technologies, reactivated mass consciousness and slack political resources. It is characterized by the radical pursuit of new deals within the global geopolitical and economic order; renegotiation of existing deals for resource appropriation and democratic space for the marginalized; the collapse of the old political order via auto-implosion as a beneficial constraint; and the defence of the status quo in global resource and environmental governance due to ‘translocal’ insurrection. Frederick Aphen. "Globalisolationism and its Implications for TNCs’ Global Responsibility." Humanistic Management Journal (2019): 1-22.

The trump phenomenon

For many, the “Trump phenomenon” represents an authoritarian phase of the neoliberal project. For others, it is a manifestation of a broader populist project that is the antithesis of, and arises in part as a reaction against, neoliberalism. Across Europe, political parties hitherto identified with the Far Right and thus beyond the margins of “respectable” politics have sought to reinvent themselves as legitimate voices within this populist framework. The UK “Brexit” vote and the policies of the May administration further suggest a coalition emerging around the Far Right and those on the nationalist wing of conservatism, putting them at odds with the neoliberals and neoconservatives who have dominated the political Right for some time, and who have been the principal drivers of capitalist globalization. This begs the question—does the new populism signal the end of the globalization project? Darren O’Byrne, . "The Rise of Populism, the Demise of the Neoliberal and Neoconservativ

Not the beginning and not the end

Rana Foroohar writes: Time to rethink investment choices and re-read history. The US also stepped up pressure on its allies to limit Huawei’s ability to do business in their markets — something that mirrors sentiment already brewing in places including Germany, which is once again pushing industrial policy and “national champions”. This underscores the reality that the political impetus for deglobalisation does not begin and end with the Trump administration. It is no longer limited to the far-right or far-left. Most of the announced Democratic presidential hopefuls for 2020 — Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown — appear to be coming around to the view that the economic relationship between the US and China will have to substantially change. Deglobalisation is a complex, slow-burn process and not yet a done deal. Read more

Maurice Button on the need for inclusiveness as an antidote against deglobalization

we are currently experiencing a push back against globalisation, free trade and the institutions that have supported the world economic order since 1945. Populist politicians have stoked up discontent and promised simplistic solutions to those in society that have felt left behind, marginalized, alienated or simply cheated by income inequality in their countries. However, there are valid reasons for this discontent and, if globalization, with its enormous capacity to generate However, there are valid reasons for this discontent and, if globalization, with its enormous capacity to generate wealth and be a force for good in society, is going to regain the ascendancy and win the argument against populist politicians, then it does need to change. Its proponents need to listen to their critics and to respond. Read more

Michael A. Witt, INSEAD on the impact of a new cold war

We are clearly seeing evidence of withdrawal strategies being implemented, on both sides of the divide. Chinese foreign direct investment in the US seems to have dropped 73 percent last year alone. US and other Western firms are moving operations to other parts of Asia or to the Americas, following a new approach known as “ABC”: Anywhere But China. Such withdrawal will come at the expense of smaller reach and higher costs from foregone supply chain optimisation. Read more Also read:  (2014)

Nicholas Rilley on the cost of deglobalization

In absolute terms there are no winners from deglobalisation and from an investment perspective the risk to profit margins is very real. However, deglobalisation is probably too strong, as supply chains will ultimately adapt to the changing environment, although this will take time and cost money. Read more

BNP Paris on risk of trade war

Trade war risks are back in focus Investors are grappling with another wave of Sino-US trade war angst Markets have suffered from renewed volatility De-globalisation is at the heart of the trade war We have long argued that there is more than trade to Sino-US tensions and de-globalisation is a medium to long-term theme. We are not surprised to see a flare-up in tensions Read more

Odilon Almeida on Globalisation or deglobalisation


Shawn McBride: Deglobalization is Coming and Here’s Why

My personal bet is that we are already seeing hints of the future. Technology, and tech companies, are about to be pulled into regions and countries. Soon it will be harder and harder to be a true global player and participate in the entire world. Read more