The recent vote for Britain to exit the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America has been described as events bring an end to globalization, and indeed seen as a reversal of the globalization process. A possible reason for this is that both choices are thought to be premised on inward looking objectives rather than having global objectives. This paper offers an opinion that this view is flawed. This is because integration which is used to approach globalization is not a one way process seeking greater levels of integration, but rather a tool to address global challenges which will involve making choices on the degree of integration that is thought necessary at a particular time. In other words, based on what is perceived as necessary for the time selective interconnectivity is used to reflect the level of integration desired. Due to the degree of global income inequality, a high degree of integration will pose difficulties as a shift in production centers as well as immigration will bring not only economic but also socio-cultural and political implications on even the economically strongest nations. The discussion and analysis in this paper is significant as it offers an unexplored perspective into current discussions on the Brexit vote and President Trump's election into office. This is paper is original as it offers a fresh perspective on the deglobalization debate. It is provides a discussion from the global income inequality perspective to explain why and how important are global challenges upon domestic choices and how this in turn relates to globalization and integration. The discussion and analysis is rigorous in that they are precise and robust in examining the historical evolution to the international trading system to explain why the predominant view on deglobalization is a misunderstanding of the matters that influence globalization and integration 1

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to highlight the lack of fairness in the international trading system, including the HR policies in the WTO which have wider implications on the participation of developing countries in the multilateral trading system.Design/methodology/approachThe main research methodology undertaken for this paper is based on the quantitative approach, predominantly from sources such as books, articles and WTO reports.FindingsThere is a correlation between the HR policies employed by the WTO and the usage by developing countries of the WTO DSU.Practical implicationsThe implications of the research/paper indicate that discrimination against developing countries in the international system goes beyond their inherent weakness as poorer members of the international order. Such discrimination is deep rooted within the institutional governance of the system.Social implicationsThe need to re‐evaluate policies practices by international institutions in the light of the developments of the twenty‐first century.Originality/valueThere has been no work undertaken in relation to the use of language as a criterion for job selection and its implications on the participatory value of developing countries in the WTO DSU.

No abstract