On the brink of deglobalisation…again

Abstract

This article provides an empirical analysis of the disruption of (neo)classical/liberal globalisation during the Great Depression and the Great Recession, identifying challenges to existing knowledges and approaches, in particular the mainstream analysis that studied the Great Recession in isolation, treating it as a special case and ignoring political covariates of deglobalisation processes. The econometric analysis (an unbalanced panel of 31 countries in the 1928-1932 and 128 countries in 2008-2012) does not find an impact from the level of development on deglobalisation. The manufacturing import share is significantly associated with stronger deglobalisation (this effect is stronger in the 1930s than in the 2000s). The political system is highly significant in both 1930s and 2000s, but the sign of its impact is opposite. In the 1930s, autocratic rule and dictatorship are associated with stronger deglobalisation; in the 2000s, democracy is associated with stronger deglobalisation.

Assessing the Belt and Road Initiative as a narrative: Implications for institutional change and international firm strategy

“…- Protectionist trade tariffs, railroad tariffs, hygiene requirements for imports, quotas (James 2018 ) result in world trade collapse (van Bergeijk 2018 )…”

“…- Democratic calls for deglobalization (van Bergeijk 2018 ) and a surge in support for protectionist and nationalist political parties and leaders (Meyer 2017 )…”

“…- Supply chain expansion via reduced transportation costs (Braga 2018 ; Kobrin 2017 ; van Bergeijk 2018 )…”

“…Lower communication and transportation costs and the spread of technology, especially technology associated with digital flows (Bang and Markeset 2012 ; Braga 2018 ) and born-global entrepreneurs (Prashantham et al 2017 ), are all forces that will likewise naturally turn into narrative drivers of globalization. In contrast, deglobalization’s drivers include national security concerns and geopolitics (Allison 2017 ; Meyer 2017 ; van Bergeijk 2018 ) or domestic politics that seek to protect people and firms losing from globalization (James 2018 ; Kobrin 2017 ; Stiglitz 2005 ).…”

EU Cohesion Policy and spatial economic growth: trajectories in economic thought

“…From an economic growth stance, a further fostering of the urban focus would create the best effects overall, however this would mean a final farewell to positions that seek to decrease and diminish regional (and social) inequalities. Of recent concern are the developments of rising populism and an aspiration for de-globalisation which have arisen in left-behind regions (Essletzbichler et al, 2018;van Bergeijk, 2018), and of note is Rodriguez-Pose (2018, p. 205) who warns that '[w]ithdrawing intervention in these areas will inevitably add fuel to the fire'. In this respect, any future decision on focusing increasingly on urban agglomerations or lagging peripheries is not to be seen as a sectoral or regional policy problem, but more represents Europe's cardinal identity question: Is the European Union finally a single market of global size, or a social union, or obsolete.…”