Globalization's Biggest Threat -- Slow World Economic Growth
This article from Forbes is concerned with the idea that the slow global economy that has emerged threatens countries from wanting to continue to expand globalization. Since countries are facing their own economic issues they do not want to become further involved in the world's affairs for fear of harming their own economies further. In addition to just facing economic issues in their own states, countries are also harmed by economic issues in their regions as well which makes states more reluctant to get involved in globalization. The author mentions how the EU is the best example since southern European nations are facing economic turmoil while northern European nations are not. This creates issues between the two groups and causes reluctance in the region and making states want to stay within their own boundaries. While I do not think this trend will necessarily persist once the economic climate gets better, I do believe that this trend will reoccur whenever there is economic issues in the world.
I agree with the premise that governments will turn their focus domestically during international economic crisis. I am not sure if their reasoning is because of "fear of harming their own economies further", but rather internal pressure from constituencies. Because democracies are generally more integrated into the international economy (relative to the more isolated non-democracies), they are most susceptible to the ebbs and flows foreign markets. Politicians may actually want to remain invested in international economies for the sake of stability, BUT they want to stay in office even more. Pressure from voters, who are less aware of possible international repercussions, are more willing to abandon international investment for the sake of self interest. Politicians inevitably cave to the will of their constituents, and shift investment from foreign to domestic.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think the question here is if globalization is supposed to be good for mankind/people/society/etc then why would state leaders be reluctant to continue globalizing during a downturn? To me your article shows a tensions between the pro-free trade (a type of globalization) positions taken at Forbes and some of the actions of states. I guess the answer is that people don't always know or do what is good for them, but that can be a little condescending.
ReplyDeleteI do like that you pointed out it may be tensions between states or blocks of states that could threaten globalization. When things are going good, people don't worry as much as relative gains, but when things are going bad...
And I think that as we discussed in class today about the future of the EU this could be a potential issue. Greece, Spain and Portugal clearly represent the weaker nations in the EU and while they are improving, could be bringing down what the EU can be. I wonder how long it will take for the stronger nations like Germany and France to say enough is enough.
DeleteI think that Michael's statement about the rift between northern and southern European States creating issues that would probably not be as much of a problem if the "economic climate" was better is a great point. It seems as though even the staunches critics of globalization were forced to keep silent while the economy was doing well because interdependence and global cooperation seemed to be working in favor of domestic and international economies. When the economy took a dip, problems emerged and elevated tensions followed closely behind. I also agree with Noah's point about elected officials often caving into the demands of their sometimes ignorant constituents when it comes to international affairs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point Michael that this is more of a reoccurring trend then a persistent or permeant state of economic affairs in the idea of globalization. Also, the example of northern versus southern European countries facing certain economic factors I believe lies more in the problems of the European Union and its different economic standings in the Northern and Southern countries. Since the EU has been developing the members joined from Northern Europe mostly have always had a stronger economic standing, while some southern countries admitted did not/do not have as strong as an economy and governments as its fellow members. The labor mobility and flexibility on certain countries also plays a role. Going off of Grace's and Noah's comments, I believe that when the "economic climate" took a dip, tensions developed and certain economic weaknesses were emphasized. Noah's comment also is great point that constituents have made ignorant decisions that had great influence on decisions on international economic affairs.
ReplyDeleteMichael, your point that involvement in the global economy is somewhat cyclical and dependent on the "health" of the economy at large rather than a persistent problem is one that I agree with. The ebb and flow of global involvement is also one which I think Noah addresses well, as a reflection of the demands of constituents within democracies. Fear of insecurity and vulnerability when interconnected in times of economic turmoil are enough to drive voters towards isolationist behavior, which is why we see such a drop in global involvement in the face of economic crisis. My question for you is whether politicians/leaders themselves have a vested benefit in staying involved in the global trade regardless of the economic climate? Is there a benefit to maintaining global connections in the face of domestic shortcomings?
ReplyDeleteReluctance to embrace globalization is a resounding concern that some countries have. As you mentioned, some countries are more concerned with their own economic state and do not want to be further involved with other countries. However, if globalization is supposed to be something positive, perhaps either these leaders do not know this information or it could also be a combination of other things such as pride, insecurities, voter issues.
ReplyDelete