E It’s that time again: it starts on Monday Davos the annual World Economic Forumbut this time with a big change: it’s the first without his Founder Klaus Schwab. After 54 years, Mr. Globalization retired. This also marks the end of a phase of globalization. Since the 1980s, a common world market has emerged more strongly than before, more trade was carried out, and global institutions gained influence. The feeling of living in a world that functioned similarly, in which the continents were moving closer together, spread.
Now, however, developments are going in the opposite direction. Autocratic rulers in Beijing, Moscow and, more recently, Washington divide the world into power blocs. Trump’s America First policy is heading back to the 19th centuryt, is based on the nation state, prefers selfish, unilateral solutions instead of unifying, multilateral ones. Globalization had bad sides, but also good ones. World market production in poor countries created hundreds of millions of new jobs there. The middle classes in China, India, South Africa and other countries grew and poverty fell. Consumers in rich countries received inexpensive consumer goods such as textiles and smartphones.
It was also a political arrangement. Global institutions such as the World Trade Organization settled conflicts and created treaties for the vast majority of states. The United Nations adopted the Millennium Goals to reduce global poverty. Some countries opened up to cultural influences from outside, and a global society seemed to emerge. One place where much of this came together was the World Economic Forum in the Swiss Alps every year.
However, the disadvantages of the new world economy also provoked strong criticism. Many industrial jobs left the industrialized countries. The new jobs in the South were often poorly paid, harmful to health and even deadly. Nation states lose regulatory potential. Investors in the international capital markets asserted their interests over politicians, which is why social security declined in the industrialized countries. That’s why the anti-globalization organization Attac came up with the slogan: “Another world is possible.” While the left, left-wing liberals, Greens, development organizations, church aid organizations and trade unions emphasized the dark sides of globalization, the political right also took up the issue.
Criticism of globalization from left and right was often similar
And in some cases the criticism from left and right was similar. Both sides complained about a loss of political control over the power of the markets. On the other hand, the perspectives also differed. The left was more interested in the problems of people in the poor countries of the South. This gave rise to the concept of deglobalization by the Filipino economist Walden Bello. His question was: Can societies withdraw from the world market? The right, on the other hand, focused on the disadvantages of globalization for the rich states of the north – workers who lost their jobs, governments whose influence declined. In the public debate, the overlapping criticisms reinforced each other, and the pro-globalization centrist governments came under fire from both sides at the same time.
This is also why a realistic revision of left-wing criticism of globalization now appears necessary. Because the world is currently changing massively. It’s about continuing to develop what was and is good about globalization. Instead of “no,” the left should say “yes, but.” About Trade agreement between the European Union and the South American confederation Mercosur. Certain economic and ecological disadvantages of the contract cannot be dismissed, but the advantages far outweigh them. Above all, the agreement is based on fair negotiations and a mutual balance of interests. This is the opposite of what the US President makes his trademark. By the way: With which country does the EU want to trade in the future, if not with a state like Mercosur member Brazil, which is ruled by the left-wing President Lula da Silva?
Nevertheless, we must continue to work to ensure that global economic and trade relations become fairer. The European Supply Chain Directive in its original, stricter form was right because it helped improve working conditions in the Global South. International tax agreements are necessary in order to attract large fortunes everywhere to help finance public tasks. Better globalization is possible.