“Globalisation: The rise and fall of an idea that swept the world” [CITATION Sav17 \ 1033 ] is a critical chronicle on the failure of neoliberalism, a consideration on how this has led to relevant changes in contemporary world politics and created unrest among major players in the global economy. In this article, Nikil Saval comments on the extended debate about the benefits and hindrances of globalisation. He intends to show how the criticisms of globalisation, or more precisely, the theories, policies, approaches and general forces that supported it, have increasingly gained track among policymakers, scholars, social movements and international organisations.
In Saval’s article, the term globalisation is understood and used mainly as referring to a free trade policy which would allow greater and faster movement of goods across borders. His main proposition is that the wide consensus, in support of greater liberalisation in the global market, has faded since its high point in the 1980s and 1990s. To support this, he draws upon the opinions of Western politicians, economists and journalists, as well as the relevant political and social events in present and past times.
In “Globalisation… “, Saval’s argument is supported by the historical parallels between the contemporary debate on globalisation and those throughout the twentieth century. His historical analysis shows how the international trade and financial systems evolved from the gold pattern to the current model, going through periods of great support for further deregulation to others of dealing with the social and economic consequences thereof, thus highlighting past circumstances in which the collapse of international trading systems, focused on free trade, has had severe economic consequences, leading to political and social unrest. This serves to his point that the negative consequences of such policies were rather foreseeable and adds successfully to his critique.
There are two main ideas that draw together in Saval’s conclusive paragraphs: the uneven method in which countries have profited from the current trade paradigm; the contradictory nature of globalisation. He argues that although the political and social consequences of this process can no longer be ignored by scholars and politicians, the solution is not yet clear. As the theoretical models, arguing globalisation would catalyse sustained economic growth and animate industrialisation, are discarded by the actual outcomes, the debate seems unable to find its way out of uncertainty and paralysis. Nevertheless, one point is clear to the author: further liberalisation would have extreme negative effects to the world’s economy and political stability. Although the solution to this situation is not clearly stated in the article, Saval’s conclusive ideas suggest the necessity of more compensation, redistribution, and a return to stronger welfare states.
There are three main drawbacks in Saval’s approach. The first concerns a colloquial use of the term globalisation, which has general implications for the analytical framework outlined in the article. Additionally, there is a rather state-centric interpretation of the events described, which limits the inclusion of other relevant actors in the analysis. Finally, the article’s perspective is strongly focused on the West and fails to overcome eurocentrism. To assess the impact of this hindrances in the overall argument, these need to be further explained.
The use of the term economic globalisation in Saval’s article is mostly equivalent to neoliberal globalisation. This interpretation of the term has been criticised for equating it with liberalisation [CITATION Sch07 \p 1475 \ 1033 ] and reducing the scope of the concept to include only a specific set of economic policies, particularly the reduction of trade barriers for goods, as Saval himself admits in his second paragraph[CITATION Sav17 In \ 1033 ].
Even if only the economic perspective is considered, it is arguable that there are processes other than the movement of goods which are more relevant to explain the causes and consequences of neoliberalism. This is supported by authors in the field of international political economy [ CITATION Har15 \ 1033 ][ CITATION Wal15 \ 1033 ] who incorporate to their analysis other factors (distribution of labour, technological progress, foreign investment) and more importantly other actors and institutions (the market itself, transnational companies, states, international organisations) that are noticeably absent or scarcely treated in Saval’s argument.
The debate about the term globalisation is wide and far from its end. However, there are theoretical approaches that identify globalisation with a multidimensional process, that includes relations of an economic nature. In this sense, Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr. [CITATION Ke000 \p 106 In \ 1033 ] identify economic globalism as the dimension related to the movement not only of goods, but also of financial resources, services and ideas, through long distances all over the planet. This puts economic globalisation in the context of a wider process. But even this approach is fragile in sustaining the claim that deeper liberalisation has led to political and social unrest. Saval’s argument can be followed to the point that free-market policies have generated inequality and put downward pressure on wages in developed countries, but it is not sufficient to explain complex processes as BREXIT and the 2016 electoral results in the United States.
Therefore, it is arguable that the article could benefit from the use of perspectives that assume a wider understanding of globalisation: ones that consider other dimensions of the phenomenon and can therefore better explain the complex interrelations between economy, politics and society. Academic formulations that support such a view can be found in the field of international political economy as well as in several of the so-called post-colonial theories of international relations. A seminal combination of both, Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-system theory [ CITATION Wal04 \ 1033 ], is one of the most successful attempts to draw together politics an economy in an explanation of the international. The centre-periphery approach of Wallerstein’s world-system theory, would have proven valuable when attempting to explain the complex relation between developed and developing economies, while also highlighting the political nature thereof. The evasiveness of such political analysis on a process that is essentially political is also a considerable weakness in Saval’s article.
It can also be noticed that the vision of the world presented in this article is rather state-centric. Although the role of international organisations is considered, countries are still the main analytic unit in his logic. This limits the argument to a liberal understanding of the international system, and does not allow a proper assessment of a key actor in contemporary globalisation – transnational corporations. Theorisations such as Susan Strange’s extensive work on the diffusion of power [CITATION Str96 In \I 1033 ], assess the increasing importance of influential multinational corporations in shaping the contemporary international economy to an extent sometimes greater than states, alongside with a variety of other instances such as international bureaucracies, international criminal organisations and civil society associations.
This wider understanding of power could serve the argument of “Globalisation…” by highlighting the diversity of actors, in number and nature, that can be considered when explaining how a set of economic policies, or the failure thereof, can be related to specific social or political events. In other words, abandoning the state-centric paradigm allows not only a more precise understanding of the economic instance of neoliberalism, but also avoids economic reductionism when explaining complex social processes. To be specific, it would allow to consider, for instance, international migration flows and the threat of global terrorism as possible catalysts of the election of Donald Trump or BREXIT, alongside with economic dissatisfaction. This would take the analysis further in scope and depth.
Lastly, it can be argued that the narrative in this article is eurocentric, thus offering a limited approach to a global problem. Although arguments about the effects of globalisations in western societies are perfectly valid, they are not sufficient to explain the global dimension of the phenomenon. The consequences of the neoliberal experiment in Latin America are presented in Saval’s article as collateral; a “preview” [CITATION Sav17 \p 8 \ 1033 ] of the crises to come, instead of considering the continuity of the world-scale process. These limitations are recurrent in western sources of knowledge. Other relevant events in non-European history have been predominantly omitted in the academic and political discourse, with disregard of its actual relevance. Perhaps the most impressive case in Latin America is the Haitian Revolution, as noted by authors like Tomas Reinhardt [CITATION Rei05 In \ 1033 ] and Zeynep Gulsah Capan [CITATION Cap17 \p 2 In \ 1033 J. Additionally, the selection of sources of evidence clearly privileges western economists and politicians.
Overall, “Globalisation..” deals with many core issues in contemporary world politics. His critique to neoliberalism is not developed within a rigorous theoretical framework, yet it does consider relevant dynamics to the current economic, social and political dimensions of the international system. It is another approach, in many necessary, to the complex nature of globalisation.
Finally, Saval’s concluding call for more redistribution suggests a return to policies of the past, that have failed to resist the vigour of following waves of liberalisation. The effectiveness of such proposition is difficult to assess, but ultimately, a liberal understanding of world politics should not be expected to overcome the international system and institutions that have emerged therefrom. Nevertheless, the crisis of neoliberalism is presented, and the need for a change is clearly stated.
Works Cited
- Capan, Z. G., 2017. Decolonising International Relations. Third Wold Quarterly, 38(1), pp. 1- 15.
- Harvey, D., 2015. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. In: F. J. Lechner & J. Boli, eds. The GLobalisation Reader. 5th ed. s.l.:Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 71-16.
- Keohane, R. O. & Nye Jr., J. S., 2000. Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?). Foreign Policy, Spring(118), pp. 104-119.
- Reinhardt, T., 2005. 200 Years of Forgetting: Hushing up the Haitian Revolution. Journal of Black Studies, 35(4), pp. 246-261.
- Saval, N., 2017. Globalisation: The rise and fall of an idea that swept the world. The Guardian, 14 July. Scholte, J. A., 2007. Defining Globalisation. The World Economy, 31(11), pp. 1471-1502.
- Strange, S., 1996. Authority Beyond the States. In: The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in International Relations), pp. 91-99. Wallerstein, I., 2004. World-systems analysis: an introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.
- Wallerstein, I., 2015. The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy. In: F. J. Lechner & J. Boli, eds. The Globalisation Reader. 5th ed. s.I.:Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 56-62.
