Is Globalisation an inevitability?
Critically examining Kofi Annan’s assertion, ‘It has been said that arguing against globalisation is like arguing against the laws of gravity,’ through a cross-disciplinary lens.
Globalisation is a notoriously imprecise term, but a phrase in International Relations that nonetheless has become commonly accepted as an inevitable process. As Kofi Annan noted in 2000, “It has been said that arguing against globalisation is like arguing against the laws of gravity” (Annan 2000). Recently, however, globalisation has come under attack, and ‘anti-globalisation’—specifically national anti-globalisation—is the belligerent. Through critical analysis of Annan’s statement, IR theory analysis and contemporary examples, it will be proven that economic globalisation is no longer as impervious as was once thought, and its effects on the international system has had seemingly negative effects for blue-collar labourers, creating a reinvigorated anti-globalisation movement that spans from individual resistance to state and national pullback. By incorporating the theoretical lens of realism, and recent events in the US and the UK, Annan’s conclusion will be reworked to show that while economic globalisation is certainly still continuing, it does not mean states cannot reject or retract from allowing it to affect them in such a manner as before. The beginning of this essay will seek to first define globalisation and economic globalisation and the arguments around them. Secondly, Annan’s main ideological argument will be defined. Then, realism will be incorporated into Annan’s argument. Pen-ultimately, contemporary examples of President Trump’s election and Britain’s divorce from the EU and their following economic plans will prove the backlash against globalisation. This will help to redefine Annan’s ideological conceptions around globalisation’s inevitability. Finally, a physics based section will analyse and rework Annan’s analogy.
Definition
Globalisation, as previously noted, is a complex term. Arising in the 1980s, the first proponents of the theory proposed a new ‘sweeping’ away of significance of national economies, cultures and territorial boundaries (Martell 2016, 29). As technology improved and economies became increasingly interdependent with the free movement of capital, a new cosmopolitan people would supposedly emerge. This concept is labelled as ‘globalist’. Soon arose many who disagreed with such an abstract account. ‘Sceptics’ reacted to the globalists with criticism on such over-dramatic processes which included little empirical evidence. For them, the nation-state still holds the paramount role as the agents of globalisation; their power will not diminish (Martell 2016, 30). ‘Transformationalists’ took the middle ground. They accept that while the nation-state is not soon to be obsolete, politics are indeed becoming more “global” (McGrew 2008, 16-33). They accept there is clearly change, but historical power structures will remain dominant. While many scholars (Payne, Giddens) have attempted to define such a term encompassing such arguments, this essay will use Manfred Stegar’s definition for its middle grounded approach, seeing it as a, “trans-continental and trans-regional economic, political, cultural and ideological exchanges and interdependent relations” (Steger 2003, 15-6). Economic globalisation is just one part of this greater whole. It refers to the ever-growing interdependence between world economies, resultant of the free flow of international capital, people, information, goods and services, and specifically the continuing improvement of technology. It suggests the “continuing expansion and mutual integration of market frontiers” (Shanquan 2000, 1).
Annan uses the analogy of the laws of gravity as proving globalisation is inarguably happening and will continue to happen. Gravity is a force that affects not only those on Earth, but the entire universe (Weber.edu). To argue against its existence needs only for one to throw a stone into the air, and watch it fall. But Annan’s analogy is even further reaching. It supports the popular claim nearly two decades ago that globalisation is inevitable (Mearsheimer 2006, 86) (Shanquan 2000, 1). Like gravity, it is a force that cannot be stopped, and may never be stopped. It is just a natural part of our existence. While this claim may be true, as globalisation is still ongoing, certainly in its technological and digitisation aspect, economic globalisation is seeing pushback from states who argue against this inevitability (Donald Trump and the Future of Globalization, Chandy and Seidel 2016). Essentially, Annan’s juxtaposition boils down to three arguments concerning globalisation: it is pervasive, it is immutable, and it is inescapable. While the second holds merit, the first and third will be challenged, and can be proven wrong through realism and contemporary examples.
Realism
Realism supports the sceptic thesis that globalisation can be contained by states. While realism has found it hard to account for such changes in the world as it is by-in-large a political theory, it still stresses its core tenets: anarchy and state sovereignty (Wivel 2004, 7). Realism contends that states exist in anarchic system—that international politics occurs in an space where there is no principal, all-encompassing central authority or “9-1-1” that governs the sovereign states in the international system (Fidler 2008, 262) (Mearsheimer 2014, 32). Furthermore, realists claim that the state is the highest authority because it holds more influence than any other agent in international relations, and that its sovereignty is paramount to maintaining this fact (Wivel 2004, 8). Sovereignty is essential for the state because it is its claim to exclusive self-government. As Buzan notes, “…the state is defined in terms of its ability to exert absolute political authority over a given territory and people.” In an anarchic state-based system, states compete for survival and the pursuit of their own interests (Buzan 1998, 388).
For realists, globalisation is seen primarily as an economic endeavour (Gilpin 2000, 19) and has not radically changed the prevailing international system (Kay 2004, 9). Accordingly, globalisation is measured in terms of growth rates in foreign direct investments, exports, world output and trade (Gilpin 2000, 19). Realism is concerned with the state and its actions in the international system, and anything outside of this is beyond the reach of its ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions and hence politics prevails over economics (Buzan 1998, 189). The world economy is dependent on political developments as states independently decide their future for survival in a security seeking competition—which depends on their military and economic might (Wivel 2004, 9). The sovereignty of the state is not affected by the global economy, and the state continues to exist, as Mearsheimer postulates, largely because of nationalism, which “glorifies” it (Mearsheimer 2006, 86).
Anti-Globalisation
National and protectionist anti-globalisation movements strongly resemble a realist perspective of nation-state ability to decide their own path in globalisation—primarily through protectionism. The rapid development of globalisation has begun to enable internal political action from the grassroots level within nation-states (Martell 2016, 239). National anti-globalisers want restrictions on free trade and immigration, and believe the state can provide this. Free trade, they say, causes corporations to outsource from the home state to other, poorer states in the world market. This has the effect of lower wages abroad driving down the wages of the original states’ workers. Furthermore, outsourcing leads to unemployment at home. Supporters of such ideology often have populist rhetoric for protecting domestic workers as well as agriculture and industry (Martell 2016, 242) (Coyle 2016, 24). Economists present clear empirical models that show globalization contributes “to the increasing skill premium, the significant decline in the blue-collar payroll share, and the increasing gap between nonproduction and production workers in U.S. industries” (Brady, Beckfield, Zhao 2007, 322). This camp of anti-globalisers now controls both US and UK economic policy through the election of Donald Trump and the success of the Brexit vote. Anti-globalisers rely on democracy to make their voices heard. They want to save democratic control for ‘ordinary’ people that have been disenfranchised by an alliance of unaccounted corporations and the international community pushing for open markets and deregulation (Gill 2000, 134).
Recent events in contemporary international politics has proven the realist perspective on globalisation correct and the national anti-globalisation movement strong. The election of Donald Trump to office of the President of the United States has serious implications for globalisation and it creates cause for revaluation of the early optimism of Annan (Is globalization’s second wave about to break?, Chandy and Seidel 2016). The national anti-globalisation sentiment that he ran his “America First” political campaign on—promising to build a wall along the border to keep out migrants, claiming to be ready to tax U.S. companies investing overseas, withdrawing from NAFTA, and abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership—are all anti-economic-globalisation policies (Donald Trump and the Future of Globalization, Chandy and Seidel 2016). As Adi Ignatius notes, his election shows “signs of growing popular displeasure with the free movement of trade, capital, people, and information” (Ignatius, 2017). As of today, the US has blocked judicial appointments to the WTO’s appellate body and has seen many companies turn glocal and return from overseas to US soil, increasing jobs in manufacturing by 138,000 (much more than last years’ loss of 34,000) (Economist) (CNN). Trump’s presidency is a steadfast resort to the ways of economic nationalism, undermining any attempt for global connectivity, creating an “unwinding of globalisation” (Holden 2018).
The success of the Brexit campaign in Great Britain also supports a wider movement towards state sovereignty and away from economic globalisation. For globalisation theorists nearly two decades ago, globalisation seemed to be strengthening the EU as they continued to incorporate state interconnectedness and economic interdependency, such as adopting the Euro (European Commission). However, Britain’s vote in the summer of 2016 to leave the EU—the world’s largest trading bloc—and form a single market has shaken the international economic system. Economic globalisation has thrown into clearer distinction economic inequalities. The UK’s ‘Leave’ vote was primarily a vote against globalisation. The slogan, “Let’s take back control”, similar to Trump’s, spoke to the frustration of the millions of national anti-globalisation supporters at their lack of agency in regard to their economic prospects (Coyle 2016, 23-25). This protectionist outlook in both the US and the UK supports realism’s core claim that state sovereignty in an anarchic system will prevail over a globalising force that may wipe away borders (Buzan 1998, 390). More explicitly, it shows that economic globalisation is able to be controlled by the fundamental unit of power: states.
Analysing Annan
Kofi Annan’s analogy was certainly an intelligent one: it connected two forces that, at the time, seemed comparable. Today they are still comparable—however, it is becoming apparent that perhaps his ‘calculations’ about gravity were incorrect. In physics, there is proven to be gravitational forces between two objects at any given time (Newton 1871, 956). This can be seen by the equation:
(F=Gravitational force, g=gravitational constant, M1=mass 1, M2=mass 2, r=distance)
In the equation, the force is inversely proportional to the distance squared. Hence, if you move two objects of mass away from one another, the force is less and less. Even when the objects are extremely far apart, there is still a gravity between them. This supports the concept that if states want to distance themselves from the force of globalisation, they can—but it takes a cataclysmic event and force to set it into motion. As the US and Britain turn inwards economically—a cataclysmic surprise for many—they distance themselves from the global markets and the EU, respectively. Economic globalisation is not inescapable, but they will continue be affected by it, even in a lesser context, because it is immutable. As Chandy and Seidel stated in their empirical experiment over globalisation’s future, it is still unchanging in its progression (Is globalization’s second wave about to break?, Chandy and Seidel 2016). Moreover, as states decrease the economic globalisation within themselves, it proves globalisation is not pervasive everywhere, because its strength varies from state to state.
Conclusion
Kofi Annan’s statement certainly fits with the time it was written. But in the past two decades, more importantly in the last two years, a cataclysmic change in the tide of economic globalisation has occurred, as national anti-globalisation movements, with the help of democracy, have shifted the tide of the states of the US and UK against it. This essay does not seek to say that realism is the only theory applicable to this movement—but it is the most useful in assessing large political events in the anarchic system. It clearly proves that states have the sovereign ability to decide their own economic policy and choose to be less interconnected and interdependent. Anarchy enables this. Clearly, Annan’s statement needs redefinition. Economic globalisation is like the laws of gravity, it is inevitable, but it can be fought, and it can be waned for specific objects. Globally connected does not inherently implicate a state must be actively globally connecting.
