What is deglobalization?

What is meant by deglobalization, what does it mean for efforts to address global challenges, and are there any benefits to having a less globalized world?

Explainer Updated 12 November 2024 6 minute READ

Professor Markus Kornprobst

Political Science and International Relations Chair, Vienna School of International Studies

Jon Wallace

Deputy Head of News and Comment, Communications and Publishing

Updated on 12 October 2022

What is deglobalization?

Deglobalization is a movement towards a less connected world, characterized by powerful nation states, local solutions, and border controls rather than global institutions, treaties, and free movement.

Is the world in a period of deglobalization?

Some consider the world to have entered a period of deglobalization, citing recent events such as Brexit, Trumpism, the Ukraine war, problems with supply chains, the global energy crisis and the past decade’s decline in foreign direct investment (whereby residents of one country invest long-term in another country’s economy).

It is better to understand the question as one of balance between globalizing and deglobalizing forces.

But it would be wrong to say the world is definitively in a period of deglobalization. Phenomena such as the COVID-19 pandemic, international crime, and climate change demonstrate the continuing relevance of global collaboration and interconnectivity.

It is better to understand the question as one of balance between globalizing and deglobalizing forces. It is fair to say that in the West today, unlike the 1990s, the scales have tipped towards greater suspicion of globalized approaches.

A surge in populist politics in Europe and the US has ridden a wave of opposition to globalized economies and international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NATO. Leaving the European Union (EU) is written into the constitutions of populist parties in countries such as Poland and Hungary.

International organizations have seen their reputations suffer, either condemned as too powerful or too weak. The World Health Organization (WHO) struggled to drive an efficient response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in large part due to uncooperative governments.

The United Nations (UN), founded after the Second World War to save ‘succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ was unable to come up with an adequate response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. The organization is widely viewed as weak and deadlocked, and populist movements tend to ridicule the notion of belonging to an international community of nations.

Evidence of deglobalization taking place

Perhaps the greatest evidence of deglobalization taking place is in the current political imagination of both democracies and authoritarian states.

During recent election campaigns in the US and Germany, climate change – an inescapably international issue - was discussed as a national challenge with mitigation and adaptation efforts characterized as national opportunities.

In China, globalized infrastructure such as the internet is heavily restricted and recast as a tool heavily controlled by the national government, with ‘the great firewall’ turning the free flow of information into an incredibly effective method of political control.

Increasingly policymakers struggle to articulate an appropriate balance between global and local solutions.

Increasingly policymakers struggle to articulate an appropriate balance between global and local solutions. How much should international trade in goods and service be curbed or facilitated? How can the global climate change challenge be met by competing, sometimes hostile nations? How is migration to be managed and its push factors adequately addressed? How are wars and conflict to be managed? To what extent should responses to health emergencies be dealt with by international organizations? 

This effect on the political imagination inevitably has a knock-on effect on the trade and financial flows that underpin global trade, weakening confidence in the safety of international investments.

When was the last period of deglobalization?

Some economists argue there has been a previous period of deglobalization.

The theory argues that a period of globalization followed the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century, lasting to the beginning of World War One. This was then followed by a period of deglobalization which lasted until the early 1950s. This, in turn, was followed by the most recent, highly intensive period of globalization.

However, this implies deglobalization was the dominant force from 1910-1950 but the Great Depression, taking place in the 1930s, could not have happened without globalized financial flows.  

Benefits of deglobalization

It is difficult to argue deglobalizing forces are inherently bad because there are issues which may be best handled domestically. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the danger of relying on global supply chains for essential medical supplies, while climate change demands reductions in the enormous carbon footprint of international trade.

And globalization also contains inherent disadvantages, leading to the emergence of unaccountable world monopolies such as Amazon – which has benefitted tremendously from the pandemic – and worsening income inequality, both between and within countries.

However, a deglobalizing approach does not offer clear solutions for dealing with these issues. A national government’s attempt to regulate Amazon or Google will not be strengthened in isolation, and developing nations cannot be more fairly represented in global trade without worldwide, enforceable trade standards.

Risks of deglobalization

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the greatest threats governments must contend with are global and cannot be contained by borders.

The world’s uneven, fragmented response worsened the pandemic’s effects from the outset. China failed to inform the world of the threat for crucial weeks, hoping to restrict knowledge of the virus to its own national structures.

Governments from Europe to the US took independent and uncoordinated measures to contain transmission. And more recently vaccine protectionism has led to inadequate attempts to vaccinate people in developing countries, risking the emergence of new, vaccine-resistant variants. The pandemic shows where there is a big mismatch between a global threat and deglobalized instincts, a crisis is likely.

The same principle applies to other areas. International crime cannot be effectively countered without more integrated policing and accepted standards of justice. The climate crisis cannot be met by states setting their own independent goals without reference to others’ activities. And cyberattacks cannot be prevented without universal standards of cyber hygiene and international conventions to limit the creation of offensive cyber weapons.

Characteristics of deglobalization

The past decade saw considerable erosion of international treaties and accepted norms relating to democracy, human rights, and arms control – although to what extent these are direct effects of deglobalization is debatable.

The past decade saw considerable erosion of international treaties and accepted norms relating to democracy, human rights, and arms control.

The same period saw democratic backsliding take place across the world, from India and Brazil via Turkey and Poland to Hong Kong and Hungary. In Russia, this backsliding has advanced so far that the regime transitioned into a fully-fledged authoritarian system.   

In parallel, an undermining of human rights conventions has also occurred. In the 1990s, international humanitarian law was strengthened with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the 1998 Rome Treaty. But major powers such as China, Israel, Russia, and the US never ratified the treaty – many citing national sovereignty – while under the Donald Trump presidency the White House announced it would no longer cooperate with the court.

The 1990s and 2000s also saw considerable progress on international arms control with the 1997 Ottawa Treaty on landmines, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, and New START in 2010 continuing limits on strategic nuclear weapons. Additionally, France returned to full membership of NATO in 2009, strengthening the international alliance.

However, the threat of proliferation has increased in recent years as major powers invest in highly advanced weapons which threaten to undermine treaties such as START.

Cooperation on arms control has been damaged by Russia’s repeated, (if indirect), threats to use nuclear weapons during its war in Ukraine. Meanwhile cluster bombs are alleged to have been used in the Syrian conflict while landmines are said to have been deployed in Myanmar.

The Trump presidency shook belief in US commitment to NATO, while the 2021 AUKUS treaty created further division between France, the UK, and the US, arguably the three most crucial military powers in the alliance.

The future of deglobalization

Human history is about greater and greater integration between local powers – first in small city states, then bigger national political entities, then larger regional political entities such as the EU. It is the creation of the larger international political blocks able to manage the effects of globalization which is currently faltering.

National politicians are naturally reluctant to concede power and responsibility to international institutions but can make them useful scapegoats for the failure to address international crises. Citizens worry about losing national identity and cohesion with the merging of their states into supranational blocks.

But technology has unleashed powerful globalized forces which are here to stay, whether that is in international travel, finance, and trade, or borderless criminal, terrorist, and health threats.

Allowing international agreements and institutions to decay only makes the world less efficient in its efforts to safeguard peace and security, hold international corporations to account, keep citizens safe and healthy, and prevent exploitation of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

Deglobalization may pass quickly but it could remain until policymakers are able to define international institutions with sufficient power to react efficiently and strong democratic accountability. Failing to do may pave the way for more misunderstanding, conflict, and a deepening of health and environmental crises.

The deglobalization edition of International Affairs

The September 2021 edition of International Affairs studies the concept of deglobalization in three main areas – agency, institutions, and policy.

Agency:
Deglobalization does not just happen, it is not an external force that people passively encounter. The new edition looks at how states, populists, and others drive deglobalization through their actions.

Institutions:
The international order in place since the end of World War Two is under more pressure than ever before. Articles in the International Affairs deglobalization edition examine the effects on various global institutions and studies how they relate to each other.

Policy areas:
Articles examine how deglobalization is being felt across various policy sectors such as peacekeeping, economics, and health.