The Future of GlobalizationPAUL HIRSTAND GRAHAME THOMPSONABSTRACTThis article considers the future of ‘globalization’, conceived here asprocesses promoting international interconnectedness. Three questionsare examined. First, is contemporary globalization unusual compared topast episodes such as 1850–1914? Then there was rapid growth in trade,capital flows and migration comparable to or greater than today. Therewas also a policy backlash and the widespread adoption of protectionist policies. Second, are contemporary globalization processes undermining national economies and thus hollowing out states? On thecontrary, the major states are reinforced in their role of internationalactors. However, both the global economy and national governmentswill face crucial challenges during this century, the chief of which is climate change. Such changes will tend to foster conflict and thus reinforce the role of the state, but in a context where governance at everylevel will be harder to achieve.Third, is economic globalization likely toincrease or decrease? Evidence about the effects of borders and thelimits to trade expansion are presented, which indicate that we could beclose to the limits of feasible globalization.Keywords: capital flows; climate change; conflict; globalization; governanceBefore we consider the future of ‘globalization’ we must define its natureand outline its past. This is a complex and contested concept. If we takegrowing international interconnectedness — increasing flows of trade,investment and communications between nations — to be what mostpeople mean by the term, then ‘globalization’ has been happening for thepast 50 years. Moreover, new technologies — long distance jets, satellites,IT, fibre optic cables — have made international travel, media and financialexchanges far easier, enabling dramatic increases in traffic volumes.The keyquestions are threefold. First, are these economic and social processes linking nations since 1945 unprecedented? Second, are these processes developing at the expense of state and national governance, that is, are nationaleconomies dissolving into a global marketplace and relations betweenstates becoming secondary to more complex interactions between a varietyof economic, social and political agencies? Third, is international economicCooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies AssociationVol. 37(3): 247–265. Copyright ©2002 NISASage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)0010-8367[200209]37:3;247–265;027671interconnectedness set to increase or decrease? Each of these questions isdiscussed in turn in a distinct section of the article.The History of GlobalizationNaturally, these questions are almost impossible to answer in the scale of ashort article. We are sceptical about many of the claims in the literature, inparticular that national economies are dissolving. We refer readers to whatwe judge to be the best presentations of both sides of the debate (Held et al.,1999; Hirst and Thompson, 1999). Here we focus on two primary issues: thefuture of international governance and the likely limits to economic globalization. The first thing to note is that although we have had a long period ofgrowing international interconnectedness there is no reason to assume thatsuch processes will continue indefinitely or that they have an inherentdynamic that prevails over all countervailing forces. Globalization has a history.The 50 years between 1950 and 2000 are not remarkable compared withthe period 1850 to 1914 — when flows of merchandise trade, capital investment and labour migration were all comparable to or greater than those oftoday (Hirst and Thompson, 1999: ch. 2).Technological change in the form ofinternational telegraph cables unified markets and led to price and interestrate convergence of a kind that has never been equalled since. Financial integration was far greater, and levels of capital export from the major lendercountries unprecedented. Economic convergence in prices and wages acrossthe Atlantic was largely achieved by vast flows of surplus labour fromEurope to the New World (O’Rourke and Williamson, 1999).This process isnot operating on the same scale today. Migration flows are relatively smallerand the pressure in all developed countries is to further restrict migration. Ifthe key engine of international convergence in the first great phase of globalization no longer operates, that is because it was one of the first targets ofan anti-globalization public policy backlash. Most major recipient countriesfollowed the lead of the USA in the early twentieth century in restrictingmigration. Globalization processes were under challenge well before 1914.Many countries introduced protective tariffs, seeking to protect farmersagainst the competition of American wheat or to shelter emerging manufacturing sectors (James, 2001).Thus 1914 shattered a world order that was slowly unravelling under thepressure of competing national policies. In the inter-war period, attempts tore-create the institutions of the belle époque, including the gold standard,failed. The result was a period of intense antagonistic competition tomonopolize markets and raw materials. The experience of the 1930s confirmed that if free trade has its problems then generalized competitive protectionism is a disaster.This should be borne in mind when ‘anti-globalizers’criticize the World Trade Organization (WTO) and favour the ‘localization’of trade. The world order created by the USA after 1945 attempted toaddress the sources of the earlier crisis and to institutionalize internationaleconomic liberalism. One should remember that this was only possiblebecause of the Allied military victory and the unassailable economic domi-248 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)nance of the USA. Globalization was restored by military force andnational policy; it was not a ‘natural’ state of affairs. It also rested on a hugeasymmetry, in that the new dominant power, the USA, was willing to acceptthe costs of creating the new regime and to tolerate national protectioniststrategies on the part of clients like Japan and South Korea. This was similar to British policy during the Pax Britannica.The situation is now different. The USA is militarily dominant in a wayno power has been in modern history. North America is the world’s largesteconomy, but the US is no longer willing to act as it did in the immediatepost-1945 period. The US is a major capital importer, it treats the value ofthe Dollar as a matter of national economic management (though it canalso afford to operate a policy of ‘benign neglect’ in respect of the international value of the Dollar because its exports still only comprise about 15%of GDP), its foreign aid is derisory and it promotes trade liberalization inareas where it has a huge competitive advantage, but is unwilling either toopen its own markets in key sectors or to allow national strategies of protection for emerging competing industries in developing countries. All themajor industrial powers, with the partial exception of the UK, created theirmanufacturing sectors under a protectionist regime; Germany, Japan andthe USA included. Current WTO rules prohibit such strategies and forcemost developing countries into manufacturing for export markets in relatively low-value niches. The implication is that current processes of ‘globalization’ are unlikely radically to diminish the gap between the developedand the developing worlds.If ‘globalization’ is conceived as a process that promotes cross-borderexchanges and transterritorial agencies at the expense of nation-states, thenit would be deeply problematic. If all states, including the most powerful,were to cease to be the primary political actors across borders, being displaced by companies, NGOs, regional governments, networks, internationalagencies, etc., then one could anticipate a severe anti-globalization ‘backlash’ as nationally-rooted publics experience a loss of the benefits of domestic governance and increased exposure to international pressures. If themajority of states cease to be effective actors, but the G7 still dominate interms of economic governance and the USA alone dominates militarily,then Western and American dominance will be resented, resisted and challenged both nationally and transnationally in an increasingly unequal andconflictual world. This shows that there are inherent limits to globalizationconceived as a process that leads to the decline of national economies andstate power. A truly global market system, in which international competitive pressures and market forces subsume national economies, and in whichtransnational agencies and networks reduce states to the equivalent of localauthorities, would be vulnerable to multiple political and social threats thatit had no means to counter: international terrorism, commercial piracy,crime, protest movements and national backlash strategies of local withdrawal from the global system. The complete victory of extreme economicliberalism in both policy and fact would most likely spell the end of the system, not as in 1914 in inter-state war, but in a series of terrorist outrages,local economic crises — like that in Argentina, major crises in the financialHIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 249markets, and the re-politicization of national governance, leading to therestoration of distinctive local policy regimes.The open international economy is not a ‘natural’ state of affairs to whichthe world reverts by economic logic when the distorting influences of politics on markets are removed. Rather, it depends on state power; economicliberalism has to be instituted and defended. If it is to survive, then its negative effects have to be ameliorated by public policy. Economists have hadto learn this the hard way, but few really understood the extreme fragilityof markets and the dependence of economics on state power before 11September 2001. Globalization can go backwards: it can be impeded — asthe backlash policies of the late nineteenth century showed; and it can bereversed — as the inter-war years demonstrated. The current ‘anti-globalization movement’ is a noisy sign of widespread dissatisfaction, but the realbacklash would come from conventional politicians and would start toshow in new state policies. Such policies would include both national measures and the advocacy of changed policies in international fora like theWTO by states and groups of states. Such policies may be difficult to distinguish in the first instance from the re-regulation that is necessary tocounter the negative consequences of excessive economic liberalism. Amajor backlash against international openness by states, and by legitimateand non-legitimate non-state and transnational actors, can only be prevented by a judicious mixture of appropriate force and governance measures that stabilize markets and protect citizens against unacceptableinsecurity and risk. Both dimensions of policy are necessary, and both willbe expensive — military action and social solidarity need to go together, thelatter essential to underpin and legitimate the former. The future of theopen international trading system in the immediate future (the next 25years) thus rests on appropriate political policies and in the actions of themajor nation-states, and the USA in particular.The Future of Global GovernanceHowever, it would be foolish to look at immediate events alone, and notalso long-term trends (Hirst, 2001). The threats to global stability are multiplying and are likely to become more severe as the twenty-first centuryprogresses. The most serious are only indirectly connected to the currentopen international economy, but create a context in which at worst it couldfail and break down. Many of these threats are unlikely to become criticalin the next 30 years, and so are beyond the scope of normal political calculation, yet they require action now if there is to be any prospect of forestalling or even mitigating them.The most serious is climate change, which is likely to become progressively worse as the century unfolds, and to have destabilizing effects by midcentury and catastrophic consequences by 2080.1 The consequences —turbulent weather, inundations due to rising sea levels, desertification andwater shortages, loss of farm land and the spread of disease — are likely todevelop in chaotic and unpredictable ways that will not be amenable to250 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)adaptation by the kind of incremental action policy-makers are used to.This will affect both developed and developing countries, but the latter arelikely to suffer more, to have fewer resources to respond to the consequences, and they have large populations. A worsening environment islikely to be associated with the displacement of large numbers of climaticrefugees, adding to the existing and growing migratory pressures frompoorer countries. It is also possible that current UN estimates that theworld’s population will peak in 2040 and then decline may prove to bewrong, not least because they are based upon optimistic assumptions abouteconomic development. Insecurity and persistent poverty will lead topeople having more children rather than fewer — thus population pressures may well be another source of turbulence, making the effects of climate change on the displacement of peoples worse.The odds are that the current extreme inequality of global income distribution will continue (Wade and Wolf, 2002). That for the majority of theworld’s poor this will be the result of a failure of domestic economic development rather than direct exploitation by the rich will not make their loteasier to bear. It is prudent to assume that the normal economic processeswill not transform the bulk of the world from developing to developed status without the need for other forms of intervention. Most of the population of Africa, and the majority in East and South Asia and Latin America,will remain poor — part of the 80% who share just 14% of world GDP. Itis highly unlikely that the major developing nations — Brazil, China, India,Indonesia and Nigeria — will effect the same transition to advanced industrialism as Japan or South Korea (Hirst and Thompson, 1999: ch. 5). Unevenindustrialization heavily oriented toward export markets will leave hugepopulations in excluded rural areas and urban slums.Such problems, and more immediate ones like transnational crime syndicates or AIDS, are frequently cited by advocates of greater global governance as demonstrating the inherent limitations of the nation-state. Yetthey are also beyond the scope of action by any foreseeable global ortransnational institutions. To cope with climate change or global inequalityin a serious way, supranational institutions would require coercive powersover states and the ability to command resource redistribution; this wouldbe chiefly at the expense of the top 20% of the world’s population represented by the countries of the OECD. Yet these countries, singly in the caseof the USA, collectively in the case of the rest, have the power to resist suchcoercion and to refuse redistribution. Far from legitimating a move towardcosmopolitan governance and a new international order, these emergingglobal threats all but paralyse political will. If anything they focus politicaland business elites on the short term, because to confront the long-termconsequences of doing little now is almost unthinkable. For example, theKyoto Accords on climate change, if implemented, would have the effectmerely of modestly offsetting the impact and onset of global warming.Hence the resistance in the USA of having to bear the short-term costs ofan emissions reduction policy.Power in governing the international economy is likely to remain in thehands of the wealthy nations and the supranational bodies that they controlHIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 251and fund, like the IMF or the World Bank. It is also likely that the exerciseof that power will be challenged by major non-OECD states like China,India and Russia, and by protest movements and NGO coalitions across theglobe. It is obvious that the actions of the major powers and the supranational agencies that they control will be less legitimate and that widerforums, like the WTO, will become more conflictual as the less developednations vigorously defend their interests.The agenda for global governance is thus constrained by the inherentlimits of truly authoritative global institutions, by the perceptions and interests of state elites in the G7, and by the mass attitudes of the populations ofthe OECD countries. A real world government would quickly become atyranny — conservative in the defence of entrenched privilege in the handsof the rich, and confiscatory in the hands of the poor, and thus resisted andthwarted by the losers of either policy.The nation-states, however powerful,cannot act alone, whilst nothing can be accomplished without their activesupport, legitimation and funding. This means that the agenda for strengthening international governance and mitigating those threats to stability thatcan be addressed in the short term involves three dimensions. First, reinforcing those international institutions that can function effectively andredirecting their policies. Institutions like the IMF are not inherently defective; the IMF, for example, has a necessary role as an international lender oflast resort. It is also necessary to expand the scope and power of other lessheadline-catching international institutions so that they are able to performextended regulatory tasks; for example, beefing up the role of the Bank forInternational Settlement in supervising national financial regulators sothat the supervision of banks and other financial institutions is enhanced,and strengthening the ILO to negotiate new conventions on migration andinternational labour mobility and raising the floor of international labourstandards. Second, promoting coordinated state action, whether by treaty orintergovernmental cooperation, for example, to tackle problems like international criminal and terrorist networks, to promote disease preventionand containment strategies, to pursue measures to combat global warmingthat can in fact be agreed (such as research and subsidies for non-fossiland renewable energy sources) and to raise the level of development aid.Third, to commit the major powers, and the USA in particular, to seek solutions where possible in a multilateral framework and for the powers to seekthe widest legitimacy for their actions by strategies of consultation andcoalition-building.Such measures would mean that when major global crises do occur, suchas a sudden escalation of climate change or a major epidemic, then thestates of the developed world can cooperate with others and that at least aminimum regulatory framework to ensure market stability and physicalsecurity is in place. Such measures amount to an extended version of ‘business as usual’, renewing the regulatory framework of multilateral international governance created after 1945. It would also mean a return to apolicy of ‘embedded liberalism’, that is, market openness coupled withstrong governance and social protection rather than contemporary eco-252 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)nomic liberal doctrine which is a mere use of political power to enhance thescope of market forces (Ruggie, 1998: ch. 2).The prospect of such a policy of enlightened multilateralism on the partof the advanced countries, and the USA in particular, is small. The mainreason for such narrowly self-interested policies is that the present state ofaffairs is quite unlike 1945. The anti-globalization movement and the terrorist threat are not a direct challenge to the system like that representedby the USSR and its allied communist parties. The former can still be dismissed as confused protest, and indeed it does not have coherent alternatives to current institutions and their policies. The latter is a matter forpolice and military action. The international economy in 1945 was at a virtual standstill and thus could be re-built from the ground up. Moreover, themajor state elites are satisfied with the high level of control they do in facthave, whilst often preaching impotence in the face of the forces of globalization to their domestic publics. Global markets are not all-powerful; thescope of action by international agencies, interstate cooperation and governance by states remains considerable. So far, major financial crises havebeen contained. Concerted action by governments, central banks, financialmarket authorities, banks and major companies prevented a disastrouspanic in the aftermath of 11 September. Even in recession, the G7economies are not faced by immediate economic and social crisis.One could thus conclude that ‘globalization’ in the sense conceived byextreme economic liberals and their radical critics has not happened. Theworld, far from being an integrated system dominated by ungovernablemarket forces, is divided into three major trading blocs, dominated bynation-states: NAFTA is centred in the USA, Japan is a bloc-sized nationaleconomy and the EU is an association of states. Each bloc follows distinctive policies, and has distinctive problems and institutions of economicmanagement. Most major companies hail from one of the three main blocs,and most companies have the bulk of their assets and the majority of theirsales within one of the blocs.International interconnectedness has not subsumed the distinctivenational economies of, for example, Germany, or Japan or the USA. Hencethe central powers in the system are neither likely to initiate a backlashagainst it nor are they likely to act on the scale necessary to counter theemerging global crisis and the current difficulties of the mass of the world’spopulation outside the OECD. One might conclude that the current systemis well enough governed and sufficiently beneficial to those on whose behalfit is governed that it will persist until problems accumulate that cause it tofail and a crisis that is beyond governance overwhelms the system. Unlikethe 1930s, or the period before 1914, the backlash against the internationaleconomy is not likely to start with the core states of the G7, but at theperiphery.This may seem pessimistic, but it is highly likely that a crisis stemmingfrom climate change, mass poverty in the developing world and intensemigratory pressures will overwhelm global institutions of governance andcooperation in the distant but foreseeable future, sometime in the secondhalf of this century. Before then, difficulties and conflicts will accumulate,HIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 253weakening the will to cooperate and undermining any prospect of solidaritybetween rich and poor, developed and developing nations. In this context,governance will be asserted at the level where publics can put pressure onleaders, i.e. in nation-states. International agencies will be harder to sustainand transnational politics and institutions will decline in favour of statebased ones. States will seek to protect their populations and to monopolizeand control the distribution of key resources. Faced with climate change,political processes, rather than markets, will allocate scarce goods like food,shelter for the displaced, water and energy. States will seek to obtain thesethings by force, as will political movements. Those displaced by climatechange are unlikely to be passive. At least some major states will fight overaccess to water and oil.This is a bleak prospect, but it emphasizes the continued relevance ofclassic international relations as a discipline and of realism in particular.The military power of the West is overwhelming. The USA and its Alliesdominate the seas and international airspace. They thus control the majortrade routes and access to the world trading system. The already overwhelming military capacity of the USA is set to increase in the immediatefuture as the military exploit emergent technologies and utilize space as anew environment for intelligence, communications and weapons directed atearth. However, such power has its limits. The advanced economies are vulnerable to terrorism and will remain so, even if they adopt draconian measures that restrict the liberties of their own populations. Masses of migrantswould be hard to contain, even with brutal and repressive policies of exclusion and frontier control. Advanced weapons may be ineffective againstdetermined enemies with strong national cohesion and an effective militaryleadership with clear objectives. The US, for all its recent victories, has notreally faced such an enemy since Vietnam. Thus the bulk of the Iraqi armywas ill-trained and poorly motivated, the Serbs increasingly hostile toMilosevic and the Taliban a hollow regime based on savage repression.Moreover, at least some of the emerging technologies will be easy to copyand adapt by the less sophisticated powers. Intelligent mines and smallremotely piloted vehicles, for example, may make defensive strategies easier and counter Western offensive dominance, making it difficult foradvanced armies to occupy territory without heavy casualties (Hirst, 2001).One should thus assume a highly conflictual world: with constant policeaction against terrorists, migrants and protestors, low-grade wars and incursions by the US and its allies in failed states and terrorist havens,conflicts between less developed states (increasingly over access toresources), the involvement of the great powers on behalf of their clients,and increasingly conflictual relations between major states over resourcesand trade. In this world order, international norms and legal standards willmost likely come under increasing pressure in matters of human rights, conflict and war. This will be a process similar to the widespread violation ofthe Hague Conventions during the First World War. States will repudiatehuman rights conventions and international legal regulation, even as international lawyers attempt to complete the edifice they have been buildingsince 1945. Already, the USA will not submit to the International Criminal254 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)Court, and without it the whole project of subjecting national politicalactors to common international norms is gravely weakened. Faced with terrorist outrages and masses of displaced persons, many states will be unwilling to continue to subscribe to international conventions and will slip intoauthoritarian regimes against outsiders, supported by their frightened citizens. Rules that only apply to some, the unlucky and defeated in the case ofwar criminals, or the lucky who happen to find one of the few liberal havensin the case of refugees, will cease to have general effect or credibility(Krasner, 1999).If political norms increasingly cease to be accepted or followed, by contrast rules-based economic governance will remain strong. Indeed, this isthe most likely dimension of global governance and re-regulation. TheWTO is a rules-based organization and it is impossible to open marketswithout common standards that apply to all and that are justiciable.Equally, tightening financial regulation and banking supervision, partly toprevent financial crises and partly to control terrorism and money laundering, will extend the scope of regulatory and rules-based supervision bynational and international agencies. Companies are increasingly usinginternational arbitration and supranational standards of commercial conduct to resolve disputes that span national jurisdictions. Thus, in the shortterm we may see both more conflict in the political sphere and greater regulation and normalization in the economic (Wiener, 1999).Any argument about global governance must allow for the extreme variability of global processes and the variety of global institutions. It is clearthat on different dimensions and at different locations governance practicesand outcomes can vary widely. We should, therefore, expect combined phenomena of integration and disintegration, increasingly effective governanceon some dimensions and retreat on others, different mechanisms for different problems, both localization and internationalization. Unless this is recognized, the complexity of short-term outcomes may hide long-term trendstoward conflict, localization and chaos.Future of the Global EconomyEven well before the events of September last year there were several indications that the rapid globalization of economic activity experienced duringthe 1980s and 1990s may have begun to stall. The rate of growth of the USeconomy was slowing, Japan’s intractable economic problems were nonearer solution, and there was unease in Europe about its future economicprospects as the adoption of the Euro loomed and growth faltered. Butthese essentially cyclical uncertainties were being bolstered by some potentially longer-term structural changes. Thus the world may be experiencingthe final years of one of those periodic explosions in internationalizationthat throw so much into confusion and seem to herald the complete transformation in the way societies are organized. A serious questioning of theability of the global economic system to sustain its seemingly rapid integrationist trajectory is beginning to emerge.HIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 255In this section we examine the potential cyclical and structural constraints on the future growth of economic globalization. We ask the question: ‘Are there any limits to economic globalization?’ The strongglobalization thesis would seem to imply an ever-expanding universe ofeconomic interdependency and integration between national economies, sothat the significance of national borders for economic activity eventuallydisappears. The issues for us here are, first, why this should be the case, and,second, whether it is happening.Globalization is here defined in strictly economic terms, basically asincreasing trade interdependency and investment integration. The strongglobalization thesis contends that macro-economic and industrial policyintervention by national governments can only distort and impede therational process of resource allocation by corporate decisions and consumer choices, which are now made on a global scale. All corporate playersneed to do to prosper is to shake off their nationally orientated bureaucratic style of management, and the government intervention that goesalong with it, and enter the new world of open global marketing and production networks. International markets provide coordinating and governance mechanisms in and of themselves: national strategies and policyintervention are likely merely to distort them. The era of effective nationaleconomies, and state policies corresponding to them, is over. The marketwill, and should, decide (Ohmae, 1990, 1995).We have challenged this conception and we do not think the international economy looks anything like this (Hirst and Thompson, 1999, 2000),but it offers a powerful imagery and should not be ignored. It is thus worthconfronting it in its own terms.A key element in this challenge is to question the extent of contemporarytrade globalization. If we look at merchandise trade flows between the maineconomic blocs expressed as a proportion of the originating country or blocGDP, then, for the most part, quite low percentages of GDP seem to havebeen traded in 1998.Only Western Europe appears anywhere close to being an integratedtrading zone with 18% of its combined GDP traded between the countriesof Western Europe. Yet this is an artefact of national accounting and theEEA should be treated as a single quasi autarchic trade bloc. The onlyother relationship that appears significant is that between the East Asiantraders and North America, where the former exported just under 11% oftheir GDP to North America, mostly to the USA. However, look at therelationship between North America and Japan. Only 0.7% of NorthAmerican GDP was exported to Japan, while Japan exported 3.3% of itsGDP to North America. These are still quite small numbers.Of course there are many objections that could be mounted to this way ofmeasuring the extent of trade ‘globalization’, and these are dealt with elsewhere (Hirst and Thompson, 2000; Thompson, 2001). Comparing merchandise trade and total GDP is not comparing like with like, as total GDP ismade up of many sectors, some of which have been expanding at a faster ratethan the merchandise sector. But even when a proper comparison is made,only Western Europe displays a highly integrated trade environment (nearly256 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)81% of merchandise trade relative to merchandise GDP is inter-WesternEuropean trade). The other main trading blocs still remain surprisingly unintegrated on this traditional and long-established measure of globalization.For economists, these figures raise the question of the ‘missing trade’.Why isn’t there more trade in the international system? Broadly, the answeris that the lack of trade is because of the continued significance of nationalterritories and national borders, a point we come back to in a moment.In economics, national borders are viewed as an impediment and anobstacle to trade. They are an impediment to the development of marketforces, so the advent of modern globalization and a ‘borderless world’would be a triumph from the point of view of those supporting the strongglobalization position mentioned earlier. The problem is to overcome these‘barriers’ to trade.How is international trade analysed in economics? When economic modelling techniques are applied to the specifics of international trade theseproduce disappointing results in terms of explaining the amount, composition and direction of international trade flows. As just mentioned, thesemodels would predict much higher levels of international trade.This has ledto a great deal of soul-searching amongst economists, and a resort toanalysing ‘what is in the data’ rather than constructing further theoreticalmodels. Thus despite the seeming sophistication of much internationaltrade theory, when it comes to the empirical side of things the approach isstill fairly simple. At heart it relies on operationalizing a ‘gravity’ model.Empirically, trade is traditionally modelled as positively related to somemeasure of the ‘size’ of the communities between which it takes place andnegatively related to the distance between them. This is known as a ‘gravityHIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 257TABLE 1Merchandise trade flows as a percentage of originating Triad bloc/country GDP (1998)North Western East AsianTo America Europea Japan (J) Tradersb J + EATFromNorth America 3.8 2.0 0.7 1.1 1.8Western Europea 2.3 18.0 0.4 1.0 1.4Japan (J) 3.3 2.0 – 3.0 3.0East Asian Tradersb 10.7 6.9 4.1 na naJ + EAT. 14.0 8.9 4.1 na naa Western Europe = EU + Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, Malta, Liechtenstein and the statesof the former Yugoslavia.b East Asian Traders (EAT): China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand andSingapore.na = not available.Sources: WTO Annual Report 2000, Vol. II, International Trade Statistics, derived fromvarious tables; World Economic Indicators 2000, World Bank, Table 4.2; Taiwan StatisticalData Book 2000.model’. But what has interested economists recently is a series of institutional, cultural or political and geographical variables that are also veryimportant in determining trade. These can be expressed as a series of‘control’ variables designed to capture other relationships between countries that might stimulate trade between them. These can include suchaspects as whether countries share a common border, whether they share acommon language, whether they have had colonial connections, whetherthey belong to a common trade bloc (e.g. the EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, etc.),what the position is in respect of common jurisdictional standards and thelegal enforceability of contracts between them, and finally whether theyshare a common currency.The distance variable is the most consistent and significant of the variables explaining international trade (Leamer and Storper, 2001). Indeed,one of the most obvious constraints on an infinitely expanding internationaldivision of labour and a ‘complete’ globalization is that the effects of distance cannot be entirely eliminated. Although there have been several‘communication revolutions’ that have significantly reduced the costs oftransporting over distance, eventually these will come up against the basicphysical impossibility of total transport cost elimination, so here is one(fairly obvious) ‘limit to globalization’ (see Obstfeld and Rogoff, 2001).Table 2 expresses the effects of distance on economic interactions for arange of variables: trade, FDI, equity flows and technology flows. Economicinteractions fall away dramatically with distance. For instance, if you add7000 km distance between any nodal points, 97% of trade disappears.But an interesting feature of recent trade empirics is the central importance that has emerged for the ‘cultural’ or ‘political’ determinants of tradespecified by the control variables just mentioned. For instance, once thecontributions of, say, migration (which can be approximated by variablessuch as sharing a border, a common language or colonial experience) anddifferent legal cultures have been accounted for in regression analyses, thespecific contribution of GDP as a determinant of trade levels is severelylimited, and indeed becomes less than 1 in many cases. We stress the significance of this in a moment.258 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)TABLE 2Effect of distance on economic interactions. Percentage reductions inthe value of magnitudes relative to 1000 kmTechnologyTrade FDI Equity flows (R&D stock)1000 km 0 0 0 02000 km 58 25 45 354000 km 82 44 69 728000 km 97 58 83 95Source: Calculated from Venables (2001)The specific effect of national borders on trade and the globalizationdebate can be taken up in the context of these empirical gravity modelequations. There has recently been something of a test case analysis of thisinvolving the border between the USA and Canada (McCallum, 1995;Engel and Rogers, 1996; Helliwell, 1998, 2000). If globalization hasemerged, then surely this border would have been one of the first to havelost its pertinence as far as trade, investment and migration are concerned.But it has not. Careful analyses have demonstrated the continued centralimportance of this border as an ‘obstacle’ to trade (and other flows)between the USA and Canada. This is the case as tariffs and quotas havebeen eliminated, NAFTA established, and other barriers removed. Whatthese analyses do is begin to confront the mysteries of the ‘missing trade’ atthe international level. Far from there being an ‘excess’ of internationaltrade, as many critics of globalization believe, from the economists’ perspective there is not ‘enough’ of it (and this goes for capital flows as well,which, whilst not discussed here, are addressed in Hirst and Thompson,2000 and in Thompson, 2001).What most analyses of the growth of international trade do is to lookonly at international trade without comparing it with what is going on in thehome territory at the same time. International trade is expanding but so toois domestic trade, and it looks as though domestic trade is expanding at asimilar rate to, or at a more rapid rate than, its international equivalent(after accounting for the other control variables).We might need to be a little more cautious here, however, since theseanalyses were conducted for the very early years of NAFTA. Recent evidence suggests that cross-border US–Canada trade has grown considerably.Also, the full implementation of NAFTA does not take effect until 2008.But overall, this particular border continues to be a remarkable ‘barrier’to trade in and of itself, even after taking account of all the usual variablesthat might determine trade. What is more, there is evidence that the stateboundaries within the USA act as a ‘barrier to trade’ (Wolf, 1997), so theidea that it is tariffs and quotas or other at-border international impediments to trade that represent the main obstacles to international integration is further put into question. Moreover, differences in cultural and legalsystems between these two countries — which might be thought to inhibittrade, as suggested earlier — also appear small in this particular case. Whatis more, these results are confirmed in the case of the other OECD countries though admittedly on the basis of less appropriate and reliable data(Wei, 1996; Helliwell, 1998).In addition, there is good evidence that migration is a significant stimulusto trade (Casella and Rauch, 1997; Rauch, 1999). It is significant, forinstance, in the case of imports to the USA. Migration sets up networks ofrelationships across borders, making it easier to establish a low transactioncost mechanism for the conduct of international trade (we come back tothis in a moment). As long as countries maintain their commitment to regulate their populations in some sense (which is almost a defining feature ofthe notion of geographical ‘territoriality’), then this situation will continue.In particular, in so far as countries continue to clamp down on internationalHIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 259migration this could inhibit the further growth of international trade. Sohere is another potential ‘limit to globalization’ and one that shows a majordifference between integration processes today and those of the nineteenthcentury.It seems that this particular point is crucial in the context of the jurisdictional consequences of borders; the fact that any movement across anational frontier involves the movement from one legal, regulatory and cultural jurisdiction to another. These jurisdictions proscribe, adjudicate andenforce a wide range of norms, rules, habits, networks, and similar features,that involve much more than just the ‘obstacles’ to trade found at the pointof the frontier. It is ‘behind border’ characteristics that are crucial.An interesting suggestion here is that it may be the state of the legal and administrative certainty associated with the enforcement of contracts (with respectto both trade and capital flows) that is the key to the OECD bias in international economic transactions. When a measure to represent this is introduced into the gravity model formulation, this was found to account forsuch a significant proportion of the level of international trade that theimpact of income per se was less than 1 (Anderson and Marcouiller, 1999).Thus the implication here is that GDP growth has a less than proportionateimpact on international trade growth; the bulk of the growth in international trade over the post-Second World War period being accounted for bythe ‘one-off’ impact of legal enforceability. This thereby points to a potential optimal level of international trade as this one-off boost to trade eventually exhausts itself.Another important area of discussion involving gravity model typeapproaches to international trade revolves around the effects of commoncurrencies on trade.An additional variable that can be included in the gravity model equations is one for countries sharing a common currency. Thereare 193 independent countries recognized by the UN but only about 120different currencies operate. Many countries share a currency; and somehave done so for a very long time. Under current circumstances, however,the issues are European Monetary Union and ‘dollarization’. In January2002, twelve EU members states adopted the Euro. In addition, there are anumber of countries that have experimented with abandoning their owncurrency in favour of the US dollar, mainly in Latin America, or who haveestablished a ‘hard currency board’ approach to monetary management.What are the effects of these policies on trade?There seem to be large trade gains to be made by adopting common currencies, as those countries that have done so trade with each other to amuch greater extent than those with their own currency (other thingsremaining equal) (Rose, 2000; Rose and Wincoop, 2001). This has led to anumber of suggestions for further dollarization and even the adoption of asingle world currency (Alesina and Barro, 2001; Dornbusch, 2001; Rogoff,2001). The beneficial effects have to do with the macro-economic disciplineand stability that ‘dollarization’ is supposed to instill in (mainly) small andwayward countries. However, these gains are disputed (Persson, 2001; Rose,2001). On close scrutiny, there is little evidence that the suggested welfareand growth benefits have actually materialized (though inflation has been260 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)lower) from these policies and we should remain sceptical about such policy initiatives (Edwards, 2000, 2001). The recent case of Argentina shouldreinforce this cautious attitude towards currency boards and talk of full dollarization. As the US dollar appreciated in value, the Argentine peso alsoappreciated in value because it was linked to it via a currency board. Thismade Argentine exports internationally uncompetitive independently ofwhat was actually going on in Argentina itself, which was one of the reasonsundermining the stability of the Argentinian economy.But independently of these disputes, as long as countries continue tomaintain their own currencies — which for the foreseeable future lookshighly likely for most countries — again there will be an added limit to theextension of ‘trade globalization’ (Rodrik, 2001).Let us now consider another way trade is analysed in respect of bordersand the long-term impediments to ever greater globalization, which can beillustrated by the schema of different types of trade shown in Table 3.International trade can be divided into three categories. The first is thattraded on organized exchanges, primary products such as minerals and agricultural products, where price is established according to classic marketmechanisms. Here one might think of markets like the Chicago grain markets, the London metal exchanges or the Rotterdam spot market for oil.The second category is intermediate goods that are traded according to‘reference prices’ quoted in specialist publications and the like, such aschemicals, processed raw materials. For the prices of these goods you wouldconsult a reference manual or trade price book. These are readily availablein an openly published form.The third type of trade is differentiated manufactured goods and serviceswhere there is no organized market or quoted reference prices. Here we donot find a uniform standard price but rather more a ‘one-off’ pricing, differentiated according to complex networks of supply.Unlocking the complex determinants of trade with respect to each ofthese categories is not easy (Rauch, 1999).Although the first, and to a lesserextent the second, of these categories displays a high international trade toproduction ratio, so that a high proportion of output is exported, these aredeclining in importance as components of total international trade. TheseHIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 261TABLE 3Types of trade1. Goods exchanged on ‘organized markets’ (e.g. minerals, raw materials,primary agricultural products)2. Goods exchanged according to ‘reference prices’ (e.g. processed rawmaterials, chemicals, basic standardized components)3. Differentiated goods and services exchanged on the basis of ‘networks’(e.g. complex manufactured goods and services)This schema is based on Rauch (1999).categories of trade are also less sensitive to the ‘cultural variables’ mentioned earlier in the context of the gravity model, so they are more closelycorrelated with the growth of wealth and income. But what has expandedrapidly is the third category, particularly complex manufactured goods. Thishas a relatively low production to trade ratio, when all the other variablesthat determine trade have been accounted for. The key here is these othercultural, political or geographical influences, which act at the expense ofincome growth as such. There is a great deal of production but relativelylower levels are exported as a direct consequence of income growth; this israther a consequence of variables like distance, migration and legal similarities, and so on.We thus have a situation where the categories of trade with high incomeelasticity-related production propensity to export are declining in significance, while the category with a lower income elasticity-related productionpropensity for export is increasing in importance. This is perhaps one of thereasons for the relative lack of international trade as opposed to domestictrade within a country.The reasons for these different propensities are interesting and important. Where there is an organized market for exchange, as in the case of thefirst category, the organization of the exchange is relatively easy and cheap.Transaction costs are low. However, with sophisticated manufactured goodsthere are no organized markets to facilitate exchanges. Rather they aretraded in the context often of one-off, lengthy and complex networks ofsupply and distribution. Manufacturers have to set up webs of distributionsystems which are often singular and unique for each particular category ofgood. They require the seeking out of trading partners and the securing ofa network of participants, something, it might be added, that migrationmakes easier. Above all, these systems are costly to set up and maintain —transaction costs are high. This may account for the lack of trading in thesegoods across frontiers relative to their trading at home, and put a limit onthe extent of their expansion. It is just too costly, for instance, for US manufacturers to secure distribution systems for their goods in Japan, so thereare low levels of US exports to Japan, as can be seen in Table 1.An obvious question here is whether there is any empirical evidence tosupport these remarks.Whilst there was a rapid growth in world trade for all the categories oftrade mentioned in Figure 3 over the 1970s and 1980s, there was a downturnin the growth of agricultural exports in the second half of the 1990s. Butafter a slowdown in manufacturing exports in the same period these recovered in 1999–2000, mainly as a result of a rapid growth of exports from theemerging economies.In case this seems deliberately to be concentrated on merchandise tradeand to leave out trade in services, which is thought to be growing at a fasterrate, this latter claim is not in fact true. Trade in cultural goods, for instance,was also falling off in the late 1990s.Trade in services has remained at about20% of total world trade ever since 1975, so by concentrating only on merchandise trade we have covered the bulk of total world trade.In this section we have argued three things. First, that far from market262 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)exchange sweeping unhindered across the globe, real limits to the furtherexpansion of global trade, limits largely established by the continuingsalience of national territories and borders, are likely to continue.Second, we have argued that the real constraints on any further development of global trade are more likely to be the institutional, cultural andpolitical variables, or the geographical ones analysed above, rather thanstraightforward economic variables.Third, there is some limited indication that overall world trade growth hasslowed in recent years. Of course this may be mainly for cyclical reasons, butthe analysis has also demonstrated that there is a potential set of more structural constraints that even in the medium term could undermine an everexpanding international division of labour and trade integration.If nothing else, these remarks indicate that there are good and interesting reasons for our continuing to take the issues of borders seriously in economics, despite the fashionable insistence that they are no longer significantin an age of globalization.ConclusionsIn this article we have tried to look to the future of global governance andthe global economy.We have tried to demonstrate: (1) that the current stateof international interconnectedness is not unprecedented and that previousepisodes of integration have generated a backlash and have ended in theregression of international trade and investment, (2) that nation-states arenot being overwhelmed and that the future of extended multilateral governance does not look promising — in a turbulent physical and internationalenvironment the nation-state may become more salient as a means of protection against global forces beyond supranational governance, and (3) thatthere may be inherent limits to the growth of international trade, that borders do matter and that we may be approaching those limits. These messages are comforting neither to advocates of the ‘Washington Consensus’nor to their ‘anti-globalization’ critics.Note1. The evidence and probable consequences considered in the 2001 report of theUN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2002 report of the USNational Academy of Sciences are compelling and disturbing.ReferencesAlesina, A. and Barro, R. J. (2001) ‘Dollarization’, American Economic Review,Papers and Proceedings 91: 381–5.Anderson, J. E. and Marcouiller, D. (1999) ‘Trade, Insecurity, and Home Bias: AnEmpirical Investigation’, NEBR Working Paper No. 7000. Cambridge, MA.HIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 263Casella, A. and Rauch, J. E. (1997) ‘Anonymous Market and Group Ties inInternational Trade’, NBER Working Paper No. 6186. Cambridge, MA.Dornbusch, R. (2001) ‘Fewer Monies, Better Monies’, American Economic Review,Papers and Proceedings 91: 238–42.Edwards, S. (2000) ‘Exchange Rate Regimes, Capital Flows and Crisis Prevention’,UCLA, August.Edwards, S. (2001) ‘Dollarization and Economic Performance: An EmpiricalInvestigation’, NBER Working Paper No. 8274. Cambridge, MA.Engel, C. and Rogers, J. H. (1996) ‘How Wide is the Border?’ The AmericanEconomic Review 86(5): 1112–25.Held, D., McGrew, T., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations.Cambridge: Polity Press.Helliwell, J. F. (1998) How Much do National Borders Matter? Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.Helliwell, J. F. (2000) Globalization: Myths, Facts and Consequences. Toronto: C. D.Howe Institute.Hirst, P. (2001) War and Power in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.Hirst, P. Q. and Thompson, G. F. (1999) Globalization in Question: The InternationalEconomy and the Possibilities of Governance, 2nd edn (1st edn 1996). Cambridge:Polity Press.Hirst, P.Q. and Thompson, G. F. (2000) ‘Globalization in One Country: thePeculiarities of the British’, Economy and Society 29(3): 335–56.James, H. (2001) The End of Globalization: Lessons from the Great Depression.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Krasner, S. D. (1999) Sovereignty, Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.Leamer, E. and Storper, M. (2001) ‘The Economic Geography of the Internet Age’,Journal of International Business Studies 32(4): 641–65.McCallum, J. (1995) ‘National Borders Matter: Canada–US Regional TradePatterns’, The American Economic Review 85(3): 615–23.Obstfeld, M. and Rogoff, K. (2001) ‘The Six Major Puzzles in InternationalMacroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause?’ in B. Bernanke and K. Rogoff(eds) NEBR Macroeconomics Annual 2000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Ohmae, K. (1990) The Borderless World. London and New York: Collins.Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies.London: HarperCollins.O’Rourke, K. H. and Williamson, J. G. (1999) Globalization and History: TheEvolution of the Nineteenth Century Atlantic Economy. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.Persson,T. (2001) ‘Currency Unions and Trade: How Large is the Treatment Effect?’Economic Policy 33: 435–48.Rauch, J. E. (1999) ‘Networks Versus Markets in International Trade’, Journal ofInternational Economics 48: 7–35.Rodrik, D. (2001) ‘Institutions, Integration, and Geography: In Search of DeeperDeterminants of Economic Growth’ (available from http:/ksghome.harvard.edu/~.drodrik.academic.ksg/).Rogoff, K. (2001) ‘Why Not a Global Currency?’ American Economic Review,Papers and Proceedings 91: 243–7.Rose, A. K. (2000) ‘One Money, One Market: Estimating the Effect of CommonCurrencies on Trade’, Economic Policy 30: 7–73.Rose, A. K. (2001) ‘Currency Unions and Trade: The Effect is Large’, EconomicPolicy 33: 449–61.264 COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 37(3)Rose, A. K. and van Wincoop, E. (2001) ‘National Money as a Barrier toInternational Trade: The Real Case of Currency Union’, American EconomicReview, Papers and Proceedings 91: 386–90.Ruggie, J. G. (1998) Constructing the World Polity. London: Routledge.Thompson, G. F. (2001) ‘Are There Any Limits to Globalization? InternationalTrade, Capital Flows and Borders’ (mimeo). Open University.Venables, A. J. (2001) ‘Geography and International Inequalities: The Impact ofNew Technologies’. Background Paper for Globalization, Growth and Poverty(2002). Washington, DC: World Bank.Wade, R. and Wolf, M. (2002) ‘Are Global Poverty and Inequality Getting Worse?’Prospect (March).Wei, S.-J. (1996) ‘Intra-National versus International Trade: How Stubborn AreNations in Global Integration?’, NBER Working Paper No. 5531. Cambridge,MA.Wiener (1999) Globalization and the Harmonization of Law. London: Pinter.Wolf, H. C. (1997) ‘Patterns of Intra- and Inter-State Trade’, NBER Working PaperNo. 5939. Cambridge, MA.PAUL HIRST is Professor of Social Theory, Birkbeck College,University of London. He is the author of, among other books,Globalization in Question (with Grahame Thompson), 2nd edn, PolityPress, 1999, and War and Power in the 21st Century, Polity Press, 2001.Address: Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street,London WC1E 7HX, UK. [email: [email protected]]GRAHAME THOMPSON is Professor of Political Economy, TheOpen University. His main research interests are in the political economy of the international system and the theme of ‘globalization’. Inparticular, this now concentrates on three areas: the possible limits toglobalization, the nature of toleration in the international system, andthe potential development trajectory for the less advanced or emergingmarket economies. In addition, he is pursuing research into the natureof network forms of organization. In 2003 Oxford University Press willpublish the book Between Markets and Hierarchies: The Logic andLimits of Network Forms of Organization.Address: Department of Politics, The Open University, Walton Hall,Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. [email: [email protected]]HIRST & THOMPSON: THE FUTURE OF GLOBALIZATION 265
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
