The Idea Department

In their latest on Project Syndicate, Harold James and Matteo Albanese argue that the word globalization has “lost its polemical bite”. They point out that the term “globalization”, much like the term “totalitarianism”, began in the Italian language as a criticism of the concept that proponents now use it to describe. James and Albanese argue that the meaning of globalization has shifted again. It is no longer a buzzword in the argument about global economic connectedness, as it was when opponents were concerned about exploitation of the developing by the developed. Instead, globalization has come to represent a complex history of mankind’s exchange of ideas. 

In his article Globalization Marches On, Jagdish Bhagwati is less concerned with diction than with lasting debate. He gives a direct counterargument to James’ and Albanese’s claim that “By 2011, anti-globalization rhetoric had largely faded.” Western backlash against globalization from labor unions and environmental groups dates back decades and persists today. The “fear” of globalization, says Bhagwati, has shifted from East to West; post-WWII pro-trade legislation implemented by the West was met with hesitance by the East until “the benefits of globalization became manifest”. Though Western concerns about labor exploitation or domestic job loss persist, Bhagwati writes, policymakers worldwide are rightfully leaning away from autarky. 

Does globalization still face significant resistance? Is this resistance justified? Contributors to Project Syndicate have opposing views. What do our followers think?