To accurately identify the reasons for the recent rise in new forms of globalisation it is important to understand what exactly is meant by the term globalisation. Economist Joseph Stiglitz defines globalisation as “the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flow of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and to a lesser extent, people across borders” (Lipschutz, 2005). The Dictionary of Human Geography adds that “We live, it is asserted, in a world in which nation-states are no longer significant actors or meaningful economic units; in which consumer tastes and cultures are homogenized and satisfied through the provision of standardized global products created by global corporations with no allegiance to place or community.” Anti-globalisation can be understood as a general opposition to this increasingly interconnected world. By exploring the political, economic and social consequences of globalisation we can determine which factors contributed to the recent rise in new forms of anti-globalisation.
The anti-globalisation movement began as a series of protests in the 1990s by a left-wing coalition of activists and NGOs concerned about the negative impacts of globalisation. The movement received international coverage after the ‘Battle of Seattle’ during the WTO Ministerial Conference in 1999. It was after this particular protest that the media began to refer to the concept of anti-globalisation. The protestors did not necessarily oppose globalisation for the same reason. McGrew and Held (2007) argue that “It would be wrong to state that, what are called anti-globalization protesters are against ‘globalization’ per se. …It is rather the neo-liberal way the globalization is shaped and the negative (side) effects it has on human beings and the environment that are contested.” For example, some advocated for indigenous rights, others for fair trade or even world peace. The protest was generally anti-capitalist and anti-deepened economic integration, concerned with the economic dominance of the Global North over the Global South. What all these groups had in common, was a shared belief that multinational corporation should not have unregulated political power that they could exercise through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets. They accused these companies of attempting to maximise their profits at the expense of safe working conditions amongst other things. Another important characteristic at the core of the anti-globalisation movement was the opposition to environmental destruction associated with transnational companies. Since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, world carbon emissions have increased dramatically. This increase isn’t expected to slow down any time soon. On the contrary, “One of the world’s leading energy bodies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that emissions in 2018 are set to rise” (Rathi, 2018). These effects are especially evident in countries that do not impose strict enough regulations on large firms with regards to their effect on the local environment. “Since its accession to the WTO, China has soared way past the United States as the world’s top emitter of carbon, pushing up world emissions…Much of that carbon is produced to make goods that are exported to the U.S.” (Smith, 2014) This has worrying consequences for the planet. The industrialisation of countries worldwide has improved living conditions dramatically but has made modern society extremely dependent on fossil fuels, which is unsustainable. These sources of energy are, firstly, non-renewable, so they will eventually run out, and secondly, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study found that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. (Riley, 2017), meaning that even if individuals make efforts to reduce their ecological footprint, these actions will have little to no significant effect for as long as multinational companies keep emitting these enormous amounts of pollutants. Calls for climate action have become more and more urgent. “When unresolved, [the energy problem] would directly threaten the existence of the human race… mankind will have to take a most dramatic cutback in living standards around the entire globe, including a sharp decrease in human beings. Since such changes are extremely traumatic, they are bound to trigger violent conflict and possibly major wars between countries.” (Lane, 2006). While this evidence was perhaps not yet so well-known as it is today, there was already cause for anger in the 1990s. There’s no doubt about it, the leftist protesters of the Battle of Seattle in 1999 set the stage for the anti-globalisation movement of the future.
In recent years, and even more so after the financial crisis of 2008, a ‘big shift’ (Horner, et al., 2018) has been observed, whereby the political right, instead of the left has started to oppose globalisation for a variety of economic reasons. “The polling company YouGov, in a 2016 survey of people across 19 countries, found that France, the US and the UK were the places where the fewest people believe that “globalisation has been a force for good”. In contrast, the survey found the most enthusiasm for globalisation in East and Southeast Asia, where over 70% in all countries believed it has been a force for good.” (Horner, et al., 2018) The argument nowadays is that the Global North no longer benefits from globalisation but rather is negatively affected. One of the consequences of globalisation is an increase in free trade and open markets. While this has had many positive impacts in the past, certain countries now feel that it is hurting their national interests, rather than advancing them. This is in part due to the large power that transnational corporations hold in the world market. According to Streeten (2001), 37 000 transnational corporations and their 200 000 affiliates control around seventy-five percent of world trade. Additionally, since the 2008 recession, 60 economies have adopted more than 7000 protectionist trade measures. The US alone passed 1 297 economic or trade measures that were considered harmful to global trade (Kirk, 2017). One of these was President Trump pulling out of negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. The current US President’s campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again” and with it came promises of economic growth by keeping or creating more jobs in America. As cheaper, more efficient technology developed, so did fear about job losses. These fears were then built on and led to anti-globalist measures such as isolationism and protectionism, to make American goods more attractive to American customers by heavily taxing imports. This was done in the hope to compete with other economic superpowers like China, who has become a major rival to the US. China lowered labour costs so that companies and industries would choose to base their factories in China instead of the US as it would be a lot cheaper to hire their workforce. “Workers now find themselves in an environment in which they can more easily be ‘exchanged’ for workers in other countries” (Streeten, 2001). This job insecurity was legitimate. American low-skilled workers were hurt the most, their wages fell about 20% from 1970 onwards (Saval, 2017). Similar concerns existed in the UK, pre-Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May argued that for many, “talk of greater globalisation means their jobs being outsourced and waged undercut,” in a speech in February 2017. Indeed, Saval (2017) states that the Brexit vote was strongest in the parts of the UK most affected by the flight of manufacturing. The British specifically disliked EU-immigrant workers benefiting from welfare in the UK.
Another reason for the recent rise in backlash against globalisation is the argument that it has led to uneven development of countries and of increased inequalities of people within countries. On the one hand, it is indeed the world’s wealthiest nations which have benefitted the most from globalisation, able to compete on the global market and experiencing significant economic growth, ultimately leading to a general improvement of living conditions. Before the early 2000s this was the dominant view, that the Global South suffered from worse living conditions than the North and that they were being exploited. Now though, it seems that citizens of the Global North feel that they have been negatively impacted by the rapid globalisation of the past few decades. “Statistics from Global Inequality, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called “the 1%” – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries” (Saval, 2017). So while there might still be people in the Global North who benefit from globalisation, they are very few, others gain nothing. Leading global inequality expert Branko Milanovic has explored changes in real incomes between 1988 and 2008 to show who particularly lost out on relative gains in income. He found two groups lost most: the global upper middle class – those between the 75th and 90th percentiles on the global income distribution, of whom 86% were from advanced economies – and the poorest 5% of the world population (Horner, et al., 2018). An example of this is the UK, which suffers from huge regional economic disparities. When the UK started de-industrialising, the city of London thrived as it had favourable conditions and a large labour force to accommodate new types of businesses. Other parts of the countries that did not manage to deal with this change so well, saw large job losses, especially in manufacturing. Streeten (2001) adds: “Globalisation and the economic progress that goes with it have proceeded unevenly in time and in space. The rise in income per head has differed widely between countries and regions, so that income gaps have widened. Income disparities between the rich and the poor nations have doubled over the last thirty years.”
A third factor that can explain the recent rise in new forms of globalisation is the fear that more open borders and freer economies can make countries more susceptible to threats from the outside. Right-wing parties have built on this existing fear to push their anti-immigrant rhetoric. “Backlash against globalisation in areas such as labour, trade and views on immigration seems to be fuelling a rise in populism” (Chen, et al., 2017). Discussed earlier, was the role of trade and labour in the recent rise of new forms of anti-globalisation. However, the alarmingly increasing xenophobia in Europe and the United States in particular is a defining factor as well. “In Europe, globalization engenders not only fear of losing jobs to the poor masses in the South, but of losing cultural homogeneity that many European countries have acquired through a long process of obliteration of local cultures and three centuries of capitalist development. Their homogeneity is threatened, moreover, by the people of different color, culture, and way of life.” (Milanovic, 2003). There are three particular events that clearly illustrate this anti-globalist way of thought. Firstly, the election of the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump, a business man with no political experience whatsoever, was elected despite, or rather because of, his vow to implement stricter controls of the country’s borders. Perhaps his most controversial promise, was to build a wall on the border of the US and Mexico. His xenophobic sentiments were shared by many of his supporters, who agreed with him that the migrants coming into the country were criminals or that they were out to steal the American people’s jobs. Earlier that year, in June 2016, the UK voted to leave the European Union in a referendum. This too, was heavily influenced by the way immigrants were portrayed and viewed as. The people who voted to leave the EU did so to be free from Brussels and be able to make their own regulations, especially concerning their borders and their immigration policy. Many Brits felt like they had lost their sovereignty and saw voting to leave as taking back control of the country. Again, anti-immigrant but also anti-refugee sentiments were strong. Posters of refugees lining up to enter Britain by the thousands portrayed them as a huge burden to Britain that the country would not be able to handle. Finally, the rise in right-wing populist countries in continental Europe indicates that anti-globalism has gained popularity in recent years. France’s populist politician Marine Le Pen, was one of the final two candidates for the presidential election in 2017, but ultimately lost to Emmanuel Macron. She is a strong opposer of globalisation, which she believes has led to multiple economic problems. She has also argued for a de-Islamisation of France and a stricter immigration policy and border controls, which made her popular with a significant part of the French population. Hungary’s foreign minister said that Hungary should “be able to protect and control its own borders” and accused migrants of violating the country’s regulations and standards and of threatening the Hungarian people. The Prime Minister, Orban, also passed laws that could obstruct organizations helping asylum seekers from operating and was heavily criticized for this. Similar sentiments are echoed in Poland, even more so after the election of the conservative Law and Justice party. Greece’s xenophobic, fascist Golden Dawn party looks at Prime Minister Orban for inspiration. Clearly, there has been a huge backlash against globalisation related to the issue of borders and immigration. This has worsened with the refugee crisis affecting much of Europe and the US receiving more migrant workers in recent years. Unfortunately, this backlash from political parties and their leaders seems to stem from xenophobia and racism rather than genuine concern for the wellbeing of their country’s citizens.
In conclusion, there has been a distinct increase in anti-globalist thoughts and policies since the 1990s. At that time the outrage came from the left of the political spectrum, demanding equality between the Global South and the Global North. There has, however, been a recent rise in new forms of anti-globalisation due to factors such as uneven development, protection of national interest and increased anti-immigrant rhetoric from major right-wing political parties. This shows that while globalisation is a process that has benefitted many people, there are others who feel like it has impacted them negatively, giving anti-globalists a platform to express their anger and thereby gain popularity from those who feel the same way.