WILL THE CORONAVIRUS REVERSE GLOBALISATION?

5/4/2020

12 Comments

Post your thoughts about this article . These could be based on one or more of the prompts below:

What are the main threats to globalisation?
Do you agree that this is the end of globalisation?
Have you seen evidence to support/refute this article in Korea?
How do the ideas in this article relate to what we have studied?
This article was posted in the ‘Business Section’. From what you know about globalisation, is this appropriate? What other aspects of globalisation are there and how may they be affected?

TO POST, SIMPLY USE COMMENTS FUNTION TO ADD YOUR THOUGHTS. Remember forum etiquette - no more than 10 lines per post, focus on one main idea, use 'add'/'challenge'/'build' language if you want to respond to anyone else's points. BUT you are encouraged to post as much as you like!

12 Comments

Seunghoon Lee

6/4/2020 01:46:00 pm

The Coronavirus Pandemic has, indeed, 'paused' globalization for the time being. Still, as the article points out, this temporary decline would not eventually lead to an end of globalization. The world has become far too interconnected with the development of transportation and technology, and every sector–– not only political but also economic sector–– has become increasingly dependent on globalization. A prominent example that supports this statement is the case of the Western manufacturing companies which are relying on cheap Asian labor markets. The world has already taken an irreversible step towards interconnectedness and thus became mutually dependent among all state and non-state actors. Thus, it can be predicted that the Coronavirus pandemic would 'pause' the pace of globalization for a limited amount of time, if not 'end' globalization. It is implausible to argue that states would pursue isolationism as they did after World War I and the Great Depression as the world we live in nowadays has become irreversibly interconnected than the world people used to live in early 20th Century.

Mr T

6/4/2020 02:30:18 pm

Yes, it is easy to get caught up in the excitement and forget that the evidence of interconnectedness is all around us. It is also likely that any reversal of globalisation would be gradual - to the point that it would be hard to point to coronavirus as the causes. Perhaps the lesson of history (and Gramsci) is that nothing ends and stops but something new is born; it is rarely exactly what you expect, but still resembles its parents!

Emily

6/4/2020 01:49:11 pm

In an extremely intertwined world, it could be argued that it is virtually impossible to achieve global health/economic/financial security without the world's prominent economies upholding cooperation. With the coronavirus, the European Union, which promoted the ideals of reconciliation, now demonstrates the emergence of self-interest as barriers are arising in Germany and France by blocking export of masks. It can be analyzed that globalization depends on mutual trust between nations, along with dependence. Mutual distrust in such times show the lack of coordination between the US and China on medical masks, and the way each nation is pursuing its own coronavirus vaccine without a global aim.

Mr T

6/4/2020 02:36:22 pm

This is a v good insight - the accuracy of the view that all problems that sit at the global level of analysis, like a pandemic or climate change, are particularly unlikely to be resolved by realist/state centred approaches is really being proven in this case.

It is interesting to contrast this with the fact that, at the same time, the high level of globalisation is also actually also a root cause of these same challenges (the spread of a pandemic).

So I don't know what to think!

Hailey

6/4/2020 01:57:05 pm

The article focuses on globalisation as an economic process, and suggests that the risks associated with a globalised economy will cause globalisation to stop or slow down. I do not agree that this crisis will bring globalisation to an end. With much globalisation having continued to take place in the social dimension in recent years, it seems that the crisis has further revealed how the global community can connect when faced with a global crisis, especially through the internet. The rapid movement of ideas and information (which has arguably been becoming the more prominent aspect of globalisation) has continued, notably through social media, despite the more tangible, physical barriers that have been posed to globalisation. Hence, I would argue that this crisis will not put an end to globalisation, and that it has demonstrated how irreversibly globalisation has made the world connected beyond the economic sphere.

Mr T link

6/4/2020 02:54:31 pm

Very cogent, thanks! So the way that the world has switched to online productivity does indeed suggest that maybe this will even accelerate globalisation in digital spheres, even as in more physical domains it retracts. Do we even need geographically based schools...

Seb

6/4/2020 02:14:38 pm

I agree with the article when it mentions the idea that the pandemic may place a pause in globalization, but not the end of globalization. However, I believe coronavirus outbreak shows how globalized and interconnected the world that we are living in is. This interconnectedness is significantly notable in economy: trade. Due to the outbreak that started in China, many industries including manufacturing industries in China have closed down, which posed a major threat to MNCs around the world as they are literally "dependent" on Chinese manufacturing industry. I have learned from several articles that German car companies such as BMW import more than 1/4 of their components from China. This economic crisis is spread around the world at the same time with coronavirus, which clearly demonstrates how interconnected and interdependent actors around the world are. As such, I do not believe that coronavirus will bring an end to globalization but it rather acts as an evidence for globalization. Nevertheless, there are some evidences of pauses of globalization. For example, President Trump calls the virus the "Chinese Virus", which blames China for the outbreak by focusing on the origin of the virus rather than the causes of the virus, which then protects the US government from damaging its legitimacy. Even though the reality shows that the world is interconnected, certain behaviors of national governments seem to be based on structural realism, arguing that national sovereignty and power of the government are important.

Mr T

6/4/2020 03:01:24 pm

Thanks Seb, appreciate the insights. It is absolutely right that it has been very surprising to see the extent of supply chains spread across so many countries having really unusual effects - the realist rhetoric we hear it really undercut by the reality of the 21st century when it comes to actual policy for sure. The bark is worse than the bite, as they say at home.

Ryan Pak

6/4/2020 02:20:33 pm

The assertion that globalization will come to end is highly implausible given that states have already established an interdependent relationship in every aspects. Yet, countries have increasingly shown signs of an isolationism approach. Whilst countries recognize the geopolitical and economic benefits that can be reaped from globalization, the values and principles of states are likely to alter when the lives of their people are at stake. Blocking mask exports and closing down borders, for example, demonstrates that states are willing to compromise economic and political cooperation in return for the protection of the wellbeing of their people. The acceleration of hatred towards certain ethnic groups (e.g prevalence of Asiaphobic attitudes in the Western Hemisphere) also epitomizes that growing mistrust and isolationism is, indeed, bringing a halt to globalization.

Mr T

6/4/2020 03:04:35 pm

Thanks Ryan - yes, a great point - it is indeed easy to forget that globalisation has facets beyond just the economic and logistical. The growth in fear of 'the out group' has been very evident in the pandemic and it will be interesting to see if there is a legacy of what might be termed 'cultural distancing' as a result.

Hailey

6/4/2020 02:29:12 pm

To make a link to the concepts that we have studied, the article suggests that the aftermath of the crisis may take two forms, either with weak global governance like after WWI or with more cooperation and internationalism as was useful in rebuilding the world after WWII. The article points to the current lack of global governance, with little cooperation among states and no leadership in the G20 or from the USA. The author seems to be presenting a liberal view in that he argues global governance is necessary to deal with the global challenges that globalisation poses, using the post-WWII agreements and conferences as examples demonstrating how global governance can be successful in rebuilding the world after a crisis.

Mr T

6/4/2020 03:06:53 pm

Yes, great thinking - I think that there is a liberal assumption in the argument that there should be global governance, and that the structures exist, but there is a recognition that it needs the powerful states to 'buy in' for it to actually function.

WILL THE CORONAVIRUS REVERSE GLOBALISATION?

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories