Globalization, Inequality, and Challenges to Free Trade

This chapter analyzes an interrelated set of key economic policy debates since the late twentieth century, concerning issues of globalization, inequality, and trade. This demonstrates, in particular, how the policymaking consequences of recent international politics are influencing the global economic architecture. The core claims of much of the discourse on economic globalization were brought into question by the GFC, further undermining confidence in financial deregulation. Another aspect of this discourse, the emphasis on trade liberalization, also was undermined by the growing influence of ‘populist’ politicians in America and Europe. Rising inequality in many of these countries contributed to the populist political surge in 2016, which has also increased the relative authority shift between some politicians of those states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

eBook EUR 93.08 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 116.04 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 116.04 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Notes

Their reference to ‘hyperglobalization’ indicates what might be considered a ‘strong version’ of globalization discourse, that is, the most radical interpretation of its perceived political-economic effects.

Similar claims were evident in contributions from other influential scholars; cf. Giddens (2002), Ohmae (1990, 1995), and Reich (1992).

Rodrik’s (2012, 184–206) conception of a ‘political trilemma of the world economy’ builds on earlier analysis, from economists Robert Mundell (1963) and Marcus Fleming (1962), of the so-called impossible trinity. Rodrik’s (2012, 200–205) ‘trilemma’ model indicates that states must choose between three options in their international economic relations, either: (1) combine ‘hyperglobalization’ with the nation-state, which compels governments to adhere to a narrow set of orthodox, market-friendly policies; (2) combine ‘hyperglobalization’ with democratic political flexibility, by replacing national with global governance or even ‘world government’; or (3) combining the nation-state with democratic political flexibility, implying a return to something like the Bretton Woods compromise. He (Rodrik 2012, 205) notes many governments have attempted to combine the three dimensions, namely democratic choice, the nation-state, and hyperglobalization. The effect, he argues, has been to increase economic instability and the frequency of financial crises.

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico Jonathan Luckhurst
  1. Jonathan Luckhurst