Can we still talk about globalisation

It is as if geopolitics has (re)taken control of trade: a “geopolitisation of globalisation”, analysed here by Frédéric Munier, Director of the School of Geopolitics for Business at SKEMA Business School, and which has led to the “slowbalisation” phenomenon since the 2008 economic crisis. Globalisation is slowing down. After more than 70 years of global growth, as shown by Laurent Ferrara, Professor of International Economics at SKEMA, the trade openness index is levelling off.

It is crashing, but not breaking down. Economists Pinelopi Goldberg and Tristan Reed perceive no “deglobalisation”. On the contrary, they agree with Frédéric Munier and see this global environmental change as the start of a new era, “shaped top-down by governments motivated by political goals rather than market forces.”

The McKinsey Global Institute report (2024) says the same thing. Its graphics highlight a form of “multi-faceted” globalisation. Between 2017 and 2023, countries like China, Germany and the US reduced the “geopolitical distance” of their trading by 4% to 10%. In other words, they traded less with politically different countries. And even though powers like Brazil and India have expanded trade, the institute does not rule out a “risk of fragmentation”.

But does this imply we are straying from the Larousse dictionary’s definition of globalisation? This defines it as: “Trends among multinational companies towards developing global strategies…” So far, so good. Globalisation is becoming even more strategic. But then it gets complicated:”… leading to the establishment of a unified global market.” The strategy of large companies, like that of governments, seems less consistent. Saint-Gobain still has a global vision, but this is broken down according to territories and affinities.

“Saint-Gobain does not have a standardised global approach but a multi-local strategy,” says its former Latin America CEO, Javier Gimeno. “The companies that succeed will be those that can combine a global mission with careful local adaptation, secure their value chains and develop a broader understanding of the world.”

Securing. The word is out. And it expresses the wish to slow down and proceed more safely in a world that is moving ever faster and less cautiously. Like Saint-Gobain, Google Cloud is addressing this volatility with a more decentralised strategy, less influenced by crises and unforeseen events. In short, we think we are moving away from globalisation… when in fact we may have finally found it. Let’s take another definition, or an anti-definition, rather, this time from the magazine Alternatives Economiques. “In a way, globalisation is the opposite of multinationalisation. The latter term implies that a company, despite having operations in several countries, remains primarily attached to one, usually its country of origin. In contrast, the term globalisation implies that the company is not attached to any specific territorial base.” This attachment to a central territory of origin (like Germany with Mercedes-Benz) is precisely what leads Oliver Grohmann, Executive Vice President of Human Resources (HR) at Emirates, to say that “very few companies are truly global.” Could this apparent pause in globalisation actually be the first step towards achieving it? In any event, it coincides with the emergence of a “global culture” at Emirates : something the highly international Oliver Grohmann had never come across before. But here again, this culture understands more than it encompasses; it recognises more than it assimilates; it is a celebration of all singularities; it is not the acceptance of one culture by all but a culture that accepts all of you; it is not a culture of everything, but the culture of everyone. The group’s culture adapts to each individual, like a strategy to a territory; it becomes global by being specific. The “new” globalisation is proving to be ultra-cautious.

For others, to talk of “globalisation” is almost inappropriate, since it is not yet achieved. In his book The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalisation, economist Richard Baldwin sees it as a three-stage chrysalis: the ability to move first goods, then ideas, and lastly people. And this third phase, the most disruptive, is yet to come. Made possible by technology, it would not make it easier for people to travel, but offer “a substitute for being there.” A radical reconfiguration that – for a few years, at least – would exacerbate the imbalance between labour and capital. This would intensify criticism of the legitimacy of globalisation, to which SKEMA Economics professor Ioannis Bournakis proposes a fiscal solution.