Responses to Globalisation from Developed Societies

The most striking feature of the globalisation backlash is where it came from. It began not in the societies told to liberalise but in the ones that wrote the rules: Britain, which built both the nineteenth-century free-trade order and the twentieth-century financial one, voted to leave the world’s deepest single market, and the United States, architect of the world trade regime, became the leading practitioner of unilateral tariffs. The explanation is not that voters turned irrational. It is that a bargain was broken.

The bargain that made openness politically possible

PSIR Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1000 →

• International openness has never been self-sustaining in a democracy. It has to be paid for domestically, because it always produces concentrated losers alongside diffuse winners, and the losers vote.
• John Ruggie named the arrangement that solved this problem after 1945: the compromise of embedded liberalism. Governments accepted multilateral rules on trade and payments, and in exchange were left free to run full-employment policies, welfare states, capital controls and industrial policy at home.

“Unlike the economic nationalism of the thirties, it would be multilateral in character; unlike the liberalism of the gold standard and free trade, its multilateralism would be predicated upon domestic interventionism.” — John Ruggie

• The word embedded is doing the work. The market was embedded in a set of social protections that absorbed its shocks; openness abroad was purchased by security at home.
• The post-1980s order dis-embedded it. Capital controls went, welfare states were trimmed, labour markets were made “flexible”, and the domestic half of the bargain was quietly withdrawn while the international half was deepened.
  • The result was a system with the adjustment costs of openness but not the insurance, which is a politically unstable combination however efficient it is.

Polanyi’s double movement, and why the counter-movement can go either way

• Karl Polanyi supplies the deeper frame. In his account of the nineteenth century, the attempt to create a self-regulating market in land, labour and money treated as commodities what are not commodities, and society reacted to protect itself.
• He called this the double movement: an expansionary movement of market liberalisation, and a spontaneous protective counter-movement of legislation, associations and political mobilisation resisting it.

“Laissez-faire was planned; planning was not.” — Karl Polanyi

• The point of the aphorism is that markets are political constructions, built and maintained by deliberate state action, while the resistance to them is unplanned and arises from society itself.
• The counter-movement has no fixed political colour, which is the analytically decisive point for the present moment.
  • In its benign form it produced factory legislation, trade unions, social insurance and the welfare state.
  • In its malign form it produced the interwar collapse into fascism, autarky and economic nationalism, which Polanyi treated as a response to the same dislocation.
• Applied to the present, the framework predicts that dis-embedding will generate a protective reaction, that the reaction is a symptom of market overreach rather than of voter irrationality, and that its form depends on whether mainstream politics offers a channel for it.

Openness abroad has always had to be paid for at home; the backlash began when the payment stopped and the openness did not.

Building the open economy: who promoted globalisation, and how

• Globalisation in its recent form was not a weather system. It was a sequence of deliberate policy decisions taken in a small number of advanced economies over roughly two decades, and it is possible to name them.

The monetary and financial opening, 1971–1990

• The Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates ended between 1971 and 1973. The United States suspended the dollar’s convertibility into gold in August 1971; the attempt to re-fix parities failed; and by March 1973 the major currencies were floating.
• Capital controls were dismantled deliberately, not by drift. The United Kingdom abolished exchange controls in 1979; other advanced economies followed through the 1980s.
• The OECD Code of Liberalisation of Capital Movements, in force since 1961, was extended in 1989 to cover short-term capital movements, converting capital-account openness from a national policy choice into a standing obligation of membership in the rich-country club.
• Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan supplied the political leadership and the ideological register: privatisation, deregulation, tax reduction, the weakening of trade unions, and the claim that there is no alternative.
• The European Communities’ single market was legislated by the Single European Act (1986) and completed on 1 January 1993, establishing free movement of goods, services, capital and people across a continental economy — the deepest integration project ever attempted between sovereign democracies.

The Uruguay Round and the widening of the trade regime

• The Uruguay Round (1986–1994) was the largest trade negotiation in history and did far more than cut tariffs: it changed what trade rules are about.
• The World Trade Organization came into being on 1 January 1995, replacing a provisional 1947 agreement with a permanent organisation possessing binding dispute settlement.
• Three domains entered the multilateral trade regime for the first time, and each of them reaches inside the state.
  • Services, through the General Agreement on Trade in Services, bringing banking, telecommunications, transport and professional services within trade disciplines.
  • Agriculture, through the Agreement on Agriculture, which subjected farm support to rules — though with a structure that grandfathered the subsidies developed countries already paid.
  • Intellectual property, through TRIPS, which required every member to legislate patent, copyright and trademark protection to a common minimum standard.
• The significance is constitutional, not commercial. A trade regime confined to tariffs constrains what a state does at its border; a regime covering services, investment and patents constrains what a state may legislate at home — which is precisely the terrain democratic politics is about.
• Binding dispute settlement with an Appellate Body gave the rules teeth that the earlier arrangement lacked, and made the WTO the most judicialised international economic institution ever built.

The intellectual scaffolding

• Comparative advantage, the classical argument that countries gain by specialising where their relative costs are lowest, supplied the economic case — and it is a claim about aggregate gains, never a claim that everyone within a country gains.
• A political-economy claim completed the scaffolding — that trade openness and democracy reinforce each other, that commercial interdependence restrains conflict, and that a rising middle class produced by trade would demand political liberalisation.
  • This was the argument used to justify China’s accession to the WTO in 2001, and its apparent failure has done more to discredit the liberal case in Western capitals than any distributional argument.
• What the scaffolding lacked was any serious account of who bears the adjustment cost and how they are compensated — an omission that was theoretical for as long as growth was fast and became political when it was not.

The Washington Consensus: what Williamson wrote and what it became

• John Williamson coined the term Washington Consensus in 1989, listing the policy reforms he believed Washington-based institutions and Latin American governments had converged upon.
• The list has ten items, and it is worth stating them precisely, because the term is now used far more often than it is read.

• Point two is the one that disappears from every summary. Williamson’s list explicitly directed public spending towards primary health, education and basic infrastructure — a pro-poor redirection, not a demand for a smaller state.
• Williamson insisted the list was descriptive, not prescriptive. He was reporting what Latin American reformers had already converged on by the late 1980s after a decade of debt crisis and inflation; he was not issuing a universal template for all countries at all times.
• He objected publicly to the term’s later career as a synonym for market fundamentalism and for whatever the international financial institutions were doing, arguing that his list contained no monetarism, no supply-side economics, no minimal state, and — crucially — no capital-account liberalisation.
• That last omission matters enormously. The policy that did the most damage in the 1990s — rapid opening of the capital account — was never on the list, yet is universally attributed to it.
• The term nonetheless escaped its author, which is itself a political fact: it became the name under which a much harder programme travelled, and the name is now what is contested rather than the content.

The augmented consensus and the critique that followed

• By the late 1990s the original list was widely judged insufficient, and an “augmented” Washington Consensus added a second tier of requirements.
  • Institutions: legal systems, regulatory capacity, corporate governance, financial supervision.
  • Governance and anti-corruption, which moved the international financial institutions into explicitly political territory.
  • Targeted poverty reduction and, later, social safety nets, after the social costs of adjustment became undeniable.
• The augmentation was itself an admission. If reform requires functioning institutions, then institutions cannot be assumed, and the original programme had been assuming precisely what most reforming countries lacked.
• The post-Washington-consensus critique, most associated with Joseph Stiglitz, made three distinct arguments against the programme.
  • Markets with imperfect and asymmetric information do not behave as the underlying model assumes, so the presumption in favour of deregulation is unearned.
  • Sequencing matters more than content: liberalising finance before building supervision is worse than doing either alone.
  • The programme mistook means for ends, treating privatisation and openness as objectives rather than instruments to be judged by results.
• Rodrik’s objection was different and sharper: the list was so long, and by the time of augmentation so all-encompassing, that it amounted to telling poor countries to acquire the institutions of rich ones — advice that is unimplementable and therefore useless.

Who gained and who did not: the distributional record

Three decades of hyperglobalisation produced enormous aggregate gains and a distribution of those gains so uneven that it eventually destabilised the politics of the countries that had designed the system. The argument for openness was always that it enlarges the pie; the argument was never that everyone gets a bigger slice. What follows is what the evidence actually shows, including the parts that cut against the backlash narrative.

The elephant curve and its critics

• Branko Milanovic produced the single most influential picture of global distribution: real income growth by percentile of the world population between 1988 and 2008, plotted as a curve whose shape suggested an elephant.
• The emerging-market middle — roughly the 20th to 60th global percentiles, overwhelmingly Chinese, Indian and other Asian households — recorded very large real gains, on the order of 60 to 80 per cent cumulatively.
• The global top 1 per cent recorded similarly large gains, forming the elephant’s raised trunk.
• Between them lay the flat stretch around the 80th to 90th global percentiles, which corresponds to the lower-middle of rich-country income distributions — the group whose incomes barely moved, and whose politics subsequently changed.
• The curve became the standard shorthand for globalisation’s political economy: it appeared to show the Western working class paying for Asian industrialisation while the very rich collected the surplus.
• The critics have a serious case, and the honest position acknowledges it rather than discarding the curve.
  • Composition effects drive much of the flat segment: the countries occupying those percentiles changed over the twenty years, and the sagging trunk is heavily influenced by Japan’s stagnation and by the income collapse of the former Soviet bloc, neither of which is a story about Western workers and Chinese competition.
  • Holding country composition constant at its starting point, growth in the relevant band rises substantially and the flat stretch largely disappears.
  • Removing China from the sample flattens the whole curve, showing how much of the shape is one country’s transformation rather than a general law.
• The curve survives as a claim about relative position even where it weakens as a claim about absolute stagnation. Rich-country lower-middle incomes did grow; they grew far more slowly than the incomes above them and than the emerging-market middle, and relative decline is politically potent even when absolute incomes rise.

The China shock and the geography of loss

• David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson transformed the debate by asking a question trade economists had not asked: not what import competition does to a country, but what it does to a place.
• Their method exploited the fact that US local labour markets differed sharply in how exposed their industry mix was to Chinese import competition, allowing exposure to be measured commuting zone by commuting zone.
• The findings overturned the textbook expectation of smooth reallocation.
  • Manufacturing employment fell sharply in exposed areas, and overall employment fell nearly as much, meaning displaced workers largely did not move into other sectors.
  • Wages fell in exposed local markets, concentrated in the bottom deciles of the wage distribution.
  • Geographic mobility was negligible. People did not leave; the adjustment mechanism the model assumed simply did not operate.
• On the aggregate magnitude, direct import competition accounts for roughly 560,000 of the 5.8 million US manufacturing jobs lost between 1999 and 2011; including input-output linkages and lost local demand raises the estimate to around 2.4 million.
• The distinction between those two numbers is the whole argument. Trade was not the main cause of manufacturing decline, but it was the concentrated, sudden and geographically clustered cause — and concentrated losses are what move elections.
• Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig carried the method to Europe, constructing regional import-exposure measures and matching them to voting.
  • Regions more exposed to Chinese import competition shifted measurably towards nationalist and radical-right parties, and towards isolationist and protectionist positions across the party system.
  • They found the same relationship behind the Leave vote in the 2016 referendum, with higher-exposure areas voting more heavily to leave.
  • Their broader conclusion is that trade shocks operate politically through regional decline and status loss, not through individual job loss alone — which is why the effect appears in whole districts rather than only among displaced workers.

Wages, profits and the educational elite

• Across the advanced economies the share of national income going to labour fell over the hyperglobalisation decades while the profit share rose — a shift visible in almost every OECD economy and not explained by any single national policy.
• The International Labour Organization puts the decline in the global labour income share at about 1.6 percentage points over the two decades to 2024, equivalent to roughly $2.4 trillion of annual income that would otherwise have gone to workers.
• The mechanism is partly about bargaining power. The credible threat to relocate production changes the outcome of a wage negotiation even when no relocation occurs, which is why openness can depress wages without producing measurable job losses.
• Thomas Piketty adds a political dimension: globalisation coincided with the rise of an educational elite whose returns to credentials rose sharply, and left-of-centre parties across the West were progressively captured by graduates.
  • This produced what he describes as a politics with no party representing the low-educated on economic grounds, since one bloc represented business and the other the credentialled.
• Piketty’s central claim is that unequal globalisation is a choice, not a consequence. Free-trade treaties could have been accompanied by coordinated redistributive and capital taxation; they were not, and the omission was political.

The honest counter-case

• Consumers gained, and the gains were pro-poor in the consumption dimension. Import competition lowered the price of clothing, footwear, electronics and household goods, which occupy a much larger share of low-income than of high-income budgets.
• Studies of the unequal gains from trade through the consumption channel find that the poorest deciles gain proportionally more from openness than the richest, because their spending basket is more tradable-intensive.
• The technology-versus-trade dispute is genuinely unresolved, and any account that ignores it is incomplete.
  • The productivity argument holds that manufacturing employment fell primarily because output per worker rose — the same story as agriculture a century earlier, and one that would have unfolded without any trade at all.
  • Work on industrial robots finds independent, measurable negative effects on local employment and wages, in the same places and often in the same industries as the trade shock.
  • The two are also entangled: offshoring and automation are alternative responses to the same cost pressure, and firms chose between them.
• The reasonable synthesis is that technology explains most of the long-run decline in manufacturing employment, while trade explains a smaller share but delivered it abruptly and to specific towns — and politics responds to the abrupt and the specific.

Aggregate gains do not vote; concentrated losses do — and the geography of loss turned out to matter more than its size.

The two failures: compensation that never arrived and representation that closed

• The political case for openness rested on an explicit promise: the gains are large enough that the winners can compensate the losers and everyone still ends up better off. Compensation was the political precondition, and it was never delivered at scale.
• A second failure compounded the first. Where a policy imposes costs on an identifiable group, that group can normally punish the responsible party at an election — unless every mainstream party holds the same position, in which case the vote has nowhere to go except outside the mainstream.

The compensation failure

• Trade adjustment assistance was small, late and narrowly targeted. The flagship United States programme, in place since 1962, was appropriated under half a billion dollars a year in its final years — $494 million in FY2023 — against a shock that displaced millions.
  • Eligibility required a worker to prove that their particular job loss was caused by imports, which is close to unprovable in a real labour market and excluded most of the affected.
  • Benefits arrived only after the job had gone, so the programme functioned as compensation for a completed loss rather than insurance against risk.
  • Congress allowed the programme’s termination provisions to take effect on 1 July 2022: no new petitions have been certified since. The principal American instrument for compensating trade’s losers was simply allowed to lapse at the precise moment its political rationale was most obvious.
• Retraining did not happen at the scale promised. Evaluations of active labour-market programmes across the OECD find modest average effects, long lags before earnings recover, and poor performance for older displaced workers with industry-specific skills.
• The mismatch was spatial as well as occupational. Displaced workers were concentrated in towns whose entire economic base was the closing plant; retraining is of limited use where there is no local demand for the new skill and moving is unaffordable.
• European states with stronger automatic stabilisers, sectoral bargaining and active labour-market institutions absorbed the shock better — the Nordic model of high openness with high social protection is the demonstration that the compensation bargain can be honoured.
  • That contrast is itself evidence for the embedded-liberalism thesis: where the domestic half of the bargain survived, the political backlash arrived later and weaker.
• A deeper objection is that compensation was always conceptually inadequate. Cash transfers do not restore the status, community and identity attached to industrial work, and a policy framework that treats displaced workers as a fiscal problem misreads the grievance.

The representation failure

• Through the 1990s the centre-left converged on the market consensus. Clinton’s Democrats, Blair’s New Labour, Schröder’s Social Democrats and their counterparts accepted trade liberalisation, financial deregulation, fiscal discipline and privatisation as settled questions.
• The convergence was intellectually coherent — the electoral centre had moved, and left parties won office by moving with it — but it had a structural consequence.
• Where both governing blocs hold the same position on economic openness, opposition to openness becomes unrepresentable inside the party system. The demand does not disappear; it accumulates.
• The vacated ground was occupied from the flanks: by radical-right parties combining economic protection with cultural nativism, and by a revived radical left offering economic protection without it.
• Elections became referendums on the establishment rather than choices between programmes, which is why anti-globalisation politics arrived as insurgency rather than as ordinary partisan alternation.
• The European Union intensified the problem for its members, because the most contested economic decisions had been moved to a level where national electorates could not reverse them — the substance of the sovereignty complaint that drove the Leave campaign.
• Referendums proved the natural instrument of the excluded demand: where the party system offers no channel, a plebiscite does.

The cultural backlash account, and an argument that is not settled

• Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart advance the leading alternative explanation, and it is not economic at all.
• Their account begins with a long silent revolution: post-material values — environmentalism, gender equality, cosmopolitanism, sexual and racial equality — spread through Western societies from the 1970s as generations raised in security replaced those raised in scarcity.
• The backlash is that revolution running in reverse for those it left behind. Older, less educated, socially conservative voters found themselves a minority in their own countries on questions of value, and authoritarian-populist parties mobilised that resentment.
• The evidence for the cultural account is real. Attitudes to immigration, national identity and social change predict radical-right voting better in survey data than income or employment status, and the strongest backlash has not always occurred in the most economically damaged places.
• The evidence for the economic account is also real, and it is stronger at the level of places than of individuals: regional import exposure, plant closures and long-run local decline predict the vote even after controlling for individual characteristics.
• The honest position is that the two interact, and the interaction is the mechanism.
  • Economic decline produces status anxiety, and status anxiety is expressed in cultural rather than economic language, because that is the language available.
  • Cultural predispositions determine which political entrepreneur captures economic grievance — the same trade shock produced radical-right votes in some regions and radical-left votes in others.
  • Austerity after 2010 supplied a mediating channel: fiscal contraction in already-declining areas converted economic grievance into anti-system voting.

From the street to the ballot box: protest, 1999 to 2011

• The first sustained Western opposition to globalisation came from the left, not the right, and it was internationalist rather than nationalist — a fact usually forgotten, and one that matters for understanding what changed afterwards.

Seattle and the alter-globalisation movement

• The WTO’s third ministerial conference in Seattle, from 30 November to 3 December 1999, was intended to launch a new trade round and instead collapsed without a declaration.
• Two things converged there. Tens of thousands of demonstrators — trade unionists, environmentalists, church groups, students, farmers — shut down the city centre; and inside the building, developing-country delegations refused to accept a text negotiated among a handful of members in “green room” sessions from which they had been excluded.
• The collapse was caused by the negotiation, not the protest, but the protest supplied the image and made globalisation a subject of mass politics for the first time.
• Genoa, July 2001, marked the movement’s high point and its turn: some three hundred thousand demonstrated against the G8, policing was violent, and the protester Carlo Giuliani was shot dead — after which the movement’s mass phase declined, accelerated by the changed security climate following September 2001.
• The World Social Forum first met in Porto Alegre in January 2001, deliberately timed against the World Economic Forum at Davos, under the slogan “another world is possible”.
  • Its significance was that the opposition was positive rather than merely obstructive: it claimed to be against a particular globalisation, not against global connection.
  • Participants generally rejected the label “anti-globalisation” in favour of alter-globalisation — a different globalisation, built on labour rights, ecological limits and democratic accountability rather than capital mobility.
• The charges the movement laid were specific and have largely been vindicated by later events.
  • Labour standards were excluded from trade rules while investor protections were included, an asymmetry in what the regime chose to enforce.
  • Environmental costs sat outside the price of traded goods, so openness subsidised the carbon-intensive.
  • Democratic accountability was weakest exactly where authority was greatest — treaty texts negotiated in secret, dispute panels sitting without public scrutiny, and conditionality imposed on governments by institutions no electorate could remove.
• ATTAC, founded in France in 1998, gave the movement a concrete programme built around the Tobin tax — a small levy on foreign-exchange transactions proposed by James Tobin to slow speculative capital movement and fund development.
  • The proposal never became policy in its original form, but it established the principle that capital mobility is a policy variable rather than a fact of nature, which is where the later financial transaction tax debates began.

2008 as the hinge

• The global financial crisis of 2007–09 originated at the centre of the system, not at its periphery — in American mortgage securitisation and European bank leverage — and that fact did more damage to the intellectual case for deregulation than a decade of protest.
• The deregulatory argument was that liberalised finance allocates capital efficiently and disperses risk. The crisis demonstrated that it had concentrated risk in ways neither regulators nor the institutions themselves had understood.
• The response inverted three decades of doctrine: the largest state interventions in the economy since 1945, bank nationalisations, central-bank balance-sheet expansion on an unprecedented scale, and fiscal stimulus coordinated through the G20.
• The distributional politics of the rescue proved more consequential than its economics. Banks were rescued, households were foreclosed on, and almost no senior figure faced personal consequences — which converted a technical failure into a legitimacy crisis.
• Occupy Wall Street began in September 2011 and spread to hundreds of cities, contributing the vocabulary of “the 1 per cent” and “the 99 per cent” that reorganised how inequality is discussed in Western politics.
  • It produced no programme and no lasting organisation, and its energy dissipated — but it established distribution as the central axis of political argument, which the subsequent decade confirmed.
• The right-populist mobilisation followed rather than preceded the left’s. The same grievance about a rigged system was available to whoever could name a villain, and the nationalist right named immigrants and foreign competitors where the left had named banks.

The eurozone crisis and austerity

• The European sequel was harsher. A crisis that began in private banking was reconstructed as a crisis of sovereign profligacy, and the remedy prescribed was austerity — fiscal contraction in the middle of a recession.
• Mark Blyth made the case against it most forcefully, calling austerity a dangerous idea for reasons that were both economic and political.
  • It commits a fallacy of composition: what one household can do by saving, all of them cannot do at once, because one person’s spending is another’s income.
  • It is historically unsuccessful, with the expansionary-contraction claim resting on cases that do not survive scrutiny.
  • It is distributionally regressive, since cuts fall on public services and transfers used most by those with least, while the debt being serviced is owed to those with most.
  • It amounted to the greatest bait-and-switch of the modern period: a banking crisis paid for by the public sector and then presented as the public sector’s fault.
• Greece is the demonstration case. Successive adjustment programmes produced a depression-scale contraction and a collapse of the established party system, and the July 2015 referendum showed voters rejecting terms their government then had to accept anyway.
• That episode taught a lesson about democracy within deep integration that no argument could have taught as effectively: an electorate voted, and the vote could not change the policy, because the policy was set by creditors and treaty obligations outside the national political system.

The crisis of 2008 did not create the backlash; it destroyed the intellectual authority of those who could have contained it.

The revolt enters government, 2016 onward

• What changed after 2016 was not the existence of opposition to globalisation but its location: it moved from the street into legislatures, and then into executive office.

Brexit and the American turn

• The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016, by 51.9 per cent to 48.1 — the first time an advanced democracy voted to reduce its own economic integration.
• The economic case for leaving was weak and was not seriously made; the campaign was fought on sovereignty and immigration, under the slogan “take back control”, which is the sharpest available statement of the representation grievance.
• The vote’s geography matched the analysis of decline almost exactly: deindustrialised regions, coastal towns and areas of low educational attainment voted to leave, while London, Scotland and university cities voted to remain.
• The 2016 United States presidential election produced the more consequential shift, because it converted the Republican Party — the party of free trade for seventy years — into a protectionist party.
  • The manufacturing states of the industrial Midwest, closely matching the map of import exposure, decided the result.
  • Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership followed in January 2017, and negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union were abandoned.
  • Tariffs on steel, aluminium and a large share of Chinese exports followed from 2018, and were substantially retained by the succeeding administration — which is the evidence that the turn was structural rather than personal.
• The abandonment of TPP and TTIP is the clearest single marker of the change. Both were negotiated by governments committed to integration, and both were killed by domestic politics rather than by foreign opposition.

The European map

• The radical right advanced across Europe on a programme combining economic protection, immigration restriction and hostility to supranational authority, though the pattern is uneven and should not be flattened.
  • France: the National Front, renamed the National Rally in 2018, moved from the margin to the largest single party in the National Assembly, having reached the presidential run-off three times.
  • Germany: the Alternative for Germany, founded in 2013 as an anti-euro party, came second in the February 2025 federal election with about a fifth of the vote, roughly double its previous share.
  • Italy: Brothers of Italy led a coalition into government in 2022, the first far-right-descended party to head an Italian government since the war, having moderated on the euro while retaining nationalist positions.
  • Hungary and Poland: Fidesz governed for sixteen years on an explicitly anti-liberal, anti-Brussels programme before losing power in April 2026; Law and Justice governed Poland from 2015 to 2023 on comparable lines.
  • The Netherlands and the Nordics: the Party for Freedom won the 2023 Dutch election before falling back sharply in October 2025; the Sweden Democrats, Finns Party and Danish People’s Party moved from pariah status to governing influence.
• The trajectory is not one-directional. Hungary’s governing party lost an election in 2026 and the Dutch radical right fell from 37 seats to 26 in a single cycle, which is evidence that the advance is contingent on circumstance rather than a mechanical response to globalisation.
• The paradox flagged in the literature is that the left strengthened at the same time. Radical-left parties gained where centre-left ones had converged on the market consensus, and left-populist movements built on the same anti-establishment sentiment.
• The two flanks share a diagnosis and differ on the remedy. Both reject a technocratic consensus that removed economic questions from democratic control; the left demands redistribution and regulation of capital, the right demands closure and national preference — the two forms of Polanyi’s counter-movement running simultaneously.

Trade agreements reframed as sovereignty questions

• Trade agreements are no longer argued about as efficiency questions. They are argued about as questions of who decides — over food standards, environmental rules, patents, data and public services.
• Investor-state dispute settlement became the symbolic centre of the objection, because it allows a foreign investor to sue a state over a democratically enacted regulation before an arbitral tribunal outside the national courts.
• Ratification became the choke point. Agreements are now blocked at the domestic stage — by parliaments, referendums, regional assemblies and elections — rather than at the negotiating table.
• The deepest consequence is a shift in the burden of proof: openness must now justify itself, where for three decades it was the presumptive default and restriction was what required justification.
• The result is that the liberal international order is being questioned not only by revisionist powers outside it, but by its own electorates inside it — and the second challenge is the harder one, because it cannot be met by balancing, deterrence or containment.

Rodrik’s political trilemma

• Dani Rodrik supplies the framework that organises everything above into a single proposition, and it is the most useful analytical device in the literature on globalisation’s limits.

“Democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full.” — Dani Rodrik

• The claim is not that any of the three is undesirable. It is that the three are jointly unattainable, so every actual arrangement is a choice about which one to sacrifice.
• Deep economic integration here means more than free trade: it means the removal of the transaction costs created by different national rules, which requires convergence on regulation, taxation and legal standards.
• Democracy here means mass politics with real policy consequences, and the nation-state means jurisdictional boundaries that do not coincide with markets — which is what generates the tension in the first place.

• The golden straitjacket is the corner the West actually occupied, and Rodrik’s description of its politics is the point: your economy grows and your politics shrinks, until party competition reduces to marginal variations on a single programme.
  • His comparison is that political choice becomes a choice between near-identical brands — which is a precise description of the representation failure diagnosed above.
• Global federalism is not available. Democratic authority at global scale would require a global political community, and there is no evidence of one forming; Rodrik’s own judgement is that it is at best a century away.
• The Bretton Woods compromise is available, and it is what he recommends. Its logic is that a moderate degree of openness delivers most of the economic gains, while the last increments of integration cost disproportionately in political sustainability.
• His second formulation states the mechanism directly: hyperglobalisation required domestic policy to be subordinated to international integration, and democracies proved unwilling to sustain that subordination indefinitely.
• His conclusion is therefore not anti-globalisation but anti-maximalism. A thinner globalisation — one that leaves room for national social contracts, divergent regulatory models and industrial policy — is both more sustainable and more desirable than the maximal version, because it does not require democracies to disable themselves.
• He adds that the model placed multinational firms in the driver’s seat, prioritising market integration over the objectives integration was supposed to serve — shared prosperity and economic security — and that a return to the status quo before 2016 is neither possible nor worth attempting.

Rodrik’s argument is not that globalisation went too fast, but that it went past the point where democracies could still change their minds.

How the leading assessments read the record

• Joseph Stiglitz holds that globalisation is neither good nor bad in itself; it succeeds or fails according to how it is managed.
  • It works where it is managed nationally, with policy fitted to a country’s own circumstances, institutions and stage of development.
  • It fails where it is managed by international institutions — above all the IMF — on neoliberal assumptions he regards as fundamentally unsound, particularly the presumption in favour of rapid capital-account opening.
  • He argues the Fund’s insistence on high interest rates and fiscal contraction deepened the 1997 Asian financial crisis rather than containing it, and that comparable advice contributed to the Argentine collapse.
• Jagdish Bhagwati defends globalisation while conceding that the case is conditional.
  • Properly regulated, he holds it to be the most powerful force for social good available: it raises general prosperity in poor countries, reduces child labour by raising household incomes above the margin at which children are sent to work, raises literacy, and improves women’s economic and social standing by drawing them into paid employment.
  • Against the charge that globalisation produces a bland, homogenised “McWorld”, he points to literature, cinema and cuisine as evidence that cultural contact produces hybridity rather than uniformity.
  • His framing of the debate is the most useful part: effects are either benign, advancing objectives such as poverty reduction and women’s rights, or malign, setting them back. If malign, slowing globalisation may be worth its economic cost; if benign, that is no reason for complacency.
  • The real question, on his account, is not whether globalisation can have benign effects but which policy instruments best advance which objectives — moving the argument from ideology to institutional design.
• Amartya Sen rejects the framing of globalisation as a Western imposition.
  • It is neither new, nor exclusively Western, nor a curse: the movement of ideas, technology and people has run in every direction for a millennium, and decimal mathematics, printing and gunpowder travelled west from Asia.
  • The genuine problem is distribution, not existence. The question is not whether the poor gain something from global integration, but whether the arrangements dividing the gains could be made fairer — and that is a question about institutions, which are alterable.
  • Inequality both between and within countries is the real issue, and it is the within-country dimension that the older North–South framing missed.
  • His reform agenda is deliberately wide: fair trade rules, dissemination of technology, access to life-saving drugs, educational exchange, environmental restraint, and fair treatment of debts contracted by irresponsible past regimes.
  • He also connects the arms trade to the credibility of global governance: the permanent members of the Security Council, charged with keeping the peace, supply the overwhelming majority of the world’s arms exports — a share still running at roughly two-thirds of global transfers on current data.
• Thomas Piketty treats the distribution of globalisation’s gains as a political choice rather than a technical outcome, and locates the failure in the refusal to pair trade treaties with progressive taxation of income, wealth and capital.
• Deepak Nayyar stresses the uneven geography of the gains and draws the political conclusion.
  • The benefits went to a small number of industrialised countries and a handful of emerging economies; the United States and Western Europe gained, Southern Europe and the transition economies of Eastern Europe fell behind, and Africa regressed, with the least developed countries falling behind fastest.
  • Even within the winning countries, the gains accrued to a small fraction of the population, so that inequality in income and wealth became more pronounced everywhere.
  • His verdict is that such inequality is not merely unjust but politically unsustainable, and that the resurgent nationalism of the present is its predictable expression: economics became global while politics remained national and local.
  • He also observes that earlier epochs of globalisation ended because of consequences generated by the process itself, which is his reason for expecting the present phase to be self-limiting.
• Catherine Mann takes the opposite position and it deserves to be stated at full strength.
  • Her claim is that the problem is too little globalisation rather than too much — the gains were never widely shared, but the remedy lies in extending participation, not in withdrawing.
  • Retreat leaves societies with fewer resources with which to address risk and inequality, since the growth that funds compensation is the first casualty.
  • The failure is domestic: whether globalisation succeeds depends on how well national economic policy handles downside risk, and the current approach compounds the error by combining retreat from openness with regressive domestic policy rather than the reverse.
• Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo locate the binding constraint in politics rather than economics.
  • Their argument is that the constraint on further globalisation is the unwillingness to invest in genuinely targeted compensation for losers, not any exhaustion of the economic gains available.
  • They also find against the common claim that immigrants depress native wages or displace native workers, pointing out that migrants add to demand as well as to labour supply and that the evidence from actual migration episodes does not show the predicted wage effects.

Turning the network into a weapon

• Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman identify what the standard accounts of interdependence missed: global economic networks are not flat webs of mutual dependence but asymmetric structures with central nodes, and whoever has jurisdiction over a node acquires power over everyone who must pass through it.
• They identify two distinct forms of coercion, and the distinction is worth keeping separate.
  • The panopticon effect: the state hosting a hub can see what flows through it, converting a commercial network into an intelligence asset — financial messaging data, undersea cable traffic, cloud-hosted information.
  • The chokepoint effect: the same state can exclude an adversary from the network, denying access to payments, components or markets on which the target’s economy depends.

• The dollar is the most important node. It accounted for roughly 57 per cent of allocated global foreign-exchange reserves in early 2026, against about 20 per cent for the euro, and its share of trade invoicing and cross-border settlement is higher still.
  • Because dollar payments ultimately clear through American correspondent banks, the United States acquires jurisdiction over transactions that need not involve any American party.
  • Secondary sanctions exploit this directly: a foreign bank is offered a choice between trading with the target and retaining access to the dollar system, and it is not a real choice.
• SWIFT, the Belgian-headquartered financial messaging cooperative, is the second node, and disconnection from it has become a standard coercive instrument.
• The Russia sanctions of 2022 marked a qualitative escalation. Major Russian banks were cut from SWIFT, and — far more consequential — roughly $300 billion of Russian central-bank reserves were immobilised, the bulk of it in Europe.
  • Freezing the reserve assets of a G20 central bank had no real precedent, and it demonstrated that reserves held in another state’s currency are claims on that state, not property beyond its reach.
• Export controls extended the same logic to technology. Controls on advanced semiconductors and, more decisively, on the equipment and software needed to manufacture them, were designed to deny capability rather than to raise costs, and were extended extraterritorially to foreign firms using American technology.
• The consequence the West must reckon with is that the weapon degrades with use. Every state that observes the network being used coercively acquires an incentive to build around it.
  • Alternative payment messaging, bilateral local-currency settlement, central-bank digital currencies, non-Western clearing arrangements and reserve diversification into gold are all responses to demonstrated vulnerability rather than to ideology.
  • The cost is legitimacy as much as strategy: infrastructure presented for decades as neutral public goods has been shown to be national instruments, which weakens the claim of the whole order to be rules-based rather than power-based.

The legitimacy problem of Western leadership

• The double-standards charge is the core of it. Free trade and rules were championed where they suited the champions and bent where they did not, and the inconsistency has been observed and recorded by everyone else.
• Agricultural support is the standing example: developed economies retained large farm subsidy programmes, grandfathered under the Uruguay Round settlement, while instructing others to liberalise the sectors in which most of their poor work.
• Reform of Bretton Woods governance has been conceded in principle and deferred in practice. Quota and voting shares at the IMF still understate the weight of large emerging economies, and the latest general review again raised resources without altering relative shares.
• The WTO’s Appellate Body has been paralysed since December 2019 because appointments have been blocked by the United States — the power that insisted on binding dispute settlement in the first place, and that used it more than any other member.
  • The stopgap is the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, which by 2026 covered around 60 per cent of world trade among its participants — a workaround that proves both the demand for adjudication and the failure of the institution designed to supply it.
• The 2008 crisis was the credibility blow, because the regulatory failure occurred at the centre of global finance, in the jurisdictions that had been certifying everyone else’s institutions as inadequate.
• Its costs fell heavily on people in developing economies who had no part in causing it — through collapsed export demand, capital flight and currency pressure — which is why the crisis is remembered outside the West as an argument about who sets the rules rather than as a technical episode.

The policy turn: industrial policy returns where it was once forbidden

• The most striking policy consequence is the open return of industrial policy in the countries that spent three decades instructing everyone else not to use it.
• The CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, both of 2022, commit large-scale subsidies, tax credits and local-content conditions to semiconductors and clean-energy manufacturing; the EU Chips Act of 2023 answers them.
• The conditionality attached is what makes these industrial policy rather than stimulus — production must be located domestically, content sourced from approved jurisdictions, and recipients restricted in where else they may invest.
• Trade policy has been reframed as security policy. Tariffs, screening of inbound and outbound investment, and export controls are justified by supply-chain resilience and national security rather than by any commercial calculus, and the security framing removes the question from the trade rules almost entirely.
• The tariff turn ran from 2018 and again from 2025, the second wave far broader in coverage and imposed by executive action under emergency powers rather than by legislation.
• What happened next matters more than the rates: in February 2026 the United States Supreme Court held that the emergency statute relied upon did not authorise the President to impose tariffs at all, distinguishing the power to regulate commerce from the power to levy taxes, and the tariffs imposed under it terminated within days.
  • Sectoral tariffs enacted under separate statutory authority were untouched and remain in force, so the substance of protection survived the judgment.
  • A domestic court limiting unilateral executive power over trade is the significant fact, not the rates — it shows the backlash running into constitutional constraints inside the very system that produced it, and it locates the contest over globalisation in domestic institutions rather than international ones.

How the Western backlash reaches India

• India is affected by the developed world’s turn even though it did not cause it, and the effects arrive through channels distinct from those the older North–South debate anticipated.
• Services mobility is the most direct exposure. India’s software and business-services export model depends on the movement of skilled personnel, and restriction of that movement is a trade barrier in everything but name.
  • A proclamation in September 2025 imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions, a level that would have priced out the staffing-intensive model on which Indian technology firms built their American presence.
  • A federal district court struck the fee down on 8 June 2026 as an unlawful tax, but the ruling was stayed pending appeal, so the fee continues to be collected — the same constitutional pattern as the tariff case, and the same underlying instability for anyone planning against it.
  • The deeper point is that the WTO regime liberalised capital and goods far more than the movement of people, leaving services trade that depends on presence abroad structurally more vulnerable than merchandise trade.
• Western industrial policy directly complicates Indian manufacturing ambitions. Semiconductor and clean-energy investment is being drawn towards jurisdictions offering the largest subsidies, and India competes with treasuries far deeper than its own.
• The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism entered its definitive phase in January 2026, imposing a carbon charge at the border on imports of steel, aluminium, cement, fertiliser, electricity and hydrogen.
  • It is read in India as green protectionism: the burden falls hardest on producers using coal-based power, the design takes no account of common but differentiated responsibilities, and it substitutes a unilateral trade measure for the negotiated climate regime.
  • India’s steel and aluminium exports to Europe are the immediate exposure, and the mechanism has become a live issue in the trade relationship rather than a technical annexe to it.
• Tariff pressure has accelerated India’s agreement-making. The India–EFTA agreement entered into force in October 2025 carrying a $100 billion investment commitment, the India–UK agreement in July 2026, and the India–EU negotiation concluded in January 2026.
  • The pattern is a move from long-standing FTA scepticism to rapid bilateral and plurilateral engagement with partners who are themselves hedging against the same uncertainty.
• The Indian argument at the WTO anticipated all of this. For two decades Indian negotiators contended that the developed world’s commitment to open trade was always conditional — that agriculture would stay protected, that services mobility would not be liberalised, and that rules would be renegotiated when they became inconvenient.
• The mirror-image point completes the picture. India’s own politics contains a version of the same counter-movement, in the swadeshi tradition and in contemporary self-reliance programmes, and its decision to leave the RCEP negotiation in 2019 was a domestic-protection decision of exactly the kind Western electorates have since demanded.

Conclusion

• The societies that designed globalisation turned against it because the domestic bargain that made it politically sustainable was never honoured. Openness was deepened; the compensation and representation meant to accompany it were not.
• Polanyi’s counter-movement arrived on schedule and took both of its available forms — a redistributive left demand and a nationalist right one — with the second proving more electorally effective because the first had been absorbed into the consensus it was reacting against.
• Rodrik’s trilemma states the constraint that remains after the shouting. Deep integration, national sovereignty and democratic politics cannot all be maximised, and the question now facing the West is not whether to retreat from globalisation but which of the three it intends to protect.
• The lasting significance is institutional rather than economic: the order’s central challenge no longer comes from powers outside it, but from electorates inside it that were never given a reason to keep consenting.