The Myth of Deglobalization: Multinational Corporations in an Era of Growing Geopolitical Rivalries

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics and Governance Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.17645/pag.8092
L. Linsi, Ellie Gristwood
{"title":"The Myth of Deglobalization: Multinational Corporations in an Era of Growing Geopolitical Rivalries","authors":"L. Linsi, Ellie Gristwood","doi":"10.17645/pag.8092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Globalization is past its peak, we are told. The rise of populist anti-globalization movements and the return of geopolitical rivalries among great powers in the 2010s has put an end to free-wheeling corporate global capitalism. Or has it? This article summons available data on cross-border corporate investments at the level of countries (balance of payments), firms (subsidiaries and affiliates), and corporate managers (industry surveys). It pays special attention to the period between 2015 and 2021, which spans the election of President Trump and the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic that have unsettled global politics. We analyze global patterns in foreign direct investment positions and in particular the evolution of investments by US corporations in China, arguably a “most likely case” for deglobalization. Our analyses find no evidence that economic cross-border integration is in decline. The global allocation of corporate investments across the world’s major economic regions has remained stable. US corporations have not notably reduced their global activities. If anything, their aggregate investment position in China has increased during the Trump administration’s trade war. Overall, the results cast empirical doubts on prominent narratives about the state of the global economy. Geoeconomic transformations in world economic infrastructures may well be underway, but they are better understood as new and adapted forms of internationalization rather than the end of globalization.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8092","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Globalization is past its peak, we are told. The rise of populist anti-globalization movements and the return of geopolitical rivalries among great powers in the 2010s has put an end to free-wheeling corporate global capitalism. Or has it? This article summons available data on cross-border corporate investments at the level of countries (balance of payments), firms (subsidiaries and affiliates), and corporate managers (industry surveys). It pays special attention to the period between 2015 and 2021, which spans the election of President Trump and the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic that have unsettled global politics. We analyze global patterns in foreign direct investment positions and in particular the evolution of investments by US corporations in China, arguably a “most likely case” for deglobalization. Our analyses find no evidence that economic cross-border integration is in decline. The global allocation of corporate investments across the world’s major economic regions has remained stable. US corporations have not notably reduced their global activities. If anything, their aggregate investment position in China has increased during the Trump administration’s trade war. Overall, the results cast empirical doubts on prominent narratives about the state of the global economy. Geoeconomic transformations in world economic infrastructures may well be underway, but they are better understood as new and adapted forms of internationalization rather than the end of globalization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
去全球化的神话:地缘政治竞争加剧时代的跨国公司
我们被告知,全球化已过了高峰期。民粹主义反全球化运动的兴起,以及 2010 年代大国间地缘政治竞争的卷土重来,终结了全球资本主义企业的自由发展。还是这样?本文从国家层面(国际收支)、企业层面(子公司和联营公司)以及企业管理者层面(行业调查)收集了有关跨境企业投资的现有数据。文章特别关注了 2015 年至 2021 年这一时期,这一时期跨越了特朗普总统当选和引发全球政治动荡的 "Covid-19 "大流行的爆发期。我们分析了外国直接投资头寸的全球模式,尤其是美国公司在中国投资的演变,中国可以说是去全球化的 "最可能案例"。我们的分析没有发现经济跨境一体化正在衰退的证据。企业投资在全球主要经济区域的分布保持稳定。美国公司并未明显减少其全球活动。如果说有什么变化的话,那就是在特朗普政府发动贸易战期间,它们在中国的总投资头寸有所增加。总之,研究结果使人们对有关全球经济状况的主要说法产生了经验上的怀疑。世界经济基础设施的地缘经济转型可能正在发生,但这些转型最好被理解为新的、经过调整的国际化形式,而不是全球化的终结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics and Governance
Politics and Governance POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Politics and Governance is an innovative offering to the world of online publishing in the Political Sciences. An internationally peer-reviewed open access journal, Politics and Governance publishes significant, cutting-edge and multidisciplinary research drawn from all areas of Political Science. Its central aim is thereby to enhance the broad scholarly understanding of the range of contemporary political and governing processes, and impact upon of states, political entities, international organizations, communities, societies and individuals, at international, regional, national and local levels. Submissions that focus upon the political or governance-based dynamics of any of these levels or units of analysis in way that interestingly and effectively brings together conceptual analysis and empirical findings are welcome. Politics and Governance is committed to publishing rigorous and high-quality research. To that end, it undertakes a meticulous editorial process, providing both the academic and policy-making community with the most advanced research on contemporary politics and governance. The journal is an entirely open-access online resource, and its in-house publication process enables it to swiftly disseminate its research findings worldwide, and on a regular basis.
期刊最新文献
Shades of Resistance: Factors Influencing Populist Mobilization Against the EU Budgetary Conditionality Regime Gender, Intraparty Competition, and the Substantive Focus of Parliamentary Questions in South Africa Methodological Reflections on Studying Gender‐Sensitive Parliaments Cross‐Nationally: A “Most Significant Change” Approach Parliament as a Workplace: Dilemmas of Vernacularisation and Professionalisation US Critical Mineral Policies and Alliance Strategies in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1