“Win-lose” globalization and the weaponization of economic policies by nation-states

Sergio Mariotti
{"title":"“Win-lose” globalization and the weaponization of economic policies by nation-states","authors":"Sergio Mariotti","doi":"10.1108/cpoib-09-2023-0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nAfter decades of hypergrowth, since the 2008 global financial crisis there has been a deceleration of globalization and a partial jamming of its main engines (trade and foreign direct investment [FDI]). This study aims to critically reflect on the current phase, labeling it as “win-lose globalization” characterized by firm-firm competition increasingly intertwined with that between the respective nation-states, which aim to be the relative winners, even at the expense of joint absolute gains. Acting as “strategists,” states implement policies to weaponize economic interdependences, which the paper analyzes.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe approach is “problem setting” rather than “problem solving.” The latter offers well-defined solutions but often assumes unambiguous definitions of problems, which obscure their complexity. This phase is so intricate that the problem itself is problematic. Thus, to advance knowledge, the focus is given on nation-state policies: FDI screening and the politicization of international trade relations; protectionism; misuses of antitrust and regulation.\n\n\nFindings\nThe intensification of firm-firm/state-state competition, seeking disproportionate gains over rivals, is the ultimate result of the contradictions and dissatisfactions accumulated over decades of globalization, the benefits of which have been far from equally distributed. Conflicts in international economic relations are bound to intensify, and a return to win-win globalization is unlikely. International cooperation to strengthen existing/new supranational governance institutions in the interest of absolute global inclusive benefits is urgently needed.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe paper integrates the international business debate on the fate of globalization with interpretations from industrial policy studies and international relations theory. This allows for suggestions for policymakers, corporate executives and scholars.\n","PeriodicalId":46124,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-09-2023-0089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose After decades of hypergrowth, since the 2008 global financial crisis there has been a deceleration of globalization and a partial jamming of its main engines (trade and foreign direct investment [FDI]). This study aims to critically reflect on the current phase, labeling it as “win-lose globalization” characterized by firm-firm competition increasingly intertwined with that between the respective nation-states, which aim to be the relative winners, even at the expense of joint absolute gains. Acting as “strategists,” states implement policies to weaponize economic interdependences, which the paper analyzes. Design/methodology/approach The approach is “problem setting” rather than “problem solving.” The latter offers well-defined solutions but often assumes unambiguous definitions of problems, which obscure their complexity. This phase is so intricate that the problem itself is problematic. Thus, to advance knowledge, the focus is given on nation-state policies: FDI screening and the politicization of international trade relations; protectionism; misuses of antitrust and regulation. Findings The intensification of firm-firm/state-state competition, seeking disproportionate gains over rivals, is the ultimate result of the contradictions and dissatisfactions accumulated over decades of globalization, the benefits of which have been far from equally distributed. Conflicts in international economic relations are bound to intensify, and a return to win-win globalization is unlikely. International cooperation to strengthen existing/new supranational governance institutions in the interest of absolute global inclusive benefits is urgently needed. Originality/value The paper integrates the international business debate on the fate of globalization with interpretations from industrial policy studies and international relations theory. This allows for suggestions for policymakers, corporate executives and scholars.
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
全球化的 "双输 "和民族国家经济政策的武器化
目的经过数十年的高速增长,自 2008 年全球金融危机以来,全球化出现了减速,其主要引擎(贸易和外国直接投资[FDI])部分受到干扰。本研究旨在对现阶段进行批判性反思,将其称为 "输赢型全球化",其特点是企业与企业之间的竞争日益与各民族国家之间的竞争交织在一起,而各民族国家的目标是成为相对赢家,甚至不惜牺牲共同的绝对收益。作为 "战略家",国家实施政策,将经济相互依存关系武器化,本文对此进行了分析。 设计/方法/途径本文采用 "问题设置 "而非 "问题解决 "的方法。后者提供定义明确的解决方案,但往往假定问题的定义毫不含糊,从而掩盖了问题的复杂性。这一阶段错综复杂,以至于问题本身就存在问题。因此,为了增进知识,重点应放在民族国家政策上:研究结果企业与企业、国家与国家之间的竞争愈演愈烈,以谋求与对手不成比例的利益,这是全球化几十年来积累的矛盾和不满情绪的最终结果,而全球化带来的利益远非平均分配。国际经济关系中的矛盾必将激化,全球化不可能回归共赢。因此,迫切需要开展国际合作,加强现有的/新的超国家治理机构,以实现绝对的全球包容性利益。 原创性/价值 本文将国际商业界关于全球化命运的争论与产业政策研究和国际关系理论的解释相结合。这为政策制定者、企业高管和学者提供了建议。
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: In recent years, the business practices and management philosophies of global enterprises have been subject to increasingly close scrutiny by commentators in the fields of journalism and academia. Such scrutiny has been motivated by a growing desire to examine the nature of globalisation, its impact on specific communities and its benefits for society as a whole. Coverage includes, but is not restricted to, issues of: ■Globalization ■Production and consumption ■Economic change ■Societal change ■Politics and power of organizations and governments ■Environmental impact
期刊最新文献
Understanding academic women’s silence in Poland: exploring with social cognitive theory Sustainability in business education: a systematic review and future research agenda Transcending the DEI contradictions: a Bourdieusian path to social justice in international business De-othering: indigenous perspectives on diversity, equity and inclusion Co-creating inclusion in research practices in the South Pacific: some highlights and challenges
×
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