You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.1 — issues associated with globalisation and global governance; tensions between globalisation and national sovereignty; resistance to globalisation; the unevenness of costs and benefits; the contemporary shift towards protectionism and deglobalisation. This is the synthesising lesson of the topic, pulling together trade (Lessons 2–3), finance (Lesson 4), migration (Lesson 5), culture (Lesson 6), governance (Lessons 7–8) and inequality (Lesson 9). Synoptic links to §3.2.2 (Changing Places — how shocks and deglobalisation reshape places) and §3.2.4 (Resource Security — supply-chain and food/energy shocks). AOs: AO1 (deglobalisation, anti-globalisation movements, protectionism, named cases — Seattle, the US–China trade war, Brexit, COVID-19), AO2 (evaluating the costs/benefits and sovereignty tensions of globalisation) and AO3 (interpreting trade-growth, tariff and FDI data).
Globalisation has generated enormous wealth, interconnection and cultural exchange — but it has also provoked significant opposition, resistance and backlash. This final lesson examines the challenges facing globalisation and the diverse forms of resistance it has provoked, from anti-globalisation protests to the rise of nationalism, protectionism and deglobalisation. The unifying theme is the recurring tension between globalisation and sovereignty: global integration delivers aggregate gains while eroding national and democratic control, and the backlash is, in large part, a demand to "take back control".
After decades of rapid growth, there are signs that globalisation may be slowing or even retreating — a process sometimes called "deglobalisation" or "slowbalisation" (a term coined by The Economist):
| Indicator | Evidence of Slowbalisation |
|---|---|
| Trade growth | Global trade growth has slowed — trade grew faster than GDP before 2008 but has broadly matched GDP growth since |
| FDI | Global FDI flows have declined from their 2007 peak of US$2 trillion to approximately US$1.3 trillion |
| Trade wars | US-China trade war (from 2018) — tariffs imposed on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods |
| Brexit | UK's departure from the EU single market — the most significant act of economic disintegration in modern history |
| COVID-19 | Pandemic exposed vulnerabilities of global supply chains; prompted "reshoring" and "nearshoring" |
| Geopolitical fragmentation | Russia-Ukraine war (2022) disrupted energy and food markets; sanctions regime |
| Technology decoupling | US-China competition over semiconductors, AI, and 5G — "tech Cold War" |
graph TD
A[Challenges to Globalisation] --> B["Geopolitical Tensions<br>US-China rivalry, Russia-Ukraine"]
A --> C["Economic Nationalism<br>Trade wars, tariffs, reshoring"]
A --> D["Supply Chain Vulnerabilities<br>COVID-19, Suez Canal blockage 2021"]
A --> E["Environmental Crisis<br>Climate change, resource depletion"]
A --> F["Social Backlash<br>Inequality, anti-globalisation movements"]
A --> G["Pandemic<br>COVID-19 border closures, vaccine nationalism"]
A classic AO3 task is to interpret world-trade growth relative to world-output (GDP) growth — the headline measure of whether globalisation is advancing or stalling. Consider these (representative) average annual growth rates:
| Period | World trade growth (avg/yr) | World GDP growth (avg/yr) | Trade-to-GDP growth ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1990–2008 | ~6.0% | ~3.0% | 2.0 |
| 2012–2023 | ~3.0% | ~3.0% | 1.0 |
Describe. Before 2008, world trade grew roughly twice as fast as world output (ratio 2.0); since around 2012, trade has grown only at about the same rate as output (ratio 1.0).
Manipulate. The trade-to-GDP growth elasticity halved, from 2.0 to 1.0:
change in ratio=2.01.0−2.0×100=−50%
When trade grows faster than GDP (ratio >1), the world is globalising (trade rising as a share of output); when it grows at the same rate (ratio ~1), globalisation has plateaued.
Explain. The collapse from 2.0 to 1.0 is the statistical signature of "slowbalisation": the 2008 financial crisis, the maturing of global supply chains, the US–China trade war (tariffs from 2018) and COVID-19 supply-shocks together halted the deepening of trade integration. It does not show trade falling — it shows trade ceasing to outpace output.
Evaluate. The ratio is a powerful but blunt signal. It hides composition shifts — services and digital trade may still be globalising even as goods trade plateaus — and a single ratio cannot distinguish temporary shocks (a pandemic) from structural reversal (a genuine retreat from integration). "Slowbalisation" is therefore the defensible reading; "deglobalisation" (an actual reversal) remains contested, because trade is stagnating as a share of output, not shrinking.
Organised resistance to globalisation emerged prominently in the late 1990s and has taken diverse forms:
The WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle, USA, in November 1999 was disrupted by approximately 40,000-60,000 protesters from a coalition of trade unions, environmental groups, human rights organisations, and anarchist movements. The protests succeeded in disrupting the conference and brought anti-globalisation sentiment to mainstream attention.
Key grievances included:
The World Social Forum (WSF) was established in 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum in Davos. Its slogan — "Another World Is Possible" — reflects the belief that alternatives to neoliberal globalisation exist.
The WSF brings together civil society organisations, social movements, and activists from around the world to discuss alternatives to corporate-driven globalisation. It emphasises:
The Occupy Wall Street movement, beginning in September 2011 in New York's Zuccotti Park, highlighted the concentration of wealth among the "1%" and the growing inequality associated with globalisation. The slogan "We are the 99%" became a global rallying cry, with Occupy protests spreading to over 80 countries.
Protectionism — the use of government policies to restrict international trade and protect domestic industries — represents the most direct economic challenge to globalisation.
| Type | How It Works | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Tariffs | Taxes on imported goods, making them more expensive | US tariffs on Chinese steel (25%) and aluminium (10%) imposed in 2018 |
| Quotas | Limits on the quantity of a good that can be imported | EU quotas on Chinese textile imports |
| Subsidies | Government payments to domestic producers, giving them a cost advantage | EU Common Agricultural Policy (€55 billion/year); US farm subsidies |
| Non-tariff barriers | Regulations, standards, and bureaucratic requirements that restrict imports | Japanese food safety standards; EU environmental regulations |
| Exchange rate manipulation | Deliberately devaluing currency to make exports cheaper | USA accused China of currency manipulation |
| Sanctions | Politically motivated trade restrictions | Western sanctions on Russia following Ukraine invasion (2022) |
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
|---|---|
| Protects domestic jobs and industries from unfair foreign competition | Raises prices for consumers and reduces choice |
| Allows "infant industries" to develop before facing global competition | Invites retaliation — trade wars harm all parties |
| Protects national security — maintaining strategic industries | Reduces economic efficiency — resources allocated to uncompetitive industries |
| Can address unfair practices (dumping, subsidies) by trading partners | Historically, protectionism has been associated with economic decline |
| Preserves cultural industries and traditions | Benefits specific interest groups (producers) at the expense of consumers |
Case Study: The US-China Trade War — In 2018, President Trump imposed tariffs on approximately US$370 billion of Chinese imports. China retaliated with tariffs on US$110 billion of US goods. Effects included higher prices for US consumers (estimated cost of around US$1,300 per household annually), disruption to agricultural exports (US soybean exports to China fell by ~75%), and acceleration of supply chain diversification. The trade war illustrated both the appeal and the costs of protectionism.
The rise of nationalism and populism in many countries represents a political backlash against globalisation. Populist leaders typically frame globalisation as a threat to national identity, sovereignty, and the livelihoods of ordinary people.
| Country | Movement/Leader | Key Anti-Globalisation Features |
|---|---|---|
| UK | Brexit (2016) | Withdrawal from EU; "Take Back Control" slogan; reduced immigration |
| USA | Trump (2016, 2024) | "America First"; trade wars; immigration restrictions; withdrawal from Paris Agreement |
| France | Marine Le Pen / RN | Opposition to EU integration; anti-immigration; protection of French culture |
| India | Modi / BJP | Hindu nationalism; "Make in India" manufacturing drive; cultural assertiveness |
| Brazil | Bolsonaro (2018-2022) | Anti-globalist rhetoric; environmental deregulation; nationalism |
| Hungary | Orban | "Illiberal democracy"; anti-immigration; EU scepticism |
The UK's vote to leave the EU in June 2016 was the most significant act of economic and political disintegration in modern Western history. It illustrates the tensions between globalisation and national sovereignty:
| Drivers of Brexit | Consequences of Brexit |
|---|---|
| Concerns about immigration — especially post-2004 EU enlargement | UK-EU trade fell by ~15% in the first year |
| Desire to "take back control" of laws and borders | Labour shortages in agriculture, hospitality, healthcare, logistics |
| Perception that EU membership benefited London/elites, not ordinary people | Northern Ireland Protocol created trade barriers within the UK |
| Sovereignty arguments — opposition to EU regulations | Loss of frictionless access to the world's largest single market |
| Leave campaign's promise of £350 million/week for the NHS | Economic output estimated 4% lower than it would have been without Brexit (by 2023) |
Exam Tip: Brexit is an excellent case study for discussing the tensions between globalisation and sovereignty. Use it to evaluate whether the benefits of global integration (trade, investment, labour mobility) outweigh the costs (loss of sovereignty, cultural anxieties, uneven distribution of benefits).
Running beneath almost every form of resistance is a single structural tension: globalisation erodes national sovereignty, and much of the backlash is a demand to reclaim it. A strong answer can make this tension explicit and analyse how globalisation constrains the nation-state.
Globalisation limits sovereignty through several mechanisms:
The populist response — "take back control" (Brexit), "America First" (Trump), "Make in India" (Modi) — is best understood as a sovereignty reassertion: an attempt to restore national control over borders, trade, currency and culture against the perceived encroachment of globalised flows and institutions. The deep irony, which a top-band answer should note, is that reasserting sovereignty often costs the very prosperity that integration delivered (Brexit's trade losses), creating a genuine trade-off rather than a free lunch. This is the transformationalist insight from Lesson 1 in action: the state is not abolished by globalisation, but it is constrained — and the politics of the 2010s–2020s is, in large part, a struggle over how much sovereignty to surrender for how much prosperity.
A central contemporary challenge to globalisation is the discovery that deep interdependence creates fragility. The "just-in-time", globally dispersed supply chains that made globalisation hyper-efficient also made it brittle — a shock anywhere propagates everywhere. Three recent shocks made this vivid and are essential case-study material:
| Shock | What happened | Lesson for globalisation |
|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 (2020–) | Border closures, factory shutdowns and demand swings broke supply chains; shortages of PPE, semiconductors and other goods; "vaccine nationalism" saw rich countries hoard doses | Exposed over-dependence on distant, concentrated suppliers; prompted reshoring and nearshoring and the building of strategic reserves |
| Suez Canal blockage (2021) | The container ship Ever Given wedged across the canal for six days, halting roughly 12% of global trade and an estimated US$9 billion of goods per day | Showed how a single chokepoint can paralyse global trade; intensified interest in supply-chain resilience and redundancy |
| Russia–Ukraine war (2022–) | War and sanctions disrupted energy (Russian gas/oil) and food (Ukrainian grain) markets, spiking global prices and threatening food security in import-dependent countries | Demonstrated the weaponisation of interdependence — energy and food as instruments of geopolitical leverage |
These shocks have driven a strategic rethink among states and TNCs: from efficiency (the cheapest possible global supply chain) towards resilience and security (shorter, more diversified, "friend-shored" chains, even at higher cost). This is the economic logic behind slowbalisation and regionalisation — not a rejection of trade, but a rebalancing of cost against risk. It connects directly to §3.2.4 resource security: the same shocks exposed the vulnerability of food and energy systems built on global interdependence.
Globalisation poses profound environmental challenges that current governance structures struggle to address:
| Issue | Scale | Link to Globalisation |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon emissions | Global CO2 emissions reached 36.8 billion tonnes in 2023 | International trade requires transport; global supply chains increase emissions; carbon-intensive industrialisation in developing countries |
| Deforestation | 10 million hectares of forest lost annually (2015-2020) | Driven by global demand for soy, palm oil, beef, timber |
| Ocean pollution | 11 million tonnes of plastic enter oceans annually | Global consumer culture generates waste; lack of global waste governance |
| Biodiversity loss | 1 million species threatened with extinction | Habitat destruction driven by global commodity chains |
| Resource depletion | Earth Overshoot Day (2023): 2 August — humanity's demand exceeded Earth's capacity | Global consumption patterns driven by economic growth model |
Globalisation has lifted billions out of poverty and increased material well-being, but the environmental costs of this growth model threaten to undermine these gains. This creates a fundamental tension:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.