How long has globalization been happening

These national empires expand during the industrial revolution, which also provokes class struggles and new ideas and movements of revolution within the national states and subsequently in their empires as well. The historical chronology of modernity coincides with the chronology of globalization from the eighteenth century. In the last decades of the 19th century, the global "white man's burden" became a subject of discussion.

Here is an old syllabus for an undergraduate course on " US Empire " with some useful links. For a while, the members of the Eurozone proclaimed themselves as victims and not culprits for the disaster on the basis that they had managed to keep a nearly balanced current account for the Union as a whole.

They were failing to acknowledge that serious macroeconomic imbalances did exist within the European Monetary Union EMU —those between its northern members, chiefly Germany, and their southern partners. Japan was another country that failed to take into account the effect of its large surpluses on its trading partners. Extravagant claims about being decoupled from the US travails were also foolishly entertained in some important countries of Latin America. The commodities super-cycle that more or less survived until was the opioid that caused the leaders of those countries to rest on their laurels and fail to recognize the illnesses that had infected our economies well before the crisis.

The chief consequence of the Latin American complacency of a few years ago is that, as the global economy gained enough momentum to leave the great crisis behind, the opposite happened in our region. Sensibly, if only after the fact, the G20 leaders were right on target when, at their first Washington Summit of November 15, , they identified insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies at the root of the crisis that had erupted with great force that fall.

They recognized that as their national economies had become more interdependent, which had been positive for growth, this interdependence had also exacerbated policy challenges, including the need for more, not less, macroeconomic policy coordination.

Unfortunately, that admission and the pledge to fix it, were made too late and were short lived. The world has not and will not be the same after the other Black Monday, the one of September 15, For one thing, not only did the great crisis cause a meaningful loss of output throughout the years of its acute phase, it also brought about a negative effect on the trajectory of world output that has proved permanent.

A secular dampening on global growth is part of our new normal. We are living through a period—one that will probably last a long time—of deflated or diminished expectations. It is evident that the prospects for most economies, even in the presence of the relatively benign world output growth figures of and , are very different from the ones entertained only a bit longer than a decade or so ago.

Although the list of factors suspected of contributing to the deflation of global growth expectations is not an insignificant one, not least as it includes both the mystery of reduced growth productivity as well as the aging of the labor force in advanced countries, particular consideration must be given to the question of whether globalization—a significant growth engine—might have peaked already and could even be at risk of significant reversion.

Naturally, most of the attention to the question of possible deglobalization has centered on trade Hoekman, ; and IMF, The global trade to GDP ratio grew from roughly twenty-five percent in to sixty percent in This happened because, from to the eve of the crisis in , global trade in goods and services grew at an average real rate of about six percent a year, which was about twice that of real GDP growth during the same period.

After a sharp drop during the crisis and a brief rebound in its immediate aftermath, trade growth has been very weak relative to the past; in fact, until it was not even keeping up with global output growth over several years. The confirmation of this presumption should be hugely concerning for those, like myself, who believe that the payoff of trade expansion has been on balance quite favorable not only for global growth—of both developed and emerging economies—but also in particular to increase average per capita income, reduce poverty rates, and accelerate human development in many developing countries.

We get some relief regarding this issue from those who submit and empirically support the view that for the most part the trade slowdown has been driven essentially by cyclical factors, such as the weakness in aggregate demand caused in turn by the necessary rebuilding of balance sheets, which certainly has been the case for several years in the Eurozone and more recently even in China and other emerging economies.

Although the list of factors suspected of contributing to the deflation of global growth expectations is not an insignificant one, particular consideration must be given to the question of whether globalization—an important growth engine—might have peaked already and could even be at risk of significant reversio. Moreover, there are questions as to whether the process of global integration may also be stalling by virtue of the process of financial deglobalization that has occurred over the last ten years as gross cross-border capital flows decreased sixty-five percent MGI, As in the case of trade, we are told that there is no cause for alarm since most of the contraction of international lending can be accounted for by the global retrenchment of European and a few US banks, which, to respond to credit losses, had to cut lending and other assets abroad enormously.

From this perspective, the observed financial deglobalization, far from being a broad phenomenon, would reflect for the most part a cyclical deleveraging, by itself a necessary and actually benign evolution. Be that as it may, even analyses more supportive of the cyclical nature of the trade slowdown acknowledge that there might be other factors at play that should not by any means be overlooked.

That noncyclical, structural factors help to explain the trade slowdown is suggested by the fact that it actually started before the crisis—around the mids.

Among those factors there are some that should not be worrisome as they reflect evolutions that should have been expected, such as the completion of the phase of the fast integration of China and the central and eastern European economies into the global economy, a transition that by definition could not go on forever.

Another would be that the international fragmentation of production fostered by the development of global supply chains has reached a plateau consistent with the existent IT and transportation technologies, a circumstance that may change as these technologies continue to make sufficient progress in the years to come.

But there are other noncyclical circumstances that should be of true concern. One is, of course, that the multilateral efforts to further liberalize trade have failed terribly for many years, not least with the Doha Round, now totally defunct despite the multiple pledges to complete it made by the G20 in the aftermath of the crisis.

Another is the increase in protectionism that rather quietly—in a murky way, avoiding large-scale increases in the average level of border protection—took place over several years, again despite the solemn pledges of the G20 Global Trade Alert. The failure of further multilateral liberalization and the occurrence of creeping protectionism were bad enough for the prospects of global growth, but a much worse scenario has now emerged as a consequence of the trade wars that are apparently being actively pursued by the government of none other than the major economic power of the world, the United States.

This is a scenario that, unthinkable until recently, now seems to be materializing. The election and the actions of an old-fashioned, nationalistic, and populist government in the United States, the country that has championed and benefited the most from globalization, is the most significant downside risk faced by the world economy, a risk that has been grossly overlooked by financial markets at least until the fall of It is not only the trade and investment consequences of the US neo-mercantilism that should raise serious concerns about the future of globalization and global growth.

The crisis and its economic and political sequels have exacerbated a problem for globalization that has existed throughout: to blame it for any number of things that have gone wrong in the world and to dismiss the benefits that it has helped to bring about. The backlash against contemporary globalization seems to be approaching an all-time high in many places including, the United States. Part of the backlash may be attributable to the simple fact that world GDP growth and nominal wage growth—even accounting for the healthier rates of and —are still below what they were in most advanced and emerging market countries in the five years prior to the —09 crisis.

It is also nurtured by the increase in income inequality and the so-called middle-class squeeze in the rich countries, along with the anxiety caused by automation, which is bound to affect the structure of their labor markets.

Since the Stolper-Samuelson formulation of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory, the alteration of factor prices and therefore income distribution as a consequence of international trade and of labor and capital mobility has been an indispensable qualification acknowledged even by the most recalcitrant proponents of open markets. Recommendations of trade liberalization must always be accompanied by other policy prescriptions if the distributional effects of open markets deemed undesirable are to be mitigated or even fully compensated.

This is the usual posture in the economics profession. It has not helped that sometimes, obviously unwarrantedly, trade is proposed as an all-powerful instrument for growth and development irrespective of other conditions in the economy and politics of countries. Indeed, global trade can promote, and actually has greatly fostered, global growth. But global trade cannot promote growth for all in the absence of other policies.

The simultaneous exaggeration of the consequences of free trade and the understatement—or even total absence of consideration—of the critical importance of other policies that need to be in place to prevent abominable economic and social outcomes, constitute a double-edged sword. It has been an expedient used by politicians to pursue the opening of markets when this has fit their convenience or even their convictions. But it reverts, sometimes dramatically, against the case for open markets when those abominable outcomes—caused or not by globalization—become intolerable for societies.

When this happens, strong supporters of free trade, conducted in a rules-based system, are charged unduly with the burden of proof about the advantages of open trade in the face of economic and social outcomes that all of us profoundly dislike, such as worsening income distribution, wage stagnation, and the marginalization of significant sectors of the populations from the benefits of globalization, all of which has certainly happened in some parts of the world, although not necessarily as a consequence of trade liberalization.

Open markets, sold in good times as a silver bullet of prosperity, become the culprit of all ills when things go sour economically and politically. Politicians of all persuasions hurry to point fingers toward external forces, first and foremost to open trade, to explain the causes of adversity, rather than engaging in contrition about the domestic policy mistakes or omissions underlying those unwanted ills. Blaming the various dimensions of globalization—trade, finance, and migration—for phenomena such as insufficient GDP growth, stagnant wages, inequality, and unemployment always seems to be preferable for governments, rather than admitting their failure to deliver on their own responsibilities.

Governments prefer to blame different aspects of globalization —trade, finances, and immigration—for phenomena such as insufficient GDP growth, stagnant wages, inequality, and unemployment rather than admitting their failure to deliver on their own responsibilities. Unfortunately, even otherwise reasonable political leaders sometimes fall into the temptation of playing with the double-edged sword, a trick that may pay off politically short term but also risks having disastrous consequences.

National Geographic. Bruce Mazlish. Pages The Guardian. National Bureau of Economic Research. World Gold Council. The Bretton Woods Project. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for Investopedia.

At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification.

I Accept Show Purposes. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses. Economics Macroeconomics. Key Takeaways Economic globalization is a historical process driven by the dual forces of innovation and technology. Conquering empires throughout history resulted in the sharing of ideas, mixing of cultures and people, and trade across those conquered lands.

Article Sources. Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. The ravage was complete. Millions of soldiers died in battle, millions of civilians died as collateral damage, war replaced trade, destruction replaced construction, and countries closed their borders yet again.

In the years between the world wars, the financial markets, which were still connected in a global web, caused a further breakdown of the global economy and its links. The Great Depression in the US led to the end of the boom in South America, and a run on the banks in many other parts of the world. Another world war followed in The story of globalization, however, was not over. The end of the World War II marked a new beginning for the global economy. Under the leadership of a new hegemon, the United States of America, and aided by the technologies of the Second Industrial Revolution, like the car and the plane, global trade started to rise once again.

At first, this happened in two separate tracks, as the Iron Curtain divided the world into two spheres of influence. But as of , when the Iron Curtain fell, globalization became a truly global phenomenon. In the early decades after World War II, institutions like the European Union, and other free trade vehicles championed by the US were responsible for much of the increase in international trade.

In the Soviet Union, there was a similar increase in trade, albeit through centralized planning rather than the free market. The effect was profound. It was paired with a steep rise in middle-class incomes in the West. Then, when the wall dividing East and West fell in Germany, and the Soviet Union collapsed, globalization became an all-conquering force. The newly created World Trade Organization WTO encouraged nations all over the world to enter into free-trade agreements, and most of them did , including many newly independent ones.

In , even China, which for the better part of the 20th century had been a secluded, agrarian economy, became a member of the WTO, and started to manufacture for the world. At the same time, a new technology from the Third Industrial Revolution, the internet, connected people all over the world in an even more direct way.

The orders Keynes could place by phone in could now be placed over the internet. What was more, the internet also allowed for a further global integration of value chains. The result has been a globalization on steroids.

In the s, global exports reached a milestone, as they rose to about a quarter of global GDP. Trade, the sum of imports and exports, consequentially grew to about half of world GDP.

A majority of global population has benefited from this: more people than ever before belong to the global middle class, and hundred of millions achieved that status by participating in the global economy. That brings us to today, when a new wave of globalization is once again upon us.

In a world increasingly dominated by two global powers, the US and China, the new frontier of globalization is the cyber world. The digital economy, in its infancy during the third wave of globalization, is now becoming a force to reckon with through e-commerce, digital services, 3D printing.

It is further enabled by artificial intelligence, but threatened by cross-border hacking and cyberattacks. At the same time, a negative globalization is expanding too, through the global effect of climate change. Pollution in one part of the world leads to extreme weather events in another. In the West particularly, many middle-class workers are fed up with a political and economic system that resulted in economic inequality, social instability, and — in some countries — mass immigration, even if it also led to economic growth and cheaper products.