Search results

The aim of this chapter is to analyze the nationalism and populism as the driving forces of economic deglobalization processes and regionalism in Mexico. The analysis departs from the assumption that the economic deglobalization processes responds to a more complex dynamic forces created by the economic, financial, and the most recent sanitary crisis that blocks the continuity of the economic globalization. Moreover, at the center of the analysis is the conceptualization that both globalization and deglobalization are two faces of the same coin, but with opposite driving forces. It observes that nationalism and populism are the driving forces of deglobalization leading to find regional and more local solutions to economic growth, social and environmental problems.

The world is on the verge of entering the deglobalization age, and industrialized economies have ushered it in. However, there is still a scarcity of comprehensive and rigorous studies in this field. This research has tried to analyze the evolution and characteristics of deglobalization research.

The authors have employed bibliometric analysis for examining the existing evidence on accelerating deglobalization thinking based on a thorough analysis of articles published during a roughly 25-year span between 1996 and 2022. This study has used the TISM-P technique to study the relationship among the factors accelerating deglobalization thinking. This research reviews the articles on several dimensions of deglobalization using the “what”, “why”, “how”, “who”, “when” and “where” approaches.

The authors specify the critical factors, policy reforms, approaches and observed characteristics explored in this developing research area.

The authors have analyzed the factors accountable for rising deglobalization thinking and also suggested strategic recommendations based on the findings to minimize the adverse impact of globalization.

Although there is a wealth of literature on globalization, very little study has been done in the field of deglobalization. This is the first substantive review being done in the deglobalization domain. The contemporary research has used the bibliometric approach and the “5W and 1 H” framework to gain a comprehensive understanding of the changing paradigm.

This study aims to investigate current deglobalization against globalization and to hypothesize reasons and drivers of deglobalization. In addition, the study suggests an empirical model to test whether deglobalization exists in the world economy. The consequences of deglobalization are discussed.

Various measures for deglobalization are introduced for monitoring the deglobalization of a country, and statistical measures are reported. The research framework for deglobalization and empirical models are suggested. The relationship between deglobalization and globalization is being modeled using three KOF globalization indexes: economic, political and societal. This study used panel data from 1970 to 2017 for developed and developing countries to determine the degree of deglobalization.

Deglobalization has been found empirically since the global financial crisis. Deglobalization is estimated by the decreasing trend of import share in a country's gross domestic product and is influenced by manufacturing imports, country's income divide and political globalization. Both economic and societal globalizations have negative influence on deglobalization. Deglobalization is more apparent in developed countries than in developing countries, and the deglobalization trend will continue in diverse formats.

This study limits the use of few variables to test the antecedents of deglobalization. Another study can be done to extend preceding variables and estimate the consequences of deglobalization, which may segregate the globalization effect. The international business executive should understand the complexity of deglobalization and consider business benefits and risks to be encountered.

This study used panel data from 1970 to 2017 for developed and developing countries to determine the degree of deglobalization.

This paper aims to explore the value of geographic diversification in the context of deglobalization, drawing evidence from a quasi-natural experiment – the Brexit referendum that took place on 23 June 2016 in the UK.

This study applies an event study methodology to estimate the impact of the Brexit vote on a cross-section of firms with varying levels of geographic diversification – undiversified UK firms, UK firms with significant operations in the European Union (EU) and globally diversified UK firms. This study deploys a Heckman two-stage regression approach to address sample selection bias.

This study finds that undiversified UK firms experienced negative cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) around the Brexit referendum. The value of UK firms with majority sales within the UK declined by 0.9 percentage points, on average, in the three days centred on the Brexit referendum. In contrast, UK firms that are globally diversified, with the majority of sales within the EU are unaffected, while diversified firms in the rest of the world generated positive CARs of 1.8 percentage points over the same period. These results are robust to firm characteristics, selection bias and alternative measures of CARs and diversification.

This study is subject to some limitations that open avenues for future work. There are a few available proxies of diversification and further work on developing other proxies is much needed. Further work may also examine the long-term impact of diversification on UK firms. This study considered Brexit as a quasi-natural experiment, and this study could be applied to other deglobalization events like COVID-19 and can enhance the generalizability of diversification strategy in the deglobalized world. Findings may stimulate future work to explore how another form of diversification – product diversification has affected firm returns around Brexit. Finally, this study has focused on the UK as its base case. It may be interesting to corroborate the findings by exploring the impact of Brexit on European firms, who hitherto Brexit, had some operations in the UK.

This work offers some insights for policymakers and regulators around the impact of deglobalization on local firms. Findings suggest that these trends significantly negatively impact the most vulnerable firms (smaller firms with less global reach), while their larger counterparts with significant global reach might be insulated. This finding is important for determining the nature of support needed by different firms in times of deglobalization. The work also offers insights to managers of firms operating in countries where there are real prospects of deglobalization. Specifically, the work highlights the importance of geographic diversification when free movement of goods, services and people is restricted.

This study shows that a certain group of globally diversified firms earned significantly higher returns from the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, thereby highlighting the value of geographic diversification in a time of deglobalization.

This article examines the concepts of “deglobalization” and “decoupling” from the perspectives of developing and developed nations. It also assesses the short-term impacts of globalization, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and predicts the long-term effects on global trade and cooperation between nations.

Panel data from 85 countries (2000–2022) were utilized. Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood (PPML) regression analysis was conducted to analyze pre- and post-COVID-19 globalization levels. The analysis focuses on trade patterns and trends, specifically comparing the effects on developing and developed nations.

First, there was a slight decline in global trade in 2020 due to COVID-19, followed by recovery in 2021–2022. Second, developing nations experienced more significant trade declines than did developed nations. Third, while US? China trade decreased slightly, China-India and US-India trade increased during the pandemic. These findings suggest that while there may be short-term disruptions, long-term trends indicate resilience in global trade patterns, with shifts in output and new partnerships emerging.

This study contributes to the understanding of deglobalization and decoupling by providing empirical evidence on pre- and post-COVID-19 trade patterns. The findings suggest that while globalization may have short-term effects, it is likely to lead to post-pandemic recovery and strengthened cooperation between developing and developed nations. This research also highlights the importance of developing strategies to manage uncertainty and external shocks in global trade, emphasizing the role of lockdown measures, national security considerations, and trade policies in shaping the future of globalization and decoupling.

The recent vote for Britain to exit the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the USA has been described as events that bring an end to globalization and indeed seen as a reversal of the globalization process. A possible reason for this is that both choices are thought to be premised on inward-looking objectives rather than having global objectives. This paper aims to offer an opinion that this view is flawed. This is because integration, which is used to approach globalization, is not a one-way process seeking greater levels of integration, but rather a tool to address global challenges, which will involve making choices on the degree of integration that is thought necessary at a particular time. In other words, based on what is perceived as necessary at a given time, selective interconnectivity is used to reflect the level of integration desired. Owing to the degree of global income inequality, a high degree of integration will pose difficulties as a shift in production centres. Further, immigration will bring not only economic but also socio-cultural and political implications in even the economically strongest nations.

The paper considers the definition of integration to justify why there are limits placed on the level of integration. In this regard, when the position of individual components is so unequal, there will be limits put on levels of integration due to economic, socio-cultural, and political concerns.

Delocalization does not exist. The Brexit vote and President Trump’s Presidential bid success are all part of the globalization process, where from time to time, the levels of integration will slow down. This does not suggest backtracking on globalization.

The discussion and analysis in this paper are significant as they offer an unexplored perspective into current discussions on the Brexit vote and President Trump’s election into office. The discussion and analysis are rigorous in that they are precise and robust in examining the historical evolution to the international trading system to explain why the predominant view on deglobalization is a misunderstanding of the matters that influence globalization and integration.

The paper offers a practical and logical explanation to concerns regarding what is termed as deglobalization by providing an analysis and insight into the current global challenges, in particular income inequality, as an environment within which choices have to be made.

In the discussion, subsequent to Trump’s successful bid for US presidency and the Brexit vote, there has been a frenzy in opinions regarding the implications of these milestones. This paper debunks the exaggerations offered by explaining how and why these milestones are nothing new by examining the history of the international trading system.

This paper is original as it offers a fresh perspective on the deglobalization debate. It provides a discussion from the global income inequality perspective to explain why and how important are global challenges upon domestic choices and how this, in turn, relates to globalization and integration.

In the academic field of business management, several potential theories were established during the last decades to explain companies' decisions, organizational behavior, consumer patterns, and internationalization, among others. As a result, businesses and scholars were able to analyze and decide based on theoretical approaches to explain the current conditions of the market. Secondary research was conducted to collect more than 36 management theories. This chapter aims to develop the most famous theories related to business applied in the international field. The novelty of this chapter relies on the compilation of recognized previous research studies from the academic literature and evidence in international business.

Many executives base their strategies on the assumption that globalization is here to stay – they bank on a future of open markets, cross‐border capital flows, and international cooperation. However, companies should consider the possibility that what lies ahead are conditions reminiscent of the early decades of the 20th century, with business activities constrained by protectionist walls and international conflict – not globalization, but deglobalization. If the future does bring more international discord and disorder, the commercial impacts could be momentous. But nobody can say for sure which vision of the future will materialize. How can a company move forward given this uncertainty? Strategic flexibility is the answer – an approach to planning that involves defining scenarios on how the marketplace might develop and then adopting strategies that fit all scenarios while making limited investments in assets needed only if specific scenarios emerge. The latter are treated as a portfolio of real options – the investments are increased, held, or abandoned depending on how events unfold. Strategic flexibility is thus valuable to executives facing strategic risks due to globalization’s unclear future.

This paper examines nationalism as a driver of political risk and how it can lead to supply chain disruptions for foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs).

Conceptual research based on a review of the literature on nationalism and supply chain risk management.

This research unveils how economic nationalism could engender supply chain disruptions via discriminatory practices toward all foreign MNEs and how national animosity may generate additional risks for the MNEs of nations in conflict with one another. These discriminatory practices include an array of host government and grassroots actions targeting foreign MNEs. While economic nationalism and national animosity emanate from within a host country, they may stimulate geopolitical crises outside the host country and thereby affect the international supply chains of foreign MNEs.

This research lays the foundation for analytical and empirical researchers to integrate key elements of nationalism into their studies and recommends propositions and datasets to study these notions.

This study shows the implications that nationalist drivers of supply chain disruptions have for foreign MNEs and thus can help managers to proactively mitigate such disruptions.

This study reveals the importance of integrating notions of national identity and national history in supply chain research, since they play a key role in the emergence of policies and events responsible for supply chain disruptions.