Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations.
As a follow up to the previous chapter entry in the blog, here you are the comments on the effects of globalisation in the develop countries, its influence for building up new political parties, the danger of protectionism and the possible mechanisms, that according to my thoughts, should allow to improve the standard of living of the whole mankind.
Thereby, former anti capitalists have lately become outraged, having just in common with their predecessors the lack of a hierarchic organization structure to channel their discomfort, which deficit was rapidly used by some insightful characters resulting, mostly in occidental countries, in new successful political parties that tend to bring their demands together.
The fact that this new parties cannot be distinguished, according to the traditional nomenclature, as right wing or left wing parties, leads us to think that not only economic equity and distributive reasons have influenced in their upswing. When trying to analyse the differences between the proposals of the new right and left wing parties, we can see that all agree in the same original cause about the problems that worry their potential voters (the globalisation), although they differ in their approach: for one of the groups adopting protectionism measures, reducing the external competition both in products (protectionism) and in people (xenophobia) and for the other group through the recurrent idea of the need to reform the capitalist system.
Despite the relative success of both approaches in the elections (depending on each country), the solution to my understanding it must not go through any of both approaches, since it is very well known that protectionism only leads to a decrease in the level of international trade and, therefore to a loss of wealth for everybody; moreover, it would be difficult to ethically substantiate to claim the privileged status of the middle class people of the developed countries at the expense of falling back into misery millions of people of the poor countries. For the moment, after the election of Donald Trump as President the multilateral agreements with Asia and Europe have run aground and the word isolationism (America first) is one of the most heard lately.
On the other hand, concerning a reformulation of the market, we have already seen how different proposals, made by some political leaders at the beginning of the last crisis, have ended: with more market!
In any case, what should be claimed for said market is to work in a more equitable and efficient way, that governments develop wealth distribution mechanisms and to ensure fairer opportunities and that before a global economy and vertiginous and disruptive technological innovations, new global rules and forms of governance are to be implemented.
Even Institutions, unsuspicious of having radical thoughts, like the IMF or the OCDE have expressed in the last months the need for a “more inclusive” growth, in the sense that benefits of globalisation should be distributed in a broader and fairer way amongst population.
Also it is not clear either which part of the inequalities have their main origin in the globalisation and which part in the technical progresss.
The technological innovations and their economic and social correlatives, within the next years probably will show as anachronistic the current positioning since “advances” such as robotics, artificial intelligence and genetics will oblige to move towards a new paradigm of society that will probably have nothing to do with the current one.
Summarizing, in my opinion, the globalisation has been beneficial for millions of people around the world even at the expense of the loss of the standards of living for many of the inhabitants of the developed countries and the solution for a fairer world does not go through isolationism or radical changes in economic models but for the global Governmental Institutions trying to solve, for the sake of all the mankind, the transcendental changes that will occur in the forthcoming years, and not only at an economic level.