In one of the emblematic books of the 1990s, Samuel Huntington argued that democratisation proceeded in waves across the planet. A bunch of countries would go democratic. Then the wave would wash back out, as countries turned against democracy. But despite setbacks, each 'reverse wave' left more democracies on the planet than before the wave. The democratic tide was therefore rising through history.
The book typified the optimism about globalisation and its salutary effects that ran through much of the 1990s. By the end of the decade, with financial crises bursting in Asia and anti-democratic movements rising, much of the optimism ebbed. Huntington himself grew gloomier and began speaking of the clash of civilisations that would soon beset the planet.
Whether Huntington was correct about either democracy or civilisational conflict, his metaphor of wave-like progress might apply to globalisation. And if the 1990s, at which time the former communist bloc became integrated into world capitalism, marked the latest high water mark of globalisation's advance, some analysts argue that globalisation is now going into reverse.
Cried enough
The first signs of this were arguably seen at the end of the last decade, when Third World governments cried enough at the Seattle trade summit. In response to their demands - not to mention widespread acknowledgement that the most recent round of trade liberalisation had benefited rich countries more than poor ones - their trading partners in the developed world vowed to make the next round of trade talks the development round.
But by then, the tide against trade liberalisation had already turned in developed countries. The flood of cheap imports from China, the outsourcing of employment to the Far East, and the influx of East Euro-pean immigrants into Western Europe, turned working classes against a process that had, admittedly, brought more benefits to rich than poor. The evidence of how far this sentiment has swelled can be seen in this year's Democratic primary campaign in the US, when several candidates campaigned against free trade.
In the Third World, rising oil and food prices have strengthened anti-trade sentiments. With a global food shortage looming, many food-exporting countries are curtailing their exports in the name of national food security. But it's not just food prices that are slowing globalisation.
Long-term decline
Oil prices, though they may come back down eventually, appear unlikely to sink to anything like the historically low levels of the 1990s. It's not only our bus and taxi fares that have risen. So, too, have shipping costs and air fares. People are travelling less, and going shorter distances. But even more important, the long-term decline in shipping costs that occurred throughout the twentieth century may now have ended. As a consequence, as it becomes pricier to ship goods from China, fewer of them may make it on to Western store shelves.
A country like Jamaica, with its open and trade-dependent economy, cannot gain much from a reversal of globalisation. On the other hand, there may be some opportunities in the new developments, if we play our cards right. If we assume people are reducing their air travel, low-end resorts may suffer. However, tourists who might have once flown to Bali may well consider the shorter trip; that is, of course, if we offer them the kind of product they're accustomed to.
So it goes for other industries, which suffered from East Asian competition, but now have gained a slight new edge. Globalisation's reverse may mean more regionalisation, with all the geopolitical changes that entails. That may be neither better nor worse, but it will be different. Thus, we have to begin thinking of new strategies of foreign engagement from now.
John Rapley is president of Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), an independent think tank affiliated to the UWI, Mona; for feedback, columns@gleanerjm.com.
