The Bell of Globalization Cannot Be Un-Rung

Analysts have suggested that British voters’ decision to exit the European Union signals a pronounced dislike for globalization – open trade, immigration and global institutions that set new standards. Phillip Lohaus argues that the term “globalizaiton” is “employed so loosely that it has lost nearly all meaning” and that it’s a scapegoat for populist anger. Lohaus warns against employing extreme and broad measures – rejecting alliances like NATO, banning an entire religion, ending trade agreements – to fix specific and narrow complaints. Foreign investment adds jobs. Rising wages in the developing world has led to restoring manufacturing in the advanced economies. Military alliances decrease risks and distribute costs. “The fact of the matter is that our footprint in the ‘globalized’ world is the envy of our adversaries,” he writes. Ending relationships won’t add jobs, improve relations with adversaries, increase security or reduce inequality. All that would be accomplished is a rise in prices. Globalization’s many relationships and processes can be adjusted without abrupt closure. – YaleGlobal