If this is Globalization 4.0, what were the other three?

A steel worker

A steel worker. © European Union , 2014 / Source: EC – Audiovisual Service .

This article is brought to you thanks to the collaboration of The European Sting with the World Economic Forum.

Author: Richard Baldwin, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute, Geneva

“Globalization 4.0 has only just begun, but we are already vastly underprepared for it,” wrote Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, last month when announcing the theme of Davos 2019.

In the world of buzzwords, Globalization 4.0 was sure to follow Industry 4.0 (which referred to the digitization of manufacturing). Indeed, the former term has been used before here, and here. The phrase raises two issues for international economists:

1) Is there substance to the new label, or is it just a distinction without a difference?

2) If the fourth globalization is upon us, what were the first three?

Is there really a difference? (Spoiler: yes, there is.)

I believe that future globalization will be very different from the globalization we know today, and the globalization we have known in the past. Moreover, it is coming incredibly fast – and in ways few people expect.

In fact, I believe this strongly enough to have written a book on the theme, which will — strangely enough — appear just in time for the Davos meeting in January 2019.

Here’s my economic reasoning in a nutshell. Arbitrage drives globalization. Whenever relative prices differ across countries, people can make money with a two-way, buy-low-sell-high arbitrage. When it comes to goods, the arbitrage is called trade. For centuries, technological limits meant that the arbitrage mostly took place in goods. Globalization mostly meant goods crossing borders.

From around 1990, information and communication technology (ICT) made a different type of arbitrage possible: factories crossing borders. The coordination technology allowed G7 firms to spread some stages of production to nearby developing nations while still keeping the whole production process running smoothly and reliably. The vast wage differences made this manufacturing-location arbitrage profitable.

The greatest remaining global arbitrage opportunities are wage rates in the service sector. Pay for similar tasks routinely differ by 10 times across countries. That’s a 10,000% difference – a very tempting arbitrage opportunity. Yet up until now, few firms could arbitrage those differences due to technical barriers. The basic problem has to do with the fundamental reality of service and professional jobs. Face-to-face interaction is necessary for many of these. Until recently, the state of technology made the cost of overcoming these barriers prohibitively high. But digital technology is changing that reality. Digital technology – or digitech, for short – is tearing down the barriers to wage arbitrage in the service sector.

Digitech is making it easier for people sitting in one country to do things in offices in another country. In my 2019 book, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics and the Future of Work, I call it telemigration, but it is really just international telecommuting and it is already very common in some sectors like web development.

This new form of globalization – this new wage arbitrage, if you will – is being enabled by international freelancing platforms like Upwork.com, by advanced telecommunications technology, and by machine translation (as I pointed out in a previous blog post).

In the broader perspective on economic globalisation that I’ve been pushing since 2006, telemigration is the “third unbundling”. The first unbundling was trade in goods, which was spurred from the 1800s by a steep fall in the cost of moving goods. The second unbundling was the geographic separation unleashed by ICT. That makes the coming globalization into the third unbundling; the geographic separation of labour and labour services via digitech that makes remote workers seem less remote. This begs the question – how did we get all the way to Globalization 4.0 if there have been only three unbundlings?

What were Globalization 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0?

In my earliest writing on globalization, I viewed trade-in-goods-based globalization as consisting of two very distinct phases. In 1999, Philippe Martin and I wrote a paper titled, Two Waves of Globalization: Superficial Similarities, Fundamental Differences. If we resurrect that distinction, we very naturally see the first three globalizations.

Globalization 1.0 was pre-World War 1 globalization, which was launched by a historic drop in trade costs when steam and other forms of mechanical power made it economical to consume goods made faraway. This globalization came with almost no government support. There was no global governance, unless you count the British Navy as the UN, the Bank of England as the IMF, and Britain’s free trade stance as the WTO. And there was little domestic policy to help share the gains and pains of more intense international arbitrage in goods.

Globalization back then fanned the fortunes of a nation’s most competitive citizens and companies but fractured the fortunes of a nation’s least competitive citizens and companies. It took place in the context of very bare-knuckled economic systems (laissez-faire capitalism, imperialism and various forms of autocracy). That combination did not end well. Two world wars, the Great Depression, and the rise of communism and fascism resulted in hundreds of millions of humans being killed by other humans.

A resolution was eventually found. Capitalism’s face was softened with the New Deal in the US, and social-market democracy in other rich economies. In another large slice of the world, communism softened into a kinder, gentler version. Taken together we can view this as a distinct phase; call it Globalization 2.0.

Globalization 2.0 is the post-World War II phase where trade in goods was combined with complementary domestic policies that helped share the pains and gains of globalization (and automation). The market was in charge of efficiency; the government was in charge of justice. Internationally, Globalization 2.0 saw the establishment of institute-based, rule-based international governance, specifically the UN, IMF, World Bank, GATT/WTO and many specialized agencies like the Food and Agricultural Organisation and International Labour Organisation.

Globalization 3.0 is what I called the second unbundling, or the New Globalization. Arvind Subramanian called it hyperglobalization, Gary Gereffi called it the global value chain revolution, and Alan Blinder called it offshoring. The key is that globalization now meant factories crossing borders, and – critically – the know-how of G7 firms along with them. This created a new world of manufacturing in which high-tech was combined with low wages. This new combination disrupted the lives and communities of workers struggling to compete with high wages and high tech as well as those struggling to compete with low wages and low tech. Workers employed in goods-producing sectors were the most affected, since this unbundling mostly affected goods-producing sectors. In particular, the monopoly that G7 factory workers had on G7 manufacturing technology was broken when their employers moved jobs and know-how abroad.

The Globotics Upheaval

Globalization 4.0 is what I call the third unbundling. It is what will happen when digitech allows arbitrage of international wage differences without the physical movement of workers. While Globalization 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 were mainly a concern of people who made things for a living (since globalization focused on things that we made), Globalization 4.0 is going to hit the service sector. Hundreds of millions of service-sector and professional workers in advanced economies will – for the first time ever – be exposed to the challenges and opportunities of globalization.

Worryingly, the service sector is also where AI-driven automation will displace many workers. If the blue-collar workers disrupted by Globalization 3.0 join hands with the white-collar workers who will be disrupted by Globalization 4.0, we may have an upheaval on our hands – what I call the Globotics Upheaval. Reading recent headlines, this upheaval may be wearing a gilet jaune.

Every great transformation creates triumphs for those who can seize the opportunities and tragedies for those who can’t. Future globalization will bring us to a better world if we prepare well and if our governments take care to not let it happen too quickly. Explosive economic changes have, in the past, led to explosive social upheaval. Our governments need to help people adjust, and – if it all goes too quickly – they will need to slow it down.






the European Sting Milestones

Featured Stings

Stopping antimicrobial resistance would cost just USD 2 per person a year

The Cold War had an unintended side effect: It created a European wildlife paradise

Managing and resolving conflicts in a politically inclined group of team members

Can privatisation be the panacea for the lack of growth in Europe?

European Fund for Transition to support more workers made redundant

Trump questions US – Europe kinship, approaches Russia

Addressing the consequences of digitalisation in the Russia & CIS region

Eurozone: Retail sales and inflation point to recession

How fungi could save the world

EU Court of Justice invalidates Safe Harbour and the game for thousands US businesses suddenly changes

CEOs in these countries are more likely to go with their gut

The EU sides with China against the US; but has Germany capitulated to America?

WhatsApp to face scrutiny from EU regulators task force over data sharing with Facebook

Food safety: more transparency, better risk prevention

Commission presents far-reaching anti-tax evasion measures

If Macron defies Britain about the banks, Paris and London to clash over ‘La Manche’

We should look to nature for solutions to the global water crisis. Here’s why

Italy can stand the US rating agencies’ meaningless degrading

Ukraine: turning challenges into opportunities

Council Presidency: Floundering with the EU 2014 budget

What little Cameron got in Brussels seems enough to keep Britain in the EU

Will GDPR block Blockchain?

Greenpeace’s saints and sinners in the tech world

What will Germany look like after the next election?

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s speech from World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting of New Champions

Poverty and social exclusion skyrocket with austerity

EU integration: MEPs want to end permanent opt-outs from EU law

1 million citizens try to create a new EU institution

Industry 4.0: Championing Europe’s fourth industrial revolution

Youth policy in Europe not delivering for young people

The impossible end of the war in Syria

More than 750 million people around the world would migrate if they could

Clamp down on illegal trade in pets, urge Public Health Committee MEPs

Congrats to the #FutureofMalta: a new age of voting

Eurozone: Negative statistics bring deflation and recession closer

A new crop of EU ‘Boards’ override the democratic accountability and undermine the EU project

EU Council: Private web data to be protected by…abusers

UN rights office appeals for peaceful Zimbabwe elections amid reports of intimidation

Germany and OSCE support an east-west dialogue in Ukraine without exclusions

The right approach to addressing overcapacity problem from a Chinese perspective

Greece bailout ends but with no substantial effect on citizens’ life

Yesterday’s “jokes” and sarcasm by Digital Single Market’s Vice President Ansip on EU member states’ right to protect their telco markets

Why today’s leaders need to know about the power of narratives

GSMA head urges regulators to help Europe regain leadership

Rohingya refugee shelters ‘washed away’ in Bangladesh monsoon rains: UN agency

Libya: UN Mission condemns deadly attack against police in country’s south-east

How will the NATO-EU competition evolve in the post Brexit era?

Lagarde’s metamorphoses, not a laughing matter

EU Council: The US airlines may freely pollute the European air

Volkswagen getting away with it in Europe

Mixed news about the Eurozone economy

Companies can help solve water scarcity. Here’s how

Progress in medical research: leading or lagging behind?

FROM THE FIELD: Sailing a traditional and sustainable path in Fiji’s tropical waters

Continue reforms to make growth work for all in Spain

To be fair or to be sustainable? That is the (retirement) question

It’s ‘time for concrete action’ says UN chief, welcoming inter-Korean agreement

Human trafficking, slavery reports and health of migrants in Libya

Businesses can lead a revolution in disability inclusion

Improved access to financial information to curb serious crime

The Eurogroup protects Germany and blames others

More Stings?


  1. johnny quest says:

    Something will have to be given way to eventually, such the UBI, or you ivory towered oratorians will be trying your hands at labor fortifying your citadels.

Speak your Mind Here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s