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.

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

the European Sting Milestones

Featured Stings

How to build a more resilient and inclusive global system

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

Youth Internationalization: part of everyday life in JADE

A Sting Exclusive: “Cybersecurity: Why consumer products must be looked at urgently”, by BEUC’s Deputy Director General

Britain in chaos: May stays as Tory leader and PM but none can defuse the Brexit time bomb

2014 will bring more European Union for the big guys and less for the weak

Does the West reserve the fate of Libya and Syria for others? How does this relate to the EU’s Neighborhood Policy?

Chronic illnesses: UN stands up to stop 41 million avoidable deaths per year

Access to health in the developping world

European Development Days 2013

The key takeaways of G7 Summit in Canada

The gender gap of medicine in 2018

MEPs vote for upgrade to rail passenger rights

UK economy in dire straits: leading banks now officially plan to Brexit too

Berlin vies for a Germanic European Central Bank

High-flyers: China is on top of the world for skyscraper construction

Sudan: ‘Exercise utmost restraint’ urges Guterres as thousands march in Khartoum, sparking deadly clashes

A Sting Exclusive: “Global Climate: Our Common Responsibility”, S&P MEP Miriam Dalli underlines from Brussels

FROM THE FIELD: Liberia boosts efforts to guard against rising seas

Tusk fights back while charismatic Boris goes against everybody in Brussels pushing the UK to leave the EU now or never

Inequality in the delivery of health services

North Korea: ‘Time to talk human rights’, says UN expert

Mexico cannot move forward ‘without addressing the shadows of the past’, says UN rights chief

London to say hello or goodbye to Brussels this week

With field schools in Kenya, UN agriculture agency teaches techniques to combat drought

Last-chance Commission: Why Juncker promised investments of €300 billion?

New UN-supported farming app is cream of crop in tackling Sahel pest

All sides in Yemen conflict could be guilty of war crimes, UN experts find

Sudan: Amidst deaths, injuries, imprisonments, UNICEF stresses children’s protection ‘at all times’

How each country’s share of global CO2 emissions changes over time

Few countries are pricing carbon high enough to meet climate targets

Greater transparency, fairer prices for medicines ‘a global human rights issue’, says UN health agency

UN chief condemns killing of ‘blue helmets’ in DR Congo, as violence erupts prior to elections

The EU moulds a new compromise for growth and financial sustainability

Austerity ends in Eurozone, Germany is isolated

The race for Driverless vehicles: where is the industry heading?

G20 LIVE: G20 Antalya Summit in Numbers, 15-16 November 2015

Take medical use of cannabis seriously, say MEPs

China hopes EU Commissioner De Gucht drops super anti-dumping tariff on solar panels

How music can help children with autism connect

Wednesday’s Daily Brief: Sudan, Libya, Yemen updates, solutions for e-waste, flood response in Iran, online security for children

The vegan economy is booming – and Big Food wants a slice of it

Congolese expelled from Angola returning to ‘desperate situation’: UN refugee agency

European Union: From financial consolidation to deeper political division

Fostering global citizenship in medicine

Real EU unemployment rate at 10.2%+4.1%+4.7%: Eurostat Update

‘Path to peace’ on Korean Peninsula only possible through diplomacy and full denuclearization: US tells Security Council

EU-US trade deal: Europe to Americanize its social model?

UK’s Cameron takes the field to speed up TTIP talks. Will “rocket boosters” work?

Bullheaded Madrid authorities confront Catalonia with force

7 ways to break the fast fashion habit – and save the planet

European Semester Autumn Package: Bolstering inclusive and sustainable growth

The EU Commission predicts a decimated growth in the next years

We’re facing a ‘cold crunch,’ and it’s nothing to do with the polar vortex

Education remains an impossible dream for many refugees and migrants

Young health workforce – a core of effective primary healthcare?

Eurozone very close to a sustainable growth path

Greece to stay in the euro area but the cost to its people remains elusive

Assembly President launches new initiative to purge plastics and purify oceans

3 ways to ensure the internet’s future is creative, collaborative and fair

Hackers are causing blackouts. It’s time to boost our cyber resilience

80 million Chinese people no longer pay income tax

More Stings?

Comments

  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