The Globalization Myth: Why Regions Matter

The Globalization Myth: Why Regions Matter

In The Globalization Myth: Why Regions Matter, CFR Vice President, Deputy Director of Studies, and Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies Shannon K. O'Neil offers a powerful case for why regionalization, not globalization, has been the biggest economic trend of the last forty years.

November 16, 2022 11:35 am (EST)

Teaching Notes

Summary

Globalization is not the only—or even the real—story of the global economy over the past four decades. In The Globalization Myth: Why Regions Matter, CFR Vice President and Senior Fellow Shannon O’Neil shows that the world has become more international but not nearly as global as the narrative of economic globalization suggests. As companies, money, ideas, and people went abroad over the last forty years, more often than not they moved and traded regionally rather than globally.

More From Our Experts

This overlooked reality of regionalization has implications for U.S. policy. Regionalization has enhanced economic competitiveness and prosperity in Asia and Europe. It could do the same for the United States, if only it would embrace its neighbors.

More on:

Globalization

Trade

International Economics

Charting the rise of three major regional supply chain hubs in Asia, Europe, and North America, O’Neil demonstrates how the countries that traded with countries nearer-by gained a competitive edge. Regional production chains make products more competitively. By contrast, for nations without strong commercial ties to their neighbors, workers and consumers are largely left on the ends of global supply chains, relegated to sending out raw materials and bringing in final goods. Unlike in regional hubs, these goods from distant shores compete with, rather than support, local manufacturers, leaving these nations in the economic slow lane.

Despite the rise of a North American manufacturing platform, the United States continues to be less integrated with its neighbors than its Asian or European commercial rivals, as more of its trade still goes to countries outside its region than within it.

O’Neil shows that while many of the technological, demographic, climate, and policy shifts happening today favor the United States and its economy, regionalization of production and supply chains will still provide commercial advantages. To keep up with and compete against Asia’s expansive reach and Europe’s industrial prowess, U.S. politicians, entrepreneurs, and workers need to recognize that the United States requires deeper integration with its neighbors. International trade deals and other policies that recognize this reality would allow the United States to preserve and expand its domain in the global marketplace.

More From Our Experts

The Globalization Myth provides a path forward for the United States and other countries looking to get ahead in the global economy. The answer is not isolation, nor is it unfettered globalization. Rather, embracing and deepening regional ties is a way to succeed in an internationally connected and competitive world. Main takeaways include:

  1. The biggest feature of globalization over the last forty years has been the creation of international supply chains. This has spurred regionalization more than globalization.
  2. Regional commercial ties have given nations and geographic regions a competitive economic edge in the world economy, and help explain the so-called winners and losers of globalization.
  3. Trends in automation, climate change, demographics, consumer behavior, and geopolitics are changing economic and commercial calculations, and trade and investment patterns. These shifts generally favor the United States, but regionalization will still matter for economic competitiveness. Deepening regional supply chains and ties remains vital for U.S.-based companies and their workers to thrive.

More on:

Globalization

Trade

International Economics

This book is suitable for the following types of undergraduate and graduate courses:

  1. International Political Economy, International Trade, International Economics, or International Economic History
  2. International Business, Business Policy and Strategy, or Globalization and Supply Chains

 

Discussion and Essay Questions

Discussion Questions

For Students of International Political Economy, International Trade, International Economics, or International Economic History

  1. What was different about the latest round of globalization (1970-2020) to those of the past? 
  2. Politicians across the political spectrum in the United States are skeptical of trade. Are they right? Are some types of trade different from others and why?
  3. How is globalization changing? Which countries are set to benefit? What can others do to benefit?
  4. Was the American Rust Belt a victim of globalization? Why or why not?
  5. From the 1990s to the 2010s, Asia’s share of global manufacturing grew from making one-quarter to nearly half of all goods. How did that happen? What factors mattered?
  6. Why didn’t North America integrate as deeply as Asia or Europe?

For Students of International Business, Business Policy and Strategy, or Globalization and Supply Chains

  1. What factors matter for the future of U.S. economic competitiveness? What policies can enhance them?
  2. Does industrial policy work? When should it be used? Discuss the costs and benefits of industrial policy for national economic competitiveness.
  3. What is the “globalization penalty?” Why does it emerge? How can companies avoid it?
  4. Are global supply chains as fragile as some say? Why or why not? In what ways?
  5. Which parts of the world are most integrated? What can we learn from the small number of countries and companies that have truly “globalized” over the last forty years?
  6. What contemporary trends will determine the future of globalization? How will the United States fare?
  7. What does the U.S.-China decoupling mean for the future of supply chains? For corporations? For countries? Who will benefit? Who will suffer?

 

Essay Questions

For Students of International Political Economy, International Trade, International Economics, or International Economic History

  1. How did regionalization differ between Europe and Asia?
  2. Why did North America integrate less deeply than Europe or Asia? Does it matter?
  3. Why were some countries included in the latest wave of globalization and some left out? What factors explain the winners and losers?

For Students of International Business, Business Policy and Strategy, or Globalization and Supply Chains

  1. Is globalization a myth? Why and why not?
  2. What factors will matter most for the future location of supply chains? Imagine you are advising the CEO of a major multinational company. What issues should she be considering when investing in new manufacturing facilities? What factors should weigh most heavily on her decision?

 

Further Projects

Memorandum: You are a supply chain manager for a major international company. With your team, decide where you will place your next production facility. What factors will you consider? How will you weigh them?

Role play: Imagine you are a member of a policy advisory committee of The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and your group-mates are members of corresponding agencies in Mexico and Canada. You are tasked with making improvements to the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) during its 2026 joint review that will help North America remain competitive in the next phase of global commerce. Work together to propose, reconcile, and “pass” three improvements to the agreement


Supplementary Materials

Laia Balcells, Rivalry and Revenge: The Politics Of Violence During Civil War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

Baldwin, Richard. The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016.

Bradford, Anu. The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Gereffi, Gary. Global Value Chains and Development: Redefining the Contours

of 21st Century Capitalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Ghemawat, Pankaj. Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where Differences Still Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

Studwell, Joe. How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World’s Most Dynamic Region. New York: Grove, 2014.

Suominen, Kati. Revolutionizing World Trade: How Disruptive Technologies Open Opportunities for All. Emerging Frontiers in the Global Economy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019.

 

Download the Teaching Notes (PDF)

Visit the Book Page

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.