I've followed Milanovic's blog, but not read the book. The interesting question, to my mind, is whether globalisation will continue. Sure the tech will be there, but the political underpinnings that allow China to flood the US with cheap socks are not set in stone. My thinking is that a large part of the gains to the 1% are due to expanded reach without corresponding expanded political control, and I don't see political control catching up, but I also don't see the continued expansion of global reach without political/environmental backlash.
don't see the continued expansion of global reach without political/environmental backlash.same here. question will be what form. there are indications of an answer but don't think we know for sure yet.(a 'telegraphic' response as have to be offline for most of rest of a.m.)
I argue that most (not all) environmental problems can only be addressed off-market and through local control. Both undermine globalisation. So I expect globalisation to break down as environmental issues really bite.
I guess you mean a particular form of globalization -- oriented around corporate priorities, market-driven, etc. There are other ways the word 'globalization' has been used. I really haven't looked much at the academic globalization literature in a long time. (I had to do so, at least in a limited way, in grad school but, as I say, that's a long time ago now.)Anyway, taking your definition of 'globalization', have you thought about what its breakdown might look like?
Post a Comment