Introduction
The rising tendency of deglobalization has had a profound impact on the dynamics of globalization. This fashion, marked by a decline in change, investment, generation transfer, and global mobility, has picked up steam. Whether China contributes to deglobalization or gets equipped for a new level is a significant subject matter of discussion in the gift global debate. This essay analyzes two media portions thoughtfully as a way to reply to that query and examines their claims in the context of scholarly readings.
Overview of Deglobalization
Since the First World War, there has been evidence of deglobalization, that is, the reversal of the fashion of world integration (Ozawa, 2018). It includes a decrease in alternate flows, technological interchange, international mobility, and price chain integration on a global scale. The COVID-19 epidemic and the waning impact of global institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) contribute to deglobalization. Strategic contention between the U.S. and China is another.
Article 1: “Did China ‘Destroy’ Globalization?” by Derek Scissors
In his paper, Derek Scissors makes the case that China is intentionally operating to undermine globalization. He claims that China’s leadership has been consolidating manipulation of the economic system and ensuring that China’s gains outweigh those of the U.S. and its perceived adversaries (Kerremans, 2022). According to Scissors, the American business region initially had excessive hopes for opening Chinese markets. However, they still need to materialize. He also draws attention to the escalating hostilities between America and China, further affecting their monetary ties.
According to the “scissors”(Bhartia et al., 2021) standpoint, China is selling deglobalization through its self-serving financial regulations and restrictions on outdoor rights of entry to its markets. This trend is also encouraged by the American corporate network’s desire for instant gains above lengthy-time period advantages. According to Scissors, the U.S. Authorities are frequently blamed for failing to shield American pursuits in change negotiations with China (Kerremans, 2022). According to him, the situation is more likely to worsen, mainly with Xi Jinping in charge.
Article 2: “Deglobalisation in the Context of the United States-China Decoupling” by Alicia García-Herrero and Junyu Tan
In contrast, Garca-Herrero and Tan see the divergence of the United States and China as a cause of globalization. Declining trade, technological change, and declining global mobility are attributed to ongoing conflicts between the two superpowers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (Lupu & Tiganasu, 2022). They also highlight the negative impact of technological protectionism and its inhibition of technology transfer, especially in light of increasing international competition.
The Garca-Herrero-Tan approach is the idea that China’s activities, primarily through trade and industrial borders, contribute to global mobility. They describe how immigration controls, visa waivers for Chinese researchers and students in the U.S., and other barriers to professional mobility further hamper labor mobility. The authors also discuss economic deglobalization, which has intensified as the U.S.’s conflict with China affects cross-border lending and FDI (Heath et al., 2021).
Comparison of the Two Articles
Scissors, Garca-Herrero, and Tan all offer different perspectives on China’s role in globalization. According to Scissors (Bhartia et al., 2021), China’s selfish economic policies and lack of respect for international norms constitute deglobalization. He accuses the American government of neglecting to protect American business interests in China. On the other hand, Garca-Herrero and Tan link the breakup of the United States and China to the breakup of globalization. Strategic competition between the two countries, especially during the COVID-19 outbreak, pushes back global cooperation. They also emphasize how technological protectionism constrains trade and the movement of goods. Both cases suggest that U.S.-China relations drive deglobalization, especially in trade and technology (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2021). They disagree about China’s intent and culpability. When Garca-Herrero and Tan sent the U.S. and China relations and vexing geopolitical issues were credited to the global abandonment, Scissors saw China as a destructive power.
Evaluation of the Validity of Both Articles
The veracity of Scissors, Garca-Herrero, and Tan can be seen by examining the evidence and logical reasoning they used in their publications. Scissors, a group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, provides a critical view of China’s contribution to globalization (Heath et al., 2021). However, his theory lacks factual support and is mainly based on stereotypes about China’s mentality. Scissors’ theories are inspiring, but more concrete support would help.
On the other hand, academics Garca-Herrero and Tan offer a more nuanced view of deglobalization (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2021). They bolster their case using specifics, such as industrial safety regulations and global travel discounts. Their framework is consistent with scholarly writing emphasizing how geopolitical conflict affects globalization.
Academic Readings on Deglobalization
Academic sources provide insight into the causes of globalization. Baldwin (2018) states that protectionism and the global financial crisis slowed globalization and trade. According to Roberts and Lamp (2023), political considerations reduced the credibility of globalization in the West. Garca-Herrero and Tan’s argument about security and geopolitical pressures is supported by comparative academic literature and media. The Scissor’s assertion that China is purposefully deglobalization is unsupported by academic research.
Conclusion
Moreover, finally, it is still being determined whether China is deglobalizing or preparing for a new globalization. While Garca-Herrero and Tan focus on the situation in the US and disengagement from China overall, Scissors emphasizes China’s role in undermining globalization. Relative to their arguments, Garcia, Herrero, and Tan follow academic explanations when movements lack empirical support. Despite China’s significant contribution to global decay, China has been affected by geopolitical conflicts, security, and economic policies. U.S.’s relationship with China will affect global economic relations, while how this will affect globalization is uncertain. Policymakers, entrepreneurs, and academics need to understand the dynamics of globalization as it faces challenges.
References
Baldwin, R. (2018). The great convergence, De Gruyter. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/9780674972667/html (Accessed: 13 October 2023).
Bhartia, R., Beegle, L. W., DeFlores, L., Abbey, W., Razzell Hollis, J., Uckert, K., Monacelli, B., Edgett, K. S., Kennedy, M. R., Sylvia, M., Aldrich, D., Anderson, M., Asher, S. A., Bailey, Z., Boyd, K., Burton, A. S., Caffrey, M., Calaway, M. J., Calvet, R., & Cameron, B. (2021). Perseverance’s Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman and Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) Investigation. Space Science Reviews, 217(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-021-00812-z
Gopalakrishnan, B. N., Chakravarthy, S. L., Tewary, T., & Jain, V. (2021). Isolating China: Deglobalisation and its impact on global value chains. Foreign Trade Review, 001573252110454. https://doi.org/10.1177/00157325211045463
Heath, T. R., Grossman, D., & Clark, A. (2021). China’s Quest for Global Primacy : An Analysis of Chinese International and Defense Strategies to Outcompete the United States. Rand Corporation.
Kerremans, B. (2022). U.S. trade policy: Japan vs. China, from politically economic to existential. A Geo-Economic Turn in Trade Policy?, 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81281-2_3
Lupu, D., & Tiganasu, R. (2022). The implications of globalization on COVID-19 vaccination in Europe. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21493-w
Ozawa, T. (2018). A note on Dani Rodrik, “Populism and the economics of globalization.” Journal of International Business Policy, 2(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0014-z
Roberts, A., & Lamp, N. (2023). Navigating complexity: Globalization narratives in China and the West. China International Strategy Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-022-00113-2
write