Globalism: Progress or a Threat?
The debate over globalism is one of the most polarizing in modern political and economic discourse. Some argue that it represents the culmination of human progress: the dissolution of national boundaries, the promotion of free trade, global cooperation, and shared prosperity. Others see it as a threat to sovereignty, identity, democracy, and economic stability — a top-down agenda driven by unelected elites, multinational corporations, and supranational institutions.
This article examines globalism through a critical lens, questioning whether it truly serves the interests of ordinary people or whether it undermines them under the guise of progress.
What is globalism?
Globalism is the ideology or policy orientation that favors the integration of national economies, cultures, and governance systems into a unified global framework. It promotes the expansion of international institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and the European Union, as well as the strengthening of trade agreements and transnational legal frameworks.
Proponents view this as a natural evolution in an interconnected world. However, critics argue that it concentrates power in the hands of unaccountable entities, erodes local autonomy, and imposes one-size-fits-all policies across diverse nations.
The case for globalism as progress
Economic integration and trade
Supporters of globalism argue that free trade leads to prosperity, efficiency, and innovation. They cite the post-World War II economic boom and the expansion of global trade as examples of how international cooperation lifted millions out of poverty.
According to the World Bank (Global Economic Prospects, World Bank), globalization has contributed significantly to poverty reduction in emerging economies, particularly in East Asia. Increased trade has allowed developing countries to access markets, technology, and capital, fueling growth.
Peace and cooperation
Another common argument is that globalism reduces the risk of conflict. Economic interdependence supposedly makes war less attractive, as countries become stakeholders in one another’s stability. Institutions like the United Nations and the European Union are presented as peacekeeping mechanisms that mediate disputes and prevent the resurgence of nationalism and militarism.
This idea was captured by economic historian Richard Baldwin in his work (The Great Convergence, Baldwin), where he argues that technological advances in communication and logistics have naturally led to a more interconnected world — and that resisting this trend would be akin to fighting gravity.
Cosmopolitan values
Globalism is often aligned with values such as diversity, tolerance, environmental stewardship, and human rights. The spread of these ideals is considered a hallmark of progress, offering a counterbalance to authoritarianism and extremism. Organizations like Amnesty International and Greenpeace have used global platforms to push for reforms that go beyond borders.
The case for globalism as a threat
Despite these optimistic claims, many scholars, activists, and citizens view globalism not as liberation, but as a form of elite domination that disempowers the nation-state and democratic governance.
Erosion of sovereignty and democracy
One of the most powerful criticisms is that globalism undermines national sovereignty. Decision-making is increasingly outsourced to institutions that are not directly accountable to the public. This is evident in the European Union, where directives from Brussels often override national legislation, even when local populations vote against them in referenda (The European Union: A Critical Assessment, Bucher).
According to political scientist John Fonte, globalism creates “post-democratic governance” by replacing citizen control with technocratic rule (Sovereignty or Submission, Fonte). Citizens are no longer voting for policies but for administrators who are bound by international treaties, trade pacts, and sustainability goals imposed from above.
Economic dislocation
While globalization has brought growth to parts of the world, it has also devastated local economies, particularly in the West. Deindustrialization, wage stagnation, and job losses have hit working-class communities in Europe and North America, leading to widespread resentment.
The outsourcing of manufacturing to lower-wage countries like China and India has made consumer goods cheaper, but at the cost of domestic employment. As economist Dani Rodrik notes, globalization creates winners and losers — and the latter are often abandoned by political elites (The Globalization Paradox, Rodrik).
The “China shock” — a term coined by economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson — refers to the massive loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs following China’s entry into the WTO in 2001. The consequences included rising inequality, political polarization, and the opioid crisis in some American communities (The China Shock, Autor et al.).
Cultural homogenization
Critics also argue that globalism erodes cultural identity. As global corporations spread across the globe, local traditions, languages, and lifestyles are replaced by homogenized products and values. The rise of “McWorld” — a term coined by Benjamin Barber — describes how global consumer culture replaces rich, local diversity with uniformity (Jihad vs. McWorld, Barber).
This is not merely a cultural loss, but a political one. National identity often forms the basis of social cohesion and democratic participation. When these bonds weaken, people become more alienated, opening the door to populism, extremism, or apathy.
Centralized power and surveillance
Another dimension of the globalist agenda is the push for centralized data control and surveillance. From digital ID systems to centralized digital currencies, citizens are increasingly tracked and regulated by supranational institutions, sometimes under the pretense of safety or efficiency.
As Shoshana Zuboff outlines in her book (The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff), the merger of state power and corporate data monopolies threatens individual freedom and democratic accountability.
The World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” initiative — which aims to remake capitalism in the wake of crises like COVID-19 — has been accused of promoting an unelected, technocratic vision of global governance that bypasses democratic consent (COVID-19: The Great Reset, Schwab and Malleret).
Who benefits from globalism?
It is often the case that the rhetoric of “global cooperation” masks the interests of multinational corporations, financial institutions, and unelected elites. While ordinary citizens are told to make sacrifices for sustainability, social justice, or economic growth, these actors continue to accumulate wealth and power.
For example, tax havens and global financial deregulation have allowed the ultra-wealthy to avoid paying taxes while middle classes are burdened by austerity and inflation. According to the Global Tax Evasion Report by the EU Tax Observatory, over $10 trillion is held offshore, largely by the global elite (Global Tax Evasion Report, EU Tax Observatory).
Meanwhile, transnational trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) are often negotiated in secrecy and prioritize investor protections over public welfare (Shadow Sovereignty, Corporate Europe Observatory).
Is resistance possible?
In recent years, we have seen a wave of resistance to globalism. The Brexit vote, the election of Donald Trump, the Yellow Vests in France, and the rise of populist parties across Europe signal that many citizens are rejecting the globalist consensus. They seek to reclaim national sovereignty, cultural identity, and democratic control.
Critics warn, however, that globalism is not just a policy — it is an entrenched system supported by the world’s most powerful actors. Reversing it requires more than changing governments; it would require a rethinking of the postwar order and a reassertion of local, democratic authority.
Conclusion
Globalism is not an inherently neutral or benevolent force. While it has enabled cooperation, technological progress, and economic growth for some, it has also deepened inequality, eroded sovereignty, and empowered unaccountable elites. The question is not whether globalism is happening — it is — but whether it serves the interests of the people or the few.
To view globalism as inevitable progress is to ignore the social, economic, and cultural costs it imposes. True progress should be measured not by how globalized a society becomes, but by how just, democratic, and sovereign it remains.
References
- Global Economic Prospects, World Bank
- The Great Convergence, Richard Baldwin
- Sovereignty or Submission, John Fonte
- The European Union: A Critical Assessment, Bucher
- The Globalization Paradox, Dani Rodrik
- The China Shock, Autor, Dorn, Hanson
- Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber
- The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Shoshana Zuboff
- COVID-19: The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret
- Global Tax Evasion Report, EU Tax Observatory
- Shadow Sovereignty, Corporate Europe Observatory
