Introduction
Stephen D. King and Elżbieta Mączyńska debunk the illusion of inevitable progress. The post-war order, long regarded as a "paradise" of stable growth, has proven to be a fragile construct dependent on political will. This article analyzes why globalization can be reversed, how economic inequality erodes trust in institutions, and the challenges corporate boards face in an era of permanent polycrisis. You will learn why the minimal state model failed and what second-generation globalization might look like.
Historical Cyclicity: Globalization as a Reversible Process
According to King, globalization is a political variable rather than a historical necessity. Its foundations were American hegemony and the pillars of the Bretton Woods order, which stabilized trade and finance. However, the monetary policy trilemma—the impossibility of reconciling full capital mobility, sovereign policy, and stable exchange rates—led to internal contradictions within the system.
The 2008 crisis revealed that global infrastructure primarily served the interests of narrow elites. This was a moment of exposure: it became clear that institutional weaknesses and a lack of post-crisis coordination mechanisms are pushing the world toward "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies. Globalization, stripped of its normative foundations, becomes an easily reversible process, which King illustrates with the example of the fall of Andalusian civilization.
Globalization Destroys the Social Contract of Nation-States
The integration process violates the social contract, severing the link between where capital is accumulated and where social costs are borne. The inefficiency of the minimal state meant that public institutions abdicated their role in distributive correction. As Mączyńska points out, economic inequality is tearing the market system apart, destroying mass demand and the sense of justice.
This leads to an erosion of trust in financial elites who privatize profits and nationalize losses. Consequently, the nation-state ceases to be a buffer against risks and instead becomes a source of political risk. Populism and the revolt against the Davos elites are logical reactions from societies that feel excluded from the benefits of global trade.
The USA, EU, and AI: Strategies in a Post-Paradise World
The world is fragmenting into differing visions of development. The USA combines globalization with hegemony, the EU struggles with the unfinished architecture of the eurozone, and the Arab world attempts to leapfrog industrialization through rentierism. A new driver of change is artificial intelligence, which accelerates the reshoring of production through automation, neutralizing the advantage of cheap labor.
For corporate boards, this necessitates a strategic revision. Simple cost optimization must be abandoned in favor of analyzing the state's legitimacy to exercise power. A logical contradiction becomes key: it is impossible to maintain unrestricted capital mobility while simultaneously demanding social stability. AI may deepen these fractures or become a tool for new inclusivity.
Summary: Globalization 2.0
Losing paradise does not have to mean catastrophe, but rather an opportunity for a new paradigm of cooperation. Second-generation globalization should be based on distributive justice, ecological stability, and real participation instead of the fetish of GDP growth. The weight of arguments has been settled, but the structure of the question remains intact.
Will the awareness of the global order's fragility allow us to build the foundations of a more lasting agreement where profit is not the only measure of success? The future depends on whether economic elites recognize globalization as a fragile common good requiring constant maintenance and responsibility.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF