{"id":2248,"date":"2026-03-31T12:01:52","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T09:01:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/?p=2248"},"modified":"2026-03-31T12:01:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T09:01:52","slug":"deglobalization-ascendant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/?p=2248","title":{"rendered":"Deglobalization Ascendant"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Walden Bello<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

I would like, first of all, to thank Prof Bonn Juego, Chair of the Finnish Society for Development Research, and Prof Tiina Sepp\u00e4l\u00e4, Conference Chair of Development Days 2026, for inviting me to address this august assembly.\u00a0 I am truly honored and happy to be in Finland.<\/p>\n

It is often said that the economy is a dull subject.\u00a0 I disagree.\u00a0 The rise and fall of globalization and neoliberalism, the ideological paradigm that promoted it, is the most dramatic story of the last quarter of a century.\u00a0 \u00a0This was an epic drama, and it was one in which I was fortunate enough to participate both as a public intellectual and an activist.<\/p>\n

Let me begin my story in Singapore in November 1996.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know why I and other civil society representatives were invited to the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, but I guess it was to impress on us critics and skeptics that corporate-driven globalization was the future and it was useless to resist.<\/p>\n

As a number of speeches by western government officials confidently affirmed, a borderless world would soon come into being, and presiding over its establishment would be the \u201cBig Three\u201d multilateral institutions.\u00a0 The World Bank would play the leading role in transforming the economies of the Global South along free-market, neoliberal lines, the International Monetary Fund would ensure freedom of capital flows, and the World Trade Organization, which was portrayed by one of its future director generals as the \u201cjewel in the crown of multilateralism,\u201d would \u00a0preside over the establishment of a \u201crules-based global trading system.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Unraveling of the Globalist Project<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is noteworthy that while global trade was the principal focus of liberalization in this vision of globalization, it was in the area of finance that what was expected to be a smooth market-led process would break down.\u00a0 In 1997, capital account liberalization that had been aggressively pushed by the International Monetary Fund triggered the Asian Financial Crisis and ended the three-decade-long stretch of high-speed growth of the so-called miracle economies of the Pacific Rim.\u00a0 And in 2008, financialization, which became the cutting edge of transformation of the central capitalist economies, triggered the Global Financial Crisis–the worst crisis of global capitalism since the Great Depression.<\/p>\n

Still it was in the area of trade that the subjective factor crystallized without whose intervention globalization would not have been reversed.\u00a0 I am referring to the global mass movement against trade liberalization that exploded in the Battle of Seattle in late November and early December 1999.<\/p>\n

One can appreciate the significance of the Battle of Seattle if it is pointed out that in the decade prior to Seattle, there were a lot of studies, including United Nations reports, that questioned the claim that globalization and free market policies were leading to sustained growth and prosperity. \u00a0Indeed, the data showed that globalization and pro-market policies were promoting more inequality and more poverty and consolidating economic stagnation, especially in the global south. \u00a0However, these figures remained \u201cfactoids\u201d rather than facts in the eyes of academics, the press, and policymakers, who dutifully repeated the neoliberal mantra that economic liberalization promoted growth and prosperity. The orthodox view, repeated ad nauseam in the classroom, the media, and policy circles was that the critics of globalization were modern-day incarnations of Luddites, the people who smashed machines during the Industrial Revolution, or, as Thomas Friedman, the pro-globalization columnist at the New York Times<\/em>, disdainfully branded us, believers in a flat earth.<\/p>\n

Then came Seattle. \u00a0After those tumultuous days, the press began to talk about the \u201cdark side of globalization,\u201d about the inequalities and poverty being created by globalization. After that, we had the spectacular defections from the camp of neoliberal globalization, such as those of the financier George Soros, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, and the star economist Jeffrey Sachs. True, neoliberalism continued to be the default discourse among many economists and technocrats. But even before the 2008 global financial collapse, it had already lost much of its credibility and legitimacy. What made the difference? Not so much research or debate but action. It took the anti-globalization actions of masses of people in the streets of Seattle\u2014which interacted in synergistic fashion with the resistance of developing country representatives in the Sheraton Convention Center and a police riot, to bring about the spectacular collapse of a WTO ministerial meeting\u2014to translate factoids into facts, into truth.<\/p>\n

Seattle merits the term bestowed by the philosopher Hegel on the advent of Napoleon\u2014that is, a \u201cworld-historical event.\u201d Its enduring lesson is that truth is not just out there, existing objectively and eternally. Truth is completed, made real, and ratified by action. In Seattle, ordinary women and men made truth true with collective action that smashed an intellectual paradigm that had served as the ideological warden of corporate-driven globalization.<\/p>\n

The Left, the Critique of Globalization, and Deglobalization<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is important to stress that the critique of globalization originally came from the left.\u00a0 And, in this connection, one must point to the truly significant role played by outstanding Finnish thinkers like Heikki Patom\u00e4ki and Teivo Teivainen, in articulating this critique.<\/p>\n

The contribution of my institute Focus on the Global South to this critical analysis was to pose the alternative paradigm of \u201cdeglobalization.\u201d\u00a0 The Economist,<\/em> the ideological font of free market economics cited me\u2014in a disapproving context\u2014as having coined the term.[1]<\/a> \u00a0I plead guilty. Deglobalization was never meant as a neutral term. It was conceived in political struggle. If globalization was what we were opposing, then we had to counter it with the strongest idea possible: deglobalization. When we advanced it a quarter of a century ago, deglobalization was a vision, a strategy, not a description of an empirical reality or process, as it is used now to describe current trends away from globalized production and global supply chains or \u201creshoring,\u201d though we foresaw these.<\/p>\n

This did not mean it was simply a slogan. It was a program, the main points of which were refocusing the economy back on production for the domestic market than for export markets, resubordinating the market to society, reasserting cooperation over competition, replacing the pursuit of narrow efficiency with that of social effectiveness, and allowing for a diversity of ways of organizing and economy, rather than fitting all economies into one mold, the neoliberal template.<\/p>\n

It was also an idea that sprang from a rich intellectual tradition associated with the Hungarian thinker Karl Polanyi. In his classic book The Great Transformation<\/em> that came out in 1944, Polanyi wrote that the unregulated market championed by neoliberals emerged from a process of \u201cdis-embedding\u201d the market from the broader social system, so that market relations came to drive the whole system.[2]<\/a> But he also argued that this dis-embedding was the first phase of a \u201cdouble movement.\u201d When the dis-embedded market began to run out of control, creating tremendous social crises, society reasserted its supremacy over the market.\u00a0 The second phase occurred after the Great Depression of the twentieth. century, in the shape of strong state intervention to \u201cre-embed\u201d the market in society.<\/p>\n

Inspired by Polanyi\u2019s double movement, the deglobalization paradigm called for a second re-embedding of the market in society after the crisis unleashed by the unfettered market under neoliberalism. \u201cSomething fundamentally similar is necessary today, with the current crisis of neoliberalism,\u201d I wrote. \u201cUnlike classical socialism, deglobalization does not call for the abolition of the market and its replacement by central planning. What it does call for is the \u2018re-embedding\u2019 of market relations in society, meaning that social relations must reflect the subordination of market efficiency to the higher values of community, solidarity, and equality. The market\u2019s role in exchange and the allocation of resources is important, but this must not only be balanced but subordinated to the maintenance and enhancement of social solidarity. Acting to balance and guide the market must not only be the state but also civil society, and in place of the invisible hand as the agent of the common good must come the visible hand of democratic choice. In place of the economics of narrow efficiency, we proposed what we might call \u201ceffective economics.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

How the Left Lost Its Way<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a speech in honor of Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg on July 17, 2018, former US President Barack Obama noted that \u201cchallenges to globalization first came from the left but then came more forcefully from the right, as you started seeing populist movements\u2026 [that] tapped the unease that was felt by many people who lived outside of the urban cores; fears that economic security was slipping away, that their social status and privileges were eroding, that their cultural identities were being threatened by outsiders, somebody that didn\u2019t look like them or sound like them or pray as they did.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Obama was right: the far right ate the left\u2019s lunch.\u00a0 But he was obviously oblivious to what role his own policies played in this development, but we will come to that.<\/p>\n

Seattle was an exclusively left-wing affair, as were the protests against the Group of Eight that culminated in a massive 200,000-person rally in Genoa in July 2001. While the September 11 events dented the momentum of the anti-globalization movement, the World Social Forum, which enjoyed the support of the Brazilian Workers\u2019 Party that came to power in 2002, provided a North-South avenue for the elaboration of anti-globalization strategies. With the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, the anti-globalization movement reemerged in force in the North in what came to be known as the Occupy Movement, the key political products of which were the coming to power of Syriza in Greece and the rise of Podemos as a political force in Spain.<\/p>\n

The left\u2019s ability to ride on the anti-globalization agenda, was, however, severely compromised by the fact that since the 1990\u2019s the center left in the US and Europe had bought into and aggressively promoted the free-trade, neoliberal agenda. Thus, in the US, it was under the leadership of Democratic Clinton administration that North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the WTO came into being and the New Deal-era Glass Steagall Act separating commercial from investment banking was repealed. Later, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Obama\u2019s Democratic Party presidency prioritized saving the banks instead of bringing relief to millions of bankrupt homeowners.\u00a0 Then, in what must rank as a historic misjudgment, Obama promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that, to the working class, meant a continuation of the export of their jobs to China. Obama\u2019s advocacy of the TPP and poor record in bringing back jobs was likely to be one of the central factors that led significant numbers of traditionally Democratic working class voters in the Mid-West to spurn Hillary Clinton, thus providing Trump the edge in the key states that determined the outcome of the 2016 elections.<\/p>\n

In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown\u2019s New Labor pushed the \u201cThird Way,\u201d key elements of which were support for thoroughgoing financial liberalization and state promotion of the drive to make London supplant New York as the global financial center. In Germany, the Social Democrats (SPD) under Gerard Schroeder did what the center-right Christian Democrats could never have accomplished: push neoliberal \u201creforms\u201d\u2014the so-called Hartz reforms\u2014that loosened wage, tenure, and social security protections for workers. French socialist figures, for their part, became the most enthusiastic proponents of the euro, the adoption of which required countries to maintain tight non-expansionary fiscal policies that militated against social spending and the reduction of unemployment.\u00a0 Indeed, a French socialist, Pascal Lamy, assumed the leadership of the WTO and became the austere face of globalization world-wide.<\/p>\n

Having embraced neoliberalism, the established workers\u2019 parties became defenders of the pro-globalization agenda, leading not only to failure to expand their mass base but also to part of that base leaving their ranks, like the leaders and rank-and-file that left the SPD in the mid-2000\u2019s and helped form Die Linke <\/em>(the Left).<\/p>\n

How the Far Right Hijacked the Anti-Globalization Agenda<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even as the mainstream left failed to capitalize on the independent left\u2019s critique of the ills of globalization and neoliberalism to expand its domestic base, the extreme right was detaching itself, albeit in a halting and selective fashion, from the free trade, neoliberal agenda that it had formerly supported along with the center-right. In the US, Donald Trump broke with the Republican Party and big business when he opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership that they almost unanimously endorsed. Seeking to make inroads into the working class, right wing parties in Europe gradually abandoned or diluted the anti-tax, anti-big-government, and free-market concerns of their original petit bourgeois base and opportunistically embraced an anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization agenda and the welfare state\u2014though grudgingly when it came to the latter.<\/p>\n

The strategy paid off. In France, the \u201cnew look\u201d bestowed on the National Front by Marine Le Pen, who succeeded her father, the notorious racist Jean-Marie Le Pen, elicited this observation from a French socialist senator: \u201cLeft-wing voters are crossing the red line because they think that salvation from their plight is embodied by Madame Le Pen\u2026They say \u2018no\u2019 to a world that seems hard, globalized, implacable. These are working-class people, pensioners, office workers who say, \u2018We don\u2019t want this capitalism and competition in a world where Europe is losing its leadership\u2019.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

Stealing the left\u2019s working-class base by opposing neoliberalism and free trade and defending the welfare state became the extreme right\u2019s passport to power or to the antechamber of power throughout Europe. But there were two ingredients that the right added that marked off its anti-globalization agenda from the left: racism and a reactionary nationalism aimed at migrants.<\/p>\n

In Denmark, the Peoples\u2019 Party broke with its parent group\u2019s anti-tax focus, becoming instead, a defender of that country\u2019s generous public sector, provided that its benefits would be limited to Danes. Norway\u2019s Progress Party followed suit. \u00a0So did Austria\u2019s Freedom Party.<\/p>\n

Other right-wing groups in Europe were not far behind in skillfully cherry-picking elements of the traditional left\u2019s program and inserting them into a framework of equity, sharing, and community, but one based on blood, ethnicity, and race\u2014in short, an exclusionary nationalist welfare political economy.\u00a0 \u00a0You are far more familiar with the situation in Finland than I am, so I will not touch it.<\/p>\n

Welfare but only for \u201cour kind\u201d is a theme that also began to resonate on the right in the United States. Richard Spencer, one of the most outspoken and controversial white nationalists, has argued for that \u201cuniversal healthcare is less confusing and nonsensical (and probably cheaper) than what White people have to deal with now,\u201d but that \u201cwe must accept that healthcare is an issue we cannot rationally address until we have a European nation.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0 That the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare has not been repealed is due to its grudging acceptance by Trump\u2019s Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, even as it is denounced rhetorically by Republican Party legislators.<\/p>\n

Donald Trump and Deglobalization<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let me focus on the United States, where Donald Trump rode the rhetoric of anti-globalization or deglobalization to power and is currently refashioning a world that is quite distant from the liberal internationalist globalized world that was in existence just one year ago.<\/p>\n

There is no going back to that predictable world favored by both liberal and conservative elites.\u00a0 I may disagree on other points Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney made in his speech in Davos a few weeks ago, but I fully am in accordance with his assertion that \u201cWe are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.\u201d[7]<\/a> There are three major reasons why–all relating to US policy under Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

First, \u00a0the politics of rage, not the economics of narrow efficiency in the service of corporate profitability is now in command.\u00a0 In the United States, globalization created two antagonistic communities, one that benefited from it due to their superior education and incomes, the other that suffered from it owing to their lack of both economic and educational advantages. The latter is the vast sector of the population that Hillary Clinton called the \u201cdeplorables,\u201d but is better known as the \u201cMake America Great Again\u201d folks or MAGA base. That community will not easily forget either the sufferings brought about by the deindustrialization spearheaded by Apple, General Motors, and other well-known TNCs or the slights they endured from Hillary, whom they regard as being in the pocket of Wall Street.<\/p>\n

A second reason for the strength of the deglobalization wave is that the multilateral order that served as the political canopy or system of governance for free trade and unobstructed capital flows is on the brink of collapse. The World Trade Organization, which was once described as the jewel in the crown of multilateralism, no longer functions as a system for governing world trade, partly owing to sabotage by the United States, when under Obama and later Trump and Biden, Washington could no longer rely on favorable rulings in trade disputes. The International Monetary Fund has not recovered from its reputation of promoting austerity in developing countries and its push for unfettered capital flows that brought down the Asian tiger economies. The World Bank also is discredited for its complicity in imposing austerity measures as well as for the wrong-headed policy of export-oriented industrialization for Global North markets that the Bank prescribed as the route to prosperity for developing countries\u2014one that is now especially fatal for those who followed it given the ultra-protectionism sweeping the United States.<\/p>\n

Third, national security, both economic security and military security, has displaced corporate prosperity through trade and investment as the principal consideration in relations among countries. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have banned the transfer of advanced computer chips and other strategic IT products and processes to China, and more such measures will follow. Reorganizing and regionalizing, if not nationalizing, access to and supply lines for key resources for advanced technologies like lithium, rare earth, copper, cobalt, and nickel is now an overriding concern, the aim being not only to monopolize these sensitive commodities but to prevent competitors from getting hold of them.<\/p>\n

The \u201cDonroe Doctrine\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The convergence of the geoeconomics of deglobalization and geopolitics is articulated in the recently released National Security Strategy 2025, now popularly known as the \u201cDonroe Doctrine:\u201d<\/p>\n

Strengthening critical supply chains in [the Western] Hemisphere will reduce dependencies and increase American economic resilience. The linkages created between America and our partners will benefit both sides while making it harder for non-Hemispheric competitors to increase their influence in the region. And even as we prioritize commercial diplomacy, we will work to strengthen our security partnerships\u2014from weapons sales to intelligence sharing to joint exercises\u2026 The Western Hemisphere is home to many strategic resources that America should partner with regional allies to develop, to make neighboring countries as well as our own more prosperous\u2026 The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity\u2014a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region. The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence\u2014from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined.[8]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

That last point refers to, among other assets \u201cbroadly defined,\u201d Greenland and the Panama Canal.<\/p>\n

TNCs and Donald Trump<\/strong><\/p>\n

How transnational corporations are relating to the world being shaped by Donald Trump is shown by the moves of Apple.\u00a0 Probably the US corporation that benefited most from globalization, Apple has adjusted to the direction where the wind is blowing, and that is towards deglobalization Trump-style.\u00a0 It is now leading the so-called reshoring process. It has read the handwriting on the wall and, though this will negatively affect its bottom line and scramble its operations, to protect the remainder of its super profits, it is leading the reshoring of its supply chains, with a planned $600 billion investment in the manufacture within the United States of its iPhone, iPad, MacBook, as well as in the fabrication of semi-conductor chips. Boasting that Apple manufacturing plans will create 450,000 jobs in the United States, CEO Tim Cook admitted to being a hostage to Trump\u2019s push to deglobalize the operations of American firms, saying, \u201cThe president has said he wants more in the United States\u2026[and] we want more in the United States.\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Where Apple goes, others follow, among them U.S. chipmakers Intel and Nvidia, automotive leader Tesla, and pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson.<\/p>\n

But American firms are not the only hostages to politics. Among the foreign firms that have bowed to Trump\u2019s ultra-protectionist push via unilateral tariff increases by regionalizing or nationalizing their supply lines are Hyundai Motors, Honda Motors, Samsung electronics, Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC, and pharmaceutical firm Sanofi.<\/p>\n

Although reshoring or relocation has proceeded by fits and starts over the last decade, under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, it is likely to accelerate over the next few years, despite constraints and inefficiencies, as economic nationalism rises in the United States and the West. \u00a0With Trump imposing unilateral tariffs on Mexico and Canada, companies are realizing that relocating to these partners of the US in the USCMA may not appease Trump; they will have to relocate to the United States itself, despite the disruption and chaos that might accompany that process, such as that which saw 300 workers vital to the Hyundai facility in Georgia arrested by ICE and deported to Korea.<\/p>\n

Reclaiming Deglobalization<\/strong><\/p>\n

The issue, then, is not the inevitability of deglobalization but what form deglobalization will take. Deglobalization marked by ultra-protectionism in trade relations, unilateralism and isolationism in economic and military relations, and the creation of a domestic market geared principally towards the interests of the racial and ethnic majority is one way to deglobalize. That is indeed where Trump is leading the United States.<\/p>\n

But there is another way to deglobalize, the key elements of which I laid out in my book Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy <\/em>25 years ago.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

One, we do not demand a withdrawal into autarky but continued participation in the international economy, but in a way that ensures that instead of swamping it, international market forces are harnessed to assist in building the capacity to sustain a vibrant domestic economy.<\/p>\n

Two, we propose that via a judicious combination of equality-enhancing redistributive measures and reasonable tariffs and quotas, the internal market will again become the engine of a healthy economy instead of being an appendage of an export-oriented economy.<\/p>\n

Third, we promote participation in a plurality of economic groupings\u2013those that allow countries to maintain policy space for development, instead of imprisoning them in a single global body, the World Trade Organization, with a uniform set of rules, one that favors the interests of transnational corporations instead of the interests of their citizens.\u00a0 The BRICS is one such grouping, but it is not the only one.<\/p>\n

Fourth, we feel that progressive deglobalization does not contradict but complements international cooperation in the positive sense of solidary efforts in pursuit of our common interests and values.\u00a0 Such an endeavor is more than ever, a necessity, especially in light of the climate emergency, but it must be truly equal and not imposed by a hegemon.<\/p>\n

Fifth, inspired by the work of Karl Polanyi, we advocate the re-embedding of the market in the community, so that instead of driving the latter, as in global capitalism, the market is subject to the values and rhythms of the community.<\/p>\n

And finally, in contrast to the far right, we uphold the notion of community as one where membership is not determined by blood or ethnicity but by a shared belief in democratic values.<\/p>\n

In short, it\u2019s time for the long postponed swing of the pendulum, Polanyi\u2019s second movement, to take place, with the state and civil society cooperating to aggressively discipline and regulate the market and capital.<\/p>\n

That is the alternative we offered a quarter of a century ago. This fluid system of international trade that allows especially the economies of the Global South the space to pursue sustainable development is not far from the flexible global trading system before the takeoff of globalization in the late eighties, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Twenty five years later, we continue to promote a route of progressive deglobalization, one that avoids the extreme of the doctrinaire dystopia of corporate-driven globalization, on the one hand, and, on the other, savage unilateralism and protectionism.\u00a0 This route to deglobalization is not new, nor, some would claim, particularly radical. Keynes\u2019 common sense advice, addressing the global situation in the 1930s, is very relevant to our times, \u201cLet goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national.\u201d<\/p>\n

Had we taken this route, I dare say, the chances are great that we would not be in the terrible mess the world is in today, with the threat not only of trade war but of real war at its doorsteps. There is still time to take this route, or some path close to it, but the window of opportunity is closing fast.<\/p>\n

Let me end with my favorite quote from the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, one that is so apt for our times: \u201cThe old world is dying, and the new one is struggling to be born. Now is the time of monsters.\u201d\u00a0 Gramsci is right:\u00a0 We live in an era of multiple crises, or to use a fashionable term, polycrisis, but this can also be one of multiple opportunities. \u00a0\u00a0Thank you.<\/p>\n

*Walden Bello<\/strong> is currently an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the State University of New York at Binghamton and a retired professor at the University of the Philippines. He is also the co-founder of Focus on the Global South. He received the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) in 2003 for his work in exposing the negative impacts of corporate-driven globalization and was named Outstanding Public Scholar by the International Studies Association in 2008. He served in the Philippine House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015 and ran for vice president in the Philippine elections of 2022. In 2023, Amnesty International Philippines honored him as the \u201cMost Distinguished Human Rights Defender.\u201d Among his 26 books are Global Battlefields: My Close Encounters with Dictatorship, Capital, Empire, and Love; Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy; and Counterrevolution: The Global Rise of the Far Right.\u00a0 He can be reached at waldenbello@yahoo.com<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> \u201cTurning Their Backs on the World: Globalization,\u201d The Economist<\/em>, Feb. 19, 2009, https:\/\/www.econo-<\/p>\n

mist.com\/international\/2009\/02\/19\/turning-their-backs-on-the-world.\u00a0 Accessed Feb 16, 2026.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation<\/em> (Boston: Beacon, 2001).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Walden Bello, Global Battlefields: My Close Encounters with Dictatorship, Capital, Empire, and Love<\/em> (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2025), p. 205.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Barack Obama, \u201cBarack Obama\u2019s Johannesburg Speech in Full,\u201d Guardian<\/em>, July 18, 2018, https:\/\/ theguardian.com\/us-news\/2018\/jul\/18\/barack-obamas-johannesburg-speech-in-full.\u00a0 Accessed Feb 16, 2026.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Charles Bremner, \u201cAt the Gates of Power: How Marine Le Pen is Unnerving the French Establish-<\/p>\n

ment,\u201d The New Statesman<\/em>, Dec. 4, 2014, https:\/\/newstatesman.com\/politics\/2014\/12\/gates-power-<\/p>\n

how-marine-le-pen-unnerving-french-establishment. Accessed Feb 16, 2026.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Cited in Annie Lowery, Give People Money<\/em> (New York: Crown, 2018), p. 147-148.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Mark Carney, \u201cAddress in Davos 2026,\u201d Jan 26, 2026, https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/stories\/2026\/01\/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of<\/a> canada\/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22228224717&gbraid=0AAAAAoVy5F7NXDTkGroywPsq1I_DoIZLR&gclid=CjwKCAiA-sXMBhAOEiwAGGw6LBrGflb7ep4dP-HuJmvfRMvDm66ajjs3h–PZJwo_n58GRcwwKSaJhoCyiYQAvD_BwE.\u00a0 Accessed Feb 16, 2026<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> National Security Strategy 2026<\/em> (Washington, DC: White House, 2026), p. 17. https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf<\/a>.\u00a0 Accessed Feb 16, 2026.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> \u201cTim Cook Details How Apple Will Put Its $600 Billion Domestic Manufacturing Investment to Work,\u201d CNBC<\/em>, Sept 12, 2025. https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2025\/09\/12\/tim-cook-details-how-apple-will-put-its-600-billion-domestic-manufacturing-investment-to-work.html<\/a>.\u00a0 Accessed Feb 16, 2026.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Walden Bello, Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy<\/em> (London: Bloomsbury\/Zed, 2002).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Walden Bello I would like, first of all, to thank Prof Bonn Juego, Chair of the Finnish Society for Development Research, and Prof Tiina Sepp\u00e4l\u00e4, Conference Chair of Development Days 2026, for inviting me to address this august assembly.\u00a0 I am truly honored and happy to be in Finland. It is often said that …<\/p>\n

Deglobalization Ascendant<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2248"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2251,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2248\/revisions\/2251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}