Study Notes on the Backlash Against Globalization

Recent years have witnessed a rising backlash against globalization.
This article reviews the nature, causes, and consequences of the globalization backlash.
Contrary to a popular narrative, the backlash is not linked with a large swing in public opinion against globalization but is a result of its politicization.
The growing influence of globalization-skeptic actors has led to protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist policies, which threaten the pillars of the contemporary international order.
Both material and non-material causes drive the backlash, interacting and mediating each other.
The consequences of the backlash are shaped by responses from societal actors, national governments, and international policymakers. These responses may either reinforce the backlash or push back against it.
Understanding these dynamics will be crucial for future research.

The backlash against globalization manifests through:
- Increasing protectionism.
- Dismantling of the WTO's dispute settlement system.
- Protests against international financial institutions (e.g., IMF).
- Criticism of political globalization by voters and politicians.
A variety of international organizations (UNESCO, the International Criminal Court, and the European Union) have lost important member states, making new international agreements increasingly challenging to finalize.
A growing backlash is noted against social and cultural globalization, evident in anti-immigrant rhetoric and protests against tourism.
Research on the globalization backlash is rapidly expanding.

Bearce & Jolliff (2019) argue that the backlash is not driven by a major change in public opinion.
Public preferences have been politicized, leading to increased political influence of globalization-skeptical actors.
The result is a rise in:
- Protectionist policies.
- Isolationist policies.
- Nationalist policies that threaten the international order.
Examining the interaction between material and non-material factors is productive:
- The relationship between these factors is crucial.
- Exploring hopes and expectations about a less globalized world is important.
- Investigating how political actors mobilize globalization-skeptic voters is critical.

Literature lacks a clear definition of "globalization backlash."
Backlash is viewed as:
- Significant decrease in support for globalization.
- Inclusive of phenomena from individual protectionist support to electoral success of nationalist parties, antiglobalization protests, and withdrawals from international institutions.
This broad definition helps explore backlash across different dimensions of globalization (economic, political, social/cultural) and various actors (voters, political intermediaries, governments).
Variation exists in backlash extent across these categories.

Economic Globalization:
- Dismantling the WTO dispute resolution mechanism affects economic and political globalization.
Social/Cultural Globalization:
- Backlash against political and sociocultural globalization reinforces opposition to immigration.
- Climate social movements express skepticism toward economic globalization due to environmental concerns.

A prominent narrative depicts a grassroots backlash led by globalization's losers (Colantone & Stanig, 2019; Hobolt, 2016; Norris & Inglehart, 2019; Rodrik, 2018).
Key examples:
- Electoral successes of nationalist candidates (e.g., Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro).
- Vote for Brexit referendum.
However, evidence does not conclusively support a pervasive swing in public opinion:
- Studies show varying opinions regarding globalization.
- Data like those from the ISSP (International Social Survey Project) indicates nuanced shifts in public attitudes without clear trends.

Survey data from 15 countries show:
- Skepticism toward aspects of globalization fluctuates and is nuanced.
- Rising concerns about immigration and cultural preservation, notably in developed nations.

Despite stable public opinions, globalization-skeptical voting behaviors have significantly increased:
- Rise in voting for nationalist and isolationist parties.
- Doubling of successful anti-globalization referendums after the 2000s.
The politicization of globalization issues has increased.
Awareness and polarization around globalization-related issues have intensified, with globalization skeptics becoming more visible.

Parties catering to globalization-skeptical constituents have grown.
Political integration and globalization are now salient in political discourse.
The tone has shifted negatively, with many parties stoking anti-globalization sentiments.
Electoral success for nationalist parties encourages more mainstream parties to shift their positions in response to public sentiments.

Growing backlash evident in policy changes:
- Increased protectionism and stagnation of international organizational growth.
Countries withdrawing from international agreements has escalated under populist leadership.
Evidence suggests a cease in rapid globalization expansion, with potential for international cooperation undermined.

Major structural transformations are implicated, including:
- Increased globalization and deindustrialization.
- Technological changes and growing inequality.
- Globalization-related anxiety and transformed political landscapes lead to populist responses.
The backlash is strongest in communities adversely affected by these transformations.

Debate centers on whether materials or non-material factors primarily drive the backlash.
Evidence shows both plays significant roles, underscoring the complexity of understanding the backlash's drivers:
- Economic concerns promote protectionist policies.
- Cultural concerns influence opposition to globalization (e.g., sovereignty issues).
Some suggest an interaction between both material and non-material factors provides a more cohesive understanding of the backlash.

Responses classified by locus (societal, national, international) and type (reinforcement, pushback):
- Societal:
- Accepting globalization-skeptic attitudes.
- Proactive globalization mobilization.
- Domestic:
- Push toward anti-globalization policies.
- Policies designed to mitigate backlash causes.
- International:
- Adjustments in international negotiations reflecting domestic backlash.
Possibility of feedback loops between backlash, responses, and legitimacy of international institutions.

Concurrent support for globalization persists among large segments of the population.
Civil society counter-movements (e.g., pro-EU movements, climate youth movement) actively seek to mitigate backlash effects.
Political parties advocating cosmopolitan values and international cooperation are gaining traction.

Three main arguments defining the globalization backlash:
1. The backlash includes political successes of skeptical parties and increased populist sentiments but lacks a wholesale shift in public opinion.
2. Political attitudes have been politicized and mobilized more effectively.
3. A nuanced understanding of the interactions between material and non-material factors enriches analysis of public attitudes and responses.
Future avenues for research should focus on the interplay of these dynamics, their broader implications, and their potential to challenge contemporary international order.