Redesigning globalization for a multipolar world
Two or three decades ago, globalization was a word full of promise — a "best solution" voluntarily chosen by nations. The spread of information technology helped push global productivity to new heights. Developed countries outsourced high-cost manufacturing overseas, creating jobs, investment and technological know-how for less-developed regions, while their rising profits sustained generous social welfare at home.
Even many workers displaced by factory closures often found themselves better off as new jobs and services expanded.
It was a win-win world: specialization fueled rapid growth, the global "pie" expanded, and though friction existed, the gains from cooperation outweighed the costs.
But this system was never as sturdy as it looked. It rested on three pillars. The first pillar was sustained productivity growth. Cooperation is feasible if the global pie is larger than what each country could achieve alone. The second was a stable industrial hierarchy. Developed nations, perched atop the value chain, needed to stay at the technological frontier to preserve global profit distribution. The third was internal compensation.
The excess profits generated by globalization had to be redistributed to workers affected by globalization, keeping their living standards above pre-globalization levels. Only when all three pillars held firm could globalization be sustainable. But today, all three are wobbling.
Productivity growth has slowed down. Over the past 20 years, we have not seen a leap like the "information superhighway". Then, technology was tangible and universal: factories in Yiwu of Zhejiang province could receive New York orders in real time; researchers across oceans could share knowledge instantly.
Low-barrier connectivity let both developed and developing nations share the benefits. Artificial intelligence offers hope for a new era of productivity, yet its impact is neither immediate nor intuitively visible. Will it trigger explosive growth comparable to the internet? That remains an open question.
More importantly, while technology once spilled freely across borders, today many Western countries, especially the United States, seem less willing to share. If AI widens national gaps instead of raising global productivity, zero-sum competition will dominate — and the "golden age" of globalization may remain behind us.
Meanwhile, developing countries are breaking through technological monopolies and catching up with the richer ones. Competitive multinationals have emerged in the Global South, moving up the value chain and challenging developed nations in key sectors. This has eroded monopolistic profits and shaken the foundation of universal high welfare in developed countries.
But the impact is uneven. Elites in sectors such as semiconductors, biotech and finance still enjoy privileged lifestyles, while workers in mid — and low-end industries — or even some high-end sectors that are losing their edge — face rising insecurity. Developed nations have largely failed to reform internal redistribution. As a result, many citizens see globalization not as an opportunity but as a relative loss. This fuels anti-globalization sentiment — not because trade is harmful, but because its gains are poorly shared.
The world is entering a stage where countries' optimal strategies are changing. Under conditions similar to a "prisoner's dilemma", fragmentation has become a rational choice. As competition erodes profits, cooperation looks less attractive.
Developed nations, seeking to protect their monopolies, become impediments rather than promoters of globalization.
Trust costs also rise sharply, even skyrocketing: if nations anticipate disruptions — tariffs, sanctions, supply chain breakages — non-cooperation becomes the safer choice. The paradox is striking: globalization spreads technology, enabling developing countries to catch up. But this very progress triggers fear and countermeasures in developed nations, fueling a wave of de-globalization. Those born of globalization are now eroding globalization itself.
The arrogance of developed nations stems from a history of dominance over a world where poorer countries were subordinates. Yet the global population tells a different story: roughly four-fifths of humanity lives in the South.
China has four times the population of the US. Its per capita GDP is about 15 percent of the US level. If China's per capita GDP reaches half of the US level, its total economic output would be roughly double that of the US. Even moderate growth in populous southern nations will eventually surpass the economic scale and influence of developed countries.
We are at a historic crossroads. If globalization has a future, it will require a new consensus and a new model.
First, negotiation is the only path. Tariffs, extraterritorial overreach and trade walls can solve nothing. Developed nations must adapt to a truly multipolar world that includes rising southern powers representing the majority of humanity.
Second, we must rethink wealth distribution. The core conflict is often internal to developed nations: historical exploitation has left stark global inequality, making growth for developing countries a moral and practical imperative.
Third, before debating "who gets the pie," we must ask: is the pie truly big enough?
At this juncture, global solidarity is essential to discover new growth engines and expand the pie together. Only by growing the global economy while balancing fairness can we prevent de-globalization from claiming globalization's legacy.
Globalization is at a turning point. Its future depends not on walls or unilateral measures, but on dialogue, compromise and inclusive growth. The question is no longer whether globalization can continue — it is whether we can redesign it for a world where cooperation truly benefits everyone.
Han Han is an associate professor at the School of Economics of Peking University; and Chen Yufeng is a PhD candidate at the same institute.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.

































