Abstract

Emboldened by deepening global interconnectivity and the end of the Cold War, many observers envisioned a future of greater international cooperation and market-fueled economic growth. Among the many crises that have unhinged this optimism since 2000 has been the eruption of anti-democratic right-populist movements across the West accompanied by the craving for a reassertion of nationalism, nativism, and economic-cultural “sovereignty.” The enhanced mobility of people and capital—plus the rise of China—brought by globalization certainly undermined national economic autonomy and hugely intensified de-industrialization. This article argues, however, that it is misleading to see globalization as the primary reason for populist discontent on two accounts. First, it diverts attention from two underlying transformations. One concerns the rise of an especially predatory, disengaged, and rentier-based form of capitalism. Its ability to capture and sequester most of the gains from economic growth was empowered and legitimized more by neoliberalism, from 1980 onwards, than global interconnectivity. A parallel transformation involved the rise of cognitive capitalism constructed around digitalization and the rising weight of science and technical knowledge in wealth creation. The advances in robotization and artificial intelligence, at the core of the knowledge economy, threaten a widening range of jobs but also require a level of specialized educational attainment among only a minority of workers that is simply unattainable for most people. All this has left ordinary citizens feeling marginalized but also neglected by democratic politicians. Second, the article suggests a re-appraisal of globalization concepts. For one thing, it has never been a “project,” with a coherent causative center, in the same way that nation-state led industrialization strategies were and remain. Rather it is a condition resulting from the often unintended actions of innumerable, separate agents. In addition, some theorization attributed a hegemonic power to globalization forces in overwhelming the local that it never possessed. The attraction and pull of affiliations, identities, and support networks grounded in the local remain ubiquitous and essential for most people. Right-populism is just one form of localism, albeit a worrying one. Growing ecological threats are likely to further strengthen the local character of socioeconomic life but will need to do so within a vibrant global framework.