Economists see the end of globalization come – t-online.de

Free Trade Agreement as TTIP and Ceta threaten to fail, new trade barriers are closed, the states of the world are no longer economically so closely linked because of the international financial crisis as a decade ago. These are weighty evidence why leading economists already see the end of globalization come.

Believe also that the end of globalization has come?

Some experts make even a situation similar to 1913, shortly before the outbreak of the First world War. For example, the British economist Simon Evenett, professor at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland: “Globalization, which flourished in the 2000s, is braked for a few years”, he summed up his findings and some of his colleagues in an interview . with the “Welt am Sonntag” together

the reason he called complicated political situation in the world and a new protectionism, with the states before sharing the domestic economy: Overt and covert subsidies, export duties and rules that high skilled workers from abroad away. Since the financial crisis, so Evenett, “hardly a day has passed without a country adopted a measure to protect domestic enterprises and foreign to complicate transactions”.

So almost as in 1913, found Evenett and some of his colleagues. At that time, just before the First World War ended after their reading, the first phase of globalization. “At that time, new protectionism and nationalism were the reasons for the end of globalization of the 20th century. And something like we are currently experiencing once again, as there are clear parallels”, concurs Gabriel Felbermayr, head of the Munich-based Ifo Center for Foreign Trade, on.

“This was bound to fail”

This sentiment is the renowned American economist Jagdish Bhagwati, professor of economics at the elite university of Columbia. In his view, the muddled negotiations over the Free Trade Agreement between the US and the European Union are symptomatic.

“TTIP was bound to fail,” Bhagwati is already convinced now, although officially still not the case is. First, the negotiations had been held in secret, on the other hand too many sensitive issues were negotiated at a time.

“Second-rate negotiator”

“They were the first negotiations of this kind, which not even I knew what it actually is, “says the professor wonders. It adds that “second-rate negotiator” conducted the negotiations, “which their demands of lobbyists in the block had let dictate”. This applies particularly to the American side. These problems are unfortunately significant.

“We see,” sums Evenett, “that politicians and business leaders of these countries indeed speak of an open trade, but the reality is far different.” Many attempts to close major international agreements have failed. Except some Scandinavian countries there are hardly any countries that would act as it was most good custom in the heyday of globalization.

Germany one of the winners

That weakens globalization , also show figures of the Bertelsmann Foundation. Because the investors no longer spend their money so freely abroad, Germany has also lost some points in the Globalisation Index of the foundation since of 2007. Despite this small decline, the Federal Republic is however still one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization, the Bertelsmann Foundation announced recently.

The study carried out by Prognos regularly tested in 42 countries, how much the prosperity since 1990 has gained from globalization. Consequently, the economic opening has a positive effect overall on all the countries studied.

“We need new impetus” the World

Would not grown together since 1990, would German gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014, according to study leader Thiess Petersen situated lower around 1130 euros per head.

“We need new impulses for growth and international integration,” says the CEO of the Bertelsmann Foundation, Aart de Geus.

Just emerging and developing countries should be more integrated into the world economy, because they still had great potential for globalization-related growth. Industrial states would have to invest more in these countries, importing more products and reduce subsidies for their agricultural products.