Scholars Debate the Rate of Globalization in the Post-Pandemic World

By Alex Avaneszadeh, MALD 2023 Candidate, The Fletcher School

On October 5, 2021, the third and final debate of the annual Kortunov Global Affairs Debates was held, titled “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the End of Globalization.” The debate was hosted by The Fletcher School in coordination with the Center for the Support and Development of Public Initiatives Creative Diplomacy and the Russian International Affairs Council. The annual debates are held in memory of Dr. Sergei V. Kortunov, a Russian political scientist and the author of many publications on national security and identity.

The debate panel was composed of four scholars: Anastasia Likhacheva, deputy dean for research and associate professor at HSE University; Sergey Utkin, head of the Foreign and Security Policy Department at the Russian Academy of Sciences; Carsten Kowalczyk, associate professor of international economics at The Fletcher School; and Sieglinde Gstöhl, director of EU international relations and diplomacy studies at the College of Europe. The topic of debate was whether the COVID-19 pandemic had ended the era of accelerated globalization. A pre-debate poll was conducted, with the majority of attendees voting that the pandemic has halted accelerated globalization.

In her opening remarks, Likhacheva defined globalization as a process involving trade, the production and distribution of goods and services, data and information accessibility, and a set of institutions and networks. She described the pandemic as having “slowed down inter-regional trade hard,” and acting as a catalyst for deceleration, though it was not the sole factor.

“Data globalization has succumbed to greater state control in the face of societal discontent regarding pandemic management by national governments,” said Likhacheva. Global systems and networks have also been subject to stricter regulation of the market due to the economic impact of COVID-19, as state control of public goods became a foreign policy tool.

International institutions as shared principles, norms, and procedures, “in acute moments of the pandemic crisis, didn’t work at all,” she stated. As such, pandemic-induced regression ended the era of acceleration.

Similarly, Utkin articulated that “accelerated globalization will have ended with the pandemic, but the pandemic is not the only source.”

Specifically, Utkin argued that unprepared institutional responses to COVID-19 led societies to believe that “if this [globalization] is stopped or slowed by national governments, then [issues] will be resolved by reprioritizing national growth.” He suggested that these irrational domestic responses against globalization will serve as an obstacle to international trade and global production chains.

Kowalczyk argued the opposite position, based on the economic aspect of globalization as a system of goods, services, labor, capital, and technology. During the debate, he emphasized that the pandemic will not have any long-term or medium-term effects on these categories.

“Globalization, whether accelerating or decelerating, [can suffer from] a lot of factors [that] affect the speed and pace of globalization, but…COVID will not do this,” stated Kowalczyk. He claimed that the development of technology and communications buffered the decelerating effects of the pandemic, and will be the reason for the international community’s quick rebound back into accelerated globalization.

Gstöhl also illustrated the pandemic as triggering a new era of globalization, one that “will better address concerns of public health and climate change, towards a more mature and more responsible globalization.”

“This reorganization of globalization does not constitute its end, and the traditional issue of globalization in creating winners and losers…[with] inequalities and people feeling left behind can be transformed into bridging the divide between developed and developing countries,” said Gstöhl. The opportunity for transformation exists, but what will happen in the long run remains to be seen.

Each speaker fundamentally agreed that the pandemic halted accelerated globalization, though each expressed differences as to the degree and time frame. Gstöhl and Likhacheva agreed with Utkin that “the accelerated era has come to an end, but globalization has remained.” In contrast, Kowalczyk posited that accelerated globalization will rebound. However, Gstöhl also expressed the possibility of the transformation of globalization.

The post-debate audience poll demonstrated a shift from the pre-debate results towards a split vote, likely due to the debaters’ argument that the pandemic was more of a temporary obstacle to acceleration than a permanent one. Ultimately, the extent of the pandemic’s impact and the likelihood of a transformation in globalization remain unclear.