Critique of Globalization Theories in Shaping the World Order after 2030 – Mohammad Korani – The military confrontation waged by the United States against Iran—instigated and fueled by political, security, and epistemic incentives from Israel—was not merely a regional crisis; rather, it constituted a test of the United States’ capacity to maintain its leadership position within the international order. This war, along with its attendant political, economic, and strategic repercussions, has contributed to weakening the image of American leadership in the eyes of numerous states, and has reinforced the trajectory toward a more multipolar international system. From this perspective, the United States’ ability to lead globalization projects and reshape the world order now faces greater challenges, thereby opening the door to a revision of many of the assumptions upon which conceptions of globalization have been built over the past decades.
Since the 1990s, the world has witnessed an unprecedented expansion of economic, financial, and technological globalization, supported by trade liberalization, capital flows, the development of the internet, and the growing role of international institutions and multinational corporations. In the last two decades, long-term strategic visions have emerged, including the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, digital transformation plans, the green economy, and artificial intelligence, as conceptions of the future of the global order.
However, recent years have revealed significant challenges that have led a growing number of researchers to reassess the assumptions underlying those visions. Financial crises, the COVID-19 pandemic, escalating US-China competition, regional wars, and disruptions in energy and supply chains have all confirmed that the world is far more complex than some models of globalization have assumed.
—
First: The Illusion of the “End of the Nation-State”
A number of globalization theorists believed that the nation-state would gradually recede before global markets, international institutions, and transnational corporations. Yet the realist school of international relations maintains that the state has remained the primary actor in global politics, and that major crises have reaffirmed the significance of national sovereignty, as states resorted to closing borders, restricting exports, supporting domestic industries, and increasing defense spending. Consequently, the belief that markets would replace the state has proven to be an exaggerated assumption.
—
Second: Overestimating the Capacity of the Free Market to Regulate the World
Numerous economists, including Joseph Stiglitz, have criticized the belief that market liberalization alone suffices to achieve development and justice. These critiques indicate that while markets may generate economic growth, they do not necessarily ensure equitable income distribution or equal opportunities, and may lead to monopolies, financial imbalances, and social inequalities in the absence of regulatory frameworks.
—
Third: Ignoring the “Political Trilemma of Globalization”
Dani Rodrik has articulated what is known as the “political trilemma,” which posits that the full combination of national democracy, national sovereignty, and deep economic globalization is extremely difficult to achieve, as strengthening one dimension may impose constraints on the other two. This framework has been used to explain the rise of populist movements and protests against certain globalization policies in multiple countries.
—
Fourth: Underestimating Civilizational Identity
Some theorists anticipated that economic integration would lead to broad cultural convergence; however, developments in recent decades have demonstrated the enduring influence of religion, language, history, and national identity in shaping policies and alliances. Researchers therefore contend that culture is not a secondary variable that can be transcended merely through economic integration.
—
Fifth: The Assumption that Economic Interdependence Prevents Wars
Certain liberal visions rested on the premise that the intertwining of economic interests reduces the likelihood of conflict. Yet recent international crises have shown that mutual economic dependence can also be transformed into a tool of coercion through sanctions, trade restrictions, and control over technologies, raw materials, and energy. Thus, “interdependence” has become at times a source of cooperation and at other times a source of competition.
—
Sixth: The Fragility of Global Supply Chains
The COVID-19 pandemic, followed by geopolitical disruptions, exposed the limitations of the production model heavily reliant on supply chains stretched across the globe. Consequently, many states have moved toward reshoring certain industries, diversifying suppliers, and building strategic reserves—indicating a decline in the “maximum efficiency” model in favor of “strategic resilience.”
—
Seventh: Concentration of Wealth and Economic Power
A number of researchers argue that digital globalization has contributed to the emergence of giant technology companies with vast influence over economies, media, and data. This phenomenon raises debates concerning fair competition, monopoly, data protection, and state sovereignty over the digital space.
—
Eighth: Over-Optimism Regarding Artificial Intelligence
Many researchers view artificial intelligence as an engine of growth, yet they simultaneously caution against its challenges, including: job displacement, the widening skills gap, algorithmic bias, military applications, media disinformation, and the need for legal and ethical frameworks.
—
Ninth: The Limitations of International Institutions
International institutions have faced criticism related to the slowness of decision-making, the divergent interests of member states, and the difficulty of implementing resolutions amid great power competition—all of which have reinforced the trend toward regional alliances and bilateral arrangements.
—
Tenth: The Shift from Globalization to “De-risking”
In recent years, the concept of “de-risking” has emerged, focusing on reducing excessive reliance on a single supplier or country in vital sectors, rather than pursuing unconstrained economic openness. This shift reflects a practical reassessment of certain assumptions of traditional globalization.
—
Eleventh: The Limits of Long-Term Forecasting
Plans extending to 2030 and beyond rely on assumptions regarding growth, technology, and political stability. Yet history demonstrates that unforeseen events—such as pandemics, financial crises, wars, and technological breakthroughs—can rapidly reshape priorities, rendering flexible planning more realistic than rigid planning.
—
The War with Iran and Globalization
The military confrontation between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other has provided additional material for academic debate concerning the limits of certain assumptions of globalization. From the perspective of numerous researchers, these developments have shown that mutual economic interdependence, the expansion of global markets, and international integration have not necessarily led to a reduction in geopolitical competition or the prevention of potential conflict between states. Furthermore, these events have re-emphasized the importance of the nation-state, strategic security, military capabilities, and national sovereignty as elements that continue to exert a profound influence on the structure of the international system. Accordingly, these researchers maintain that these developments do not entirely invalidate the concept of globalization; rather, they reveal gaps and limitations within certain theoretical models that assumed economic interconnectedness alone would suffice to establish global stability and peace.
—
Mohammadabbaskawrani.com
#Merciful_Dignified_Civilization #Islamic_Human_Sciences
