“The king is dead, long live the king!” The phrase expresses a striking paradox – an end that signals a new beginning. So it is with globalisation. The era of seamless borders, frictionless trade, and optimised supply chains may be drawing to a close. But in its place, a new, more robust, more strategic form of globalisation is emerging — one that is shaped as much by geopolitics and national priorities as by market forces.
This transformation is neither sudden, nor accidental. It has been shaped by a series of shocks and recalibrations over the past two decades — the 2008 global financial crisis, the prolonged U.S.-China trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and now, a resurgent wave of economic nationalism sweeping through major economies, from Washington to New Delhi. Each disruption has eroded the old consensus that freer trade inevitably leads to shared prosperity and global harmony.
When globalisation gained full steam in the 1990s and early 2000s, it was propelled by an almost religious faith in the power of open markets. Capital and goods flowed across borders with minimal restrictions. Multinational corporations prioritised efficiency and scale over resilience and security. The expanding membership of the World Trade Organisation — most notably China’s entry in 2001 — came to symbolise a world converging around shared economic rules and mutual benefit.
But that optimism has been steadily replaced by caution, and in some quarters, outright scepticism. Western nations began to question the asymmetries of a system they had long championed. China’s meteoric rise disrupted old economic hierarchies. At home, political leaders started paying attention to the grievances of workers and communities left behind by the twin forces of automation and de-industrialisation. More recently, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have laid bare the vulnerabilities of relying on far-flung suppliers — particularly when those suppliers may not share the same strategic interests.
Trump’s tariff war has led to protectionism,but no going away from trusted partners
The revival of tariffs under US President Donald Trump, now framed under the banner of ‘reciprocal trade,’ reflects a broader trend. Across the world, governments are beginning to ask: What good is globalisation if it compromises national resilience and strategic autonomy? The emerging answer is not a retreat into isolationism, but a shift toward what might be called “managed interdependence.” This involves continued trade and cooperation, but under more selective, secure, and strategically aligned conditions.
In this evolving landscape, globalisation is not dying – it is evolving. Countries continue to trade, but increasingly within trusted networks. Foreign Direct Investment continues, but often flows toward geopolitically aligned or ‘friendly’ destinations. India’s current trajectory is representative of this new balance. While strengthening ties with the West and building regional infrastructure – such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor – it is simultaneously promoting self-reliance through initiatives like ‘Make in India’ and calibrated tariff protection. It is not rejecting globalisation; it is recasting it to better align with domestic development goals.
The old globalisation – built on blind faith in markets – may be gone. But a more pragmatic, political, and potentially resilient globalisation is emerging in its place. The old globalisation is dead. Long live globalisation!
