Top News

Globalization Under Scrutiny: The debate around globalisation has intensified in recent years as governments and policymakers reassess its long-term impact on national economies and workers. At a time when geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and economic uncertainty dominate global discussions, criticism of the existing global economic framework has become more vocal. One of the strongest recent critiques came from US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who openly described globalisation as a failed policy that has not delivered on its promises to Western nations, particularly the United States.

The Core Argument Against Globalisation

Speaking during discussions connected to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Lutnick argued that the globalisation model promoted for decades by Western economies was built on flawed assumptions. According to him, policies encouraging exports, large-scale offshoring, and the relentless pursuit of the cheapest labor worldwide may have increased corporate profits, but they came at a high cost to domestic industries and workers. Manufacturing hubs weakened, local jobs disappeared, and entire industrial ecosystems were hollowed out in the process.

Impact on Domestic Industries and Workers

Lutnick emphasised that the promise of globalisation was to make the world more prosperous and interconnected. In practice, however, it often shifted production far from national borders, leaving domestic workers struggling with job insecurity and stagnant wages. In the United States, many communities that once relied on manufacturing were left behind as factories moved overseas. This, he argued, created economic imbalance and social frustration, weakening trust in long-standing economic institutions.

America First as an Alternative Economic Model

Under the economic vision associated with Donald Trump, the administration promoted what it described as an America First approach. Lutnick presented this model as a clear departure from traditional Western economic thinking. Rather than prioritising global efficiency at any cost, the focus shifts to national interests, domestic employment, and local industrial strength. The idea is simple: economic policy should primarily serve the workers and citizens of the nation implementing it.

Worker-Centric Growth and National Priorities

A central pillar of this alternative approach is the belief that workers must come first in economic decision-making. Lutnick argued that trade, investment, and industrial policies should be evaluated based on how they affect domestic employment and long-term economic resilience. This does not necessarily mean isolating from the global economy, but rather engaging with it in a way that protects national capabilities and reduces harmful dependencies.

Sovereignty and Control Over Critical Sectors

Lutnick strongly linked economic policy with national sovereignty. He warned that outsourcing essential sectors such as pharmaceuticals, advanced technology manufacturing, and semiconductor production can undermine a nation’s independence. When countries rely heavily on external suppliers for critical goods, they expose themselves to geopolitical pressure and supply disruptions. In his view, maintaining domestic capacity in strategic industries is not only an economic issue but also a matter of national security.

Strategic Alliances and Responsible Dependence

While criticising excessive offshoring, Lutnick acknowledged that some level of international dependence is unavoidable. However, he stressed that such dependence should be limited to trusted allies. Relying on partners with shared values and strategic interests reduces risk and strengthens collective resilience. This perspective reframes global trade as a network of strategic partnerships rather than a race to the lowest production cost.

Energy Policy and Industrial Reality

Another area of concern highlighted by Lutnick was policy inconsistency in Western nations, particularly in Europe. He questioned ambitious climate and energy targets that are not supported by domestic industrial capacity. For example, committing to rapid net-zero goals without producing key technologies such as batteries may increase dependence on external suppliers, notably China. Such contradictions, he argued, could weaken economic independence while failing to achieve intended environmental outcomes.

A Broader Global Conversation

Although the America First model is rooted in US policy, Lutnick suggested that its core principles could be relevant for other countries as well. Nations across the world are grappling with similar challenges, including supply chain vulnerabilities, industrial decline, and workforce displacement. Reassessing globalisation does not mean rejecting international cooperation, but rather redefining it to support sustainable, inclusive, and sovereign economic growth.

Global Context and Ongoing Discussions

These remarks were made as the 56th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum brought together thousands of leaders from governments, businesses, and civil society. Held in Davos amid heightened geopolitical tension and rapid technological change, the forum provided a backdrop for serious reflection on the future of global economic systems. Lutnick’s comments added momentum to a growing global conversation about whether the current economic model truly serves national interests and ordinary workers.

In conclusion, the criticism of globalisation articulated by Howard Lutnick reflects a broader shift in economic thinking. As countries confront new realities, the emphasis on domestic industry, worker-focused growth, and economic sovereignty is likely to play an increasingly important role in shaping future policies.