Skip to main content

What is deglobalisation and is the world really reversing course on trade?

Deglobalisation is a slowdown or reversal of the integration of national economies into a single global system. After three decades of rapid integration (1990–2020)—trade growing faster than GDP, foreign investment flowing freely, supply chains spanning the globe—the last 3–5 years have seen signs of retreat. Trade growth has slowed; investment flows have fragmented along geopolitical lines; companies are relocating production from distant suppliers to nearshoring destinations or domestic capacity; governments are imposing tariffs, export controls, and local-content requirements; and the political consensus on free trade has fractured. Deglobalisation is not a complete reversal—trade and investment persist—but a shift from broad, deep integration toward compartmentalized regional blocs and protectionist policies. Whether this trend persists depends on geopolitical outcomes, cost dynamics, and political will. Understanding deglobalisation is crucial to forecasting future trade policy, investment returns, and economic growth.

Quick definition: Deglobalisation is a slowdown or reversal of global economic integration through tariffs, protectionism, supply-chain relocation, and geopolitical compartmentalization of trade and investment.

Key takeaways​

  • Trade growth has slowed from 7% annually (1990–2010) to 1–2% since 2020, while global GDP growth is 2–3% annually
  • Tariffs are rising globally—average tariff rates were 5–8% by 2023, up from 2–3% in 2010
  • Foreign direct investment flows have declined; Chinese investment in the U.S. fell 80% from 2016–2022
  • Supply chains are fragmenting into regional blocs (North America, Europe, Asia) with reduced cross-bloc trade
  • Nearshoring and reshoring are accelerating as companies recalculate the full costs of distant offshoring
  • Protectionist policies are increasingly popular politically; both left and right embrace them
  • Complete deglobalisation is unlikely; the most probable scenario is "managed globalisation" with regional blocs and restricted critical sectors

The evidence: trade and investment slowdown​

Trade growth has decelerated. From 1990–2010, global trade grew 7–8% annually, significantly faster than GDP growth (2–3% annually). This acceleration reflected deepening integration—companies building global supply chains, outsourcing production, and creating bilateral trade flows. From 2010–2019, trade growth slowed to 3–4% annually. From 2020–2023, it slowed further to 1–2% annually. Trade remains large in absolute terms (roughly $32 trillion in 2023) but is no longer a primary growth engine.

Tariff rates are rising. The average applied tariff rate globally fell from roughly 15% in 1990 to 5% in 2010, reflecting the WTO era of liberalization. Since 2018, average tariffs have risen to 7–8% as countries impose protectionist measures. The U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods (25% average on $370 billion in imports); on steel and aluminum (25% and 10% respectively); on autos; and on semiconductors. The EU raised tariffs on Chinese EVs from 10% to 25–38%. India, Brazil, and other large economies have also embraced protectionism.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows have fragmented. Global FDI flows peaked at roughly $2.0 trillion in 2021; they fell to $1.4 trillion in 2022 and are expected to remain below trend. More significantly, investment flows have shifted from being globally distributed to concentrating among allied countries. U.S. investment to Europe and allied nations remains strong; investment to China has collapsed (Chinese inbound FDI fell from $140 billion in 2016 to <$100 billion by 2023). Investment patterns now reflect geopolitical alliance rather than pure profit maximization.

Supply chain complexity has peaked. From 1990–2015, global supply chains became increasingly complex—a single product might involve 10+ countries, with components shipped back and forth multiple times. Since 2018, companies have begun simplifying chains, concentrating production in fewer locations. This "supply chain derisking" reflects COVID-19 disruptions and geopolitical tensions.

Drivers of deglobalisation​

Geopolitical fragmentation is the primary driver. The U.S.-China relationship shifted from cooperation to competition. The U.S., EU, Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia view China as a strategic competitor and have coordinated restrictions on technology transfer, investment flows, and critical supply chains. This geopolitical fracturing creates incentives to relocate production and investment away from China toward allied nations. Simultaneously, China is pursuing decoupling strategies, restricting foreign technology acquisition and directing investment toward self-reliant sectors.

Supply chain vulnerabilities were exposed. COVID-19 shut Chinese factories in 2020; semiconductor shortages cascaded through global supply chains; container ships stuck in the Suez Canal disrupted logistics. Companies realized that optimization for cost alone, without redundancy or nearness, created fragility. The solution is supply chain "simplification" and regionalization—shorter, more controllable chains, even if costlier.

Reshoring and nearshoring economics have shifted. Rising wages in manufacturing hubs (China, Vietnam) and total-landed-cost calculations (including inventory, transport, risk) now favor nearer suppliers for many products. Manufacturing in Mexico costs more per unit than manufacturing in Vietnam but less in total landed cost due to reduced inventory, faster response, and lower risk.

Political pressure for protectionism has intensified. Manufacturing workers in wealthy countries blame globalisation for job losses and support protectionism. The rise of Trump, Brexit, and nationalist parties reflects voter demand for trade restrictions. Both left (labor unions, environmental advocates) and right (nationalist politicians) now support protectionist measures, eroding the political center that favored free trade.

National security concerns now dominate trade policy. Semiconductors, rare earths, pharmaceuticals, and AI capabilities are viewed as essential to national security. Countries no longer accept dependence on potential adversaries for critical supplies. This shifts trade logic from comparative advantage to strategic autonomy. A country will pay a premium to ensure it has independent capacity for semiconductors, even if Taiwan's or South Korea's are cheaper.

Environmental and social pressure is adding friction. Global supply chains often depend on low-wage, low-environmental-standard countries. Rising consumer pressure for ethical sourcing and carbon reduction makes distant offshoring less attractive. A Western company selling "eco-friendly" clothing made in a Vietnamese factory powered by coal faces reputational pressure. Nearshoring or reshoring is viewed as more ethical.

The regional-bloc scenario​

The most likely deglobalisation outcome is not complete reversal but regionalisation. Trade and investment continue, but along regional lines, with restricted cross-bloc flows:

North American bloc: U.S., Canada, Mexico linked via USMCA. Manufacturing, trade, and investment concentrate regionally. Nearshoring to Mexico accelerates. Chinese and Asian investment is restricted. Trade with the EU declines relative to within-bloc trade.

European bloc: EU + associated countries (UK, Switzerland, Norway). Intra-EU trade deepens; trade with China and U.S. stabilizes at lower levels. Critical manufacturing (semiconductors, batteries) returns to EU nations despite higher costs.

Asian bloc: China + aligned nations (Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia). Supply chains concentrate regionally. Chinese companies invest heavily in Southeast Asia; Chinese technology standards dominate. Limited integration with Western blocs.

Excluded regions: Africa, Latin America, and other regions not firmly aligned face fragmentation. African countries are caught between Chinese and Western economic influence, seeing investment and trade opportunities decline.

This is not complete autarky or a reversion to 1990 trade levels. Trade persists but is less open. A North American company sources from Mexico rather than Vietnam. A European company sources from Poland or Romania rather than Bangladesh. Efficiency losses exist (regional suppliers are often more expensive) but are accepted for security and geopolitical reasons.

Costs of deglobalisation​

Deglobalisation imposes real economic costs:

Higher prices for consumers. Tariffs and local sourcing increase costs. A tariff on imported goods raises prices for consumers. Studies estimate U.S. households face $1,000–2,000 in additional annual costs from recent tariffs. Over time, as production shifts from ultra-low-cost countries to nearshoring destinations, prices for consumer goods will rise unless productivity gains offset cost differences.

Slower growth. When countries don't specialize according to comparative advantage, efficiency declines. Global production shifts from optimal to suboptimal locations, raising costs and reducing output. Economists estimate that significant deglobalisation could reduce global GDP growth by 0.5–1.0 percentage points annually over a decade—a substantial drag.

Reduced innovation diversity. Globalisation enabled talent mobility, idea exchange, and competition across borders. Deglobalisation restricts these flows. A scientist in China cannot easily collaborate with Western researchers; a startup founder in Vietnam cannot access Western capital. Innovation slows.

Stranded capacity and transition costs. A factory built in Vietnam in 2010 for $50 million becomes stranded if orders shift to Mexico. The capital is wasted. Conversely, building new capacity in nearshoring destinations is expensive—a semiconductor fab costs $10–20 billion. Transition costs are enormous.

Retaliation and trade wars. Protectionist measures invite retaliation. When the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports. Both sides lose. Escalating trade tensions can trigger full-blown trade wars, as occurred in the 1930s, leading to severe growth slowdowns.

The limits of complete deglobalisation​

Complete deglobalisation is economically impossible and unlikely:

Supply chains are deeply embedded. After 30 years of integration, supply chains involving 100+ countries are normal. Restructuring them takes decades. A company cannot instantly move production from Vietnam to Mexico—new factories must be built, suppliers identified, workers trained. Overnight complete relocation is impossible.

Some countries depend entirely on trade. Singapore, Taiwan, Bangladesh, and others have economies built on export specialization. Deglobalisation starves these economies of opportunity and income. Taiwan exports 60% of its GDP; Singapore 200%. These countries would face economic collapse in a deglobalised world.

Consumers strongly prefer lower prices. Political support for protectionism exists, but only until prices rise. A tariff on Chinese clothing raises prices for consumers, whose support for the tariff evaporates once they pay $30 for a shirt that cost $10. Sustained popular support for protectionism is weak when prices rise.

Businesses depend on global supply chains. A $100 million automotive company with U.S. operations depends on Mexican and Asian suppliers for components. Deglobalisation disrupts their business model. Business lobbying against protectionism is powerful, even if labor unions lobby for it.

The realistic outlook: "managed globalisation"​

Rather than complete deglobalisation, the most likely scenario is managed globalisation with:

  • Continued broad integration of non-critical sectors (apparel, consumer goods, general manufacturing)
  • Strict compartmentalization of critical sectors (semiconductors, AI, pharmaceuticals, rare earths) with restricted technology transfer and alternative supply chains
  • Regional trade blocs with lower tariffs within regions, higher tariffs between regions
  • Increased foreign direct investment screening with CFIUS-like bodies reviewing all major investments
  • Government subsidies for nearshoring and reshoring of strategic sectors
  • Negotiated trade agreements replacing tariff-based protection—bilateral and regional deals rather than multilateral rules

This scenario preserves much of globalisation's efficiency gains while addressing geopolitical and security concerns. Trade continues; prices for consumers rise modestly; growth slows slightly; but critical vulnerabilities are reduced.

Common mistakes​

Assuming complete deglobalisation will happen. It won't. Reversing 30 years of integration is impractical. The most likely outcome is partial regionalization with continued trade.

Underestimating consumer resistance to higher prices. Political support for protectionism weakens when consumers pay higher prices. A tariff is popular in theory but unpopular when a family pays $500 more annually.

Ignoring the role of productivity growth. If nearshoring countries (Mexico, Vietnam, Eastern Europe) experience rapid productivity growth, their cost advantage persists despite wage increases. Automation and technology can offset rising wages.

Assuming government subsidies are efficient. Government-directed investment in nearshoring and reshoring is often inefficient. A $20 billion semiconductor fab built with government subsidies might never be cost-competitive with Taiwan's fabs.

Conflating deglobalisation with protectionism success. Deglobalisation increases prices and reduces growth. Protectionist policies may preserve some jobs in protected sectors but destroy jobs in export sectors and consumer industries. Overall, protectionism typically reduces employment and growth.

FAQ​

Is deglobalisation actually happening?​

Partially. Trade growth has slowed, tariffs are rising, and investment flows have fragmented along geopolitical lines. However, trade and investment remain substantial. It's better described as a slowdown in globalisation rather than a reversal.

Will prices rise if deglobalisation continues?​

Yes. Production shifting from ultra-low-cost countries to nearer suppliers increases costs. Without offsetting productivity gains, prices for consumers will rise 5–10% over a decade.

Can deglobalisation reduce unemployment?​

Potentially, in protected sectors. A tariff on imported cars might preserve auto-manufacturing jobs in the U.S. However, retaliation and reduced competition increase prices, reducing demand. Overall employment effects are small or negative.

Is deglobalisation good for developing countries?​

Mixed. Countries dependent on exports (Bangladesh, Vietnam) face pressure and slower growth. Nearshoring destinations (Mexico, Vietnam, Eastern Europe) benefit. Ultra-low-cost countries (Myanmar, Laos, Pakistan) lose market access.

How long will deglobalisation take?​

If managed (regional blocs, targeted restrictions), it's already underway. Complete deglobalisation would take 10–20 years and require sustained political will. Partial managed deglobalisation is the likely path.

Can deglobalisation be reversed?​

Possibly, if geopolitical tensions ease or costs of deglobalisation become politically unbearable. However, once supply chains are regionalized and political constituencies adjust, reversing requires overcoming entrenched interests.

Real-world examples​

The semiconductor supply chain split. Taiwan's TSMC and South Korea's Samsung manufacture most cutting-edge semiconductors for both the U.S. and China. Deglobalisation is splitting this—the U.S. is investing $50+ billion in domestic fabs; China is building indigenous capacity. By 2030, three separate supply chains (U.S., China, allied) may replace one integrated global chain.

Nearshoring to Mexico. U.S. companies shifted production of autos, electronics, and appliances to Mexico from Vietnam and China. Production volume in Mexico's maquiladora sector (assembly plants) has grown 30% since 2020. This is deglobalisation in action—production moving from distant to near, even with higher costs.

The CHIPS Act and semiconductor reshoring. The U.S. government offered $52 billion in subsidies to encourage semiconductor manufacturing domestically. Intel and TSMC announced new U.S. fabs. This is managed deglobalisation—government-directed investment to reduce dependence on Taiwan and South Korea.

Chinese decoupling. China is developing independent semiconductor designs (Huawei HiSilicon), rare-earth processing capacity, and alternative software ecosystems. It's reducing dependence on U.S. technology and Western standards. Chinese companies are investing heavily in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia) for production. This is China's version of deglobalisation.

Summary​

Deglobalisation refers to a slowdown and partial reversal of global economic integration through tariffs, investment restrictions, supply-chain fragmentation, and geopolitical compartmentalization. Evidence includes slower trade growth, rising tariff rates, declining FDI flows, and supply-chain simplification. Drivers are geopolitical tensions with China, exposed supply-chain vulnerabilities, shifting economics favoring nearshoring, political pressure for protectionism, and national security concerns. The most likely outcome is not complete reversal but "managed globalisation" with regional blocs, critical-sector compartmentalization, and continued trade in non-critical sectors. Deglobalisation imposes costs through higher prices, slower growth, and reduced innovation, but offers benefits in supply-chain resilience and geopolitical autonomy. The debate is not whether to completely globalize or deglobalize, but how to balance efficiency gains against security and geopolitical risks.

Next​

→ Building supply chain resilience