IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?


  • Hillebrand Evan E

    () (University of Kentucky)


The process of globalization is being harshly criticized for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the income of large and/or vocal segments of the population of this and other countries is threatened by the dislocation and competition of trade and investment and by the inability or unwillingness of states to compensate the losers. Based on analysis with the International Futures Model, this paper concludes that if globalization halts or recedes the results will be profoundly negative for most countries and most income groups. While a retreat into protectionism may improve income equality in some countries, it will reduce incomes of both the poor and the rich and poverty headcounts will be increased. In addition, political instability will rise in a majority of countries and the probability of interstate war will increase. These results suggest that it would be far better to deal with the negative aspects of globalization directly by improving trade adjustment assistance, providing more secure access to health care, and negotiating new international agreements that benefit all countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Hillebrand Evan E, 2010. "Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:10:y:2010:i:2:n:3

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2002. "Winners and Losers Over Two Centuries of Globalization," NBER Working Papers 9161, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Antoni Estevadeordal & Alan M. Taylor, 2013. "Is the Washington Consensus Dead? Growth, Openness, and the Great Liberalization, 1970s–2000s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1669-1690, December.
    3. Hillebrand, Evan, 2008. "The Global Distribution of Income in 2050," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 727-740, May.
    4. Scott C. Bradford & Paul L. E. Grieco & Gary Clyde Hufbauer, 2006. "The Payoff to America from Globalisation," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(7), pages 893-916, July.
    5. Wolfgang F. Stolper & Paul A. Samuelson, 1941. "Protection and Real Wages," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 58-73.
    6. Peter H. Lindert & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2003. "Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?," NBER Chapters,in: Globalization in Historical Perspective, pages 227-276 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. José Antonio Ocampo, 2004. "Latin America's Growth and Equity Frustrations During Structural Reforms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 67-88, Spring.
    8. Douglas A. Irwin, 1998. "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff: A Quantitative Assessment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 326-334, May.
    9. Acemoglu,Daron & Robinson,James A., 2009. "Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671422, March.
    10. Michael D. Bordo & Alan M. Taylor & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2003. "Introduction to "Globalization in Historical Perspective"," NBER Chapters,in: Globalization in Historical Perspective, pages 1-10 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Michael D. Bordo & Alan M. Taylor & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2003. "Globalization in Historical Perspective," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bord03-1, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Bonginkosi Mamba & André C Jordaan & Matthew Clance, 2015. "Globalisation and Conflicts: A Theoretical Approach," Working Papers 201555, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    2. Kadochnikov, Pavel & Aliev, Timur, 2014. "On the question of the presence of de-globalization in world trade," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, pages 127-149, October.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:10:y:2010:i:2:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.