The biggest challenge facing the global business community as a result of the rise of populism is a

shift toward anti-globalisation sentiment. Concurrent with this is desire for a decrease in offshoring and
foreign production - as well as a modern version of reasonably mercantilist ideology realized through
tariffs and heavily regulated trade.

Globalisation, which promised large short-term benefit to states, proved to not be sustainable in the
long term and since the 2008 economic crash markets around the world have been leaning into a shift
away from globalization and back towards protectionism. Globalisation encouraged “a very flawed
version of capitalism that prioritizes short-term shareholder returns over long term investment” This led
to workers being crushed by a system that prioritized immediate profits over long term stability.

Scholars were pointing out the flaws with globalization for more than a decade before the 2008 crash.
Ranging from the social to the political, their arguments highlight that when companies expand beyond
national borders, their power grows while the power of the state is weakened. Dani Rodrik’s “social
fissures” and Kofi Annan’s “economic north and south” emphasize that a globalised economy creates
identifiable winners and losers Susan Strange’s “weakening of the state” emphasized a direct
consequence of strengthening markets and is a generalization of Naomi Klein’s observation of “the
growing power of [MNC’s} in influencing policy decisions” While these criticisms are now becoming
more widely acknowleged policy makers are still “[treating] the symptoms rather than the underlying”
problem Populist policies are only addressing the surface level effects rather than the decisions that
caused the failures in the first place.

The 2016 election of Donald Trump in the United States is among the most prominent examples of the
recent shift toward populism. A businessman himself, Trump made an appeal to working-class
Americans that had been experiencing an increased unemployment rate as their jobs offshored. He
promised to preserve jobs and bring back those that were offshored, focusing most campaign efforts to
this effect one region – the rust belt. “Stretching from New York through the Midwest” this region was
once dominated by industry and manufacturing, gaining the nickname when offshoring moved jobs
elsewhere leaving factories and machinery to “rust”). Trump promised the low-paid and out of work
blue collar workers in the region that he’d bring manufacturing back to the US. Support throughout the
rust belt may just have won him the presidency for that first term as every state except Illinois and New
York – both historically landslide blue – cast their electoral votes for the republican candidate. The so-
called “politics of rage” highlighted in the Barclays 2017 Equity Gilt Study were influential In 2017, the
year that Trump assumed office, circumstances looked good for the rust belt, but in early 2020 it
became evident that jobs were again declining. Though the 2020 presidential election has yet to be
officially called, it is almost certain that all electoral votes from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, a
total of 46, will go to the Democratic candidate.

Globalisation may have been good for business in the short term, but long-term economic
consequences and increasingly bad conditions for the workforce led to widespread dissatisfaction and a
shift towards populism. Populist leaders have been elected around the world and are beginning to scale
back globalisation in favour of something resembling protectionist nationalism. Offshoring of production
is being slowed or reversed, trade agreements are being revised or dissolved, and tariffs are being
instituted and raised. While these actions may seem bad for global business now, they might just bring
a more sustainable economic system that increases benefit long-term.

 Which topic areas highlighted in the video are you most excited about? 
  What, given your professional and personal context, is your experience of global
instability? 

 How has global conflict impacted the work you do?

I’m most excited about analysis of specific conflicts that have impacted the global system. Conflict in
general is such a defining process, but the conditions of each individual event vary their impact and
influence. Conflict in the global system also highlights the vulnerability of states and regions,
knowledge that might lead to better aid, alliances and strategy.

I’d also like to dive deeper into the theory of deterrence and how it has evolved alongside
technology.

 Do you find Miguel's argument about the relationship between conflict and
climate change in the 21st century convincing? 

 Do you believe that historical evidence is a useful tool for predicting the future
state of violence and conflict? 

 In your opinion, what international intervention is needed to solve the issue of

climate change and conflict?

I find the assertion about climate change and conflict intriguing, but I’d like to see more/ do my own
research before I’m ‘convinced.’ From an economic and agricultural point of view, it is awfully
compelling if not a little narrow. In most agriculture heavy regions, years upon years of cultivation
and cross breeding of plant material has created seed for crops that thrive in very specific (and
usually very narrow) temperature, humidity, and other weather conditions. When conditions change,
many crops don’t grow as well – they certainly don’t thrive as they would in optimal conditions – they
might be more water intensive (therefore more labor and cost intensive) and crop yields will be much
lower is most cases. In fact, according to Dow Agrosciences in most developing states, the vast
majority of farmers are caught in a cycle of debt due to rising costs and decreasing crop yields. Less
product = less profit/more debt = more unrest and conflict.

 Do you agree that the private sector in Nigeria should be focusing on creating jobs
for the youth?

 What challenges do you think the private sector faces in Nigeria?  

 What strategies could an international corporation wishing to invest in Nigeria use to

manage the region’s instability?
Question 1: Yes, and such a strategy may be beneficial to both sides. Youth have employment
opportunities that give them an appealing alternative to joining insurgent groups and the private
sector will have fewer insurgent groups affecting it. This may also help the private sector with
expansion. Unfortunately, the low literacy level may necessitate basic education of youth in the
region before they are able to join the workforce.

Question 2: Violence and other negative impacts of insurgent groups can hinder the ability of the
private sector to expand, and in some cases even operate normally (utility cuts, etc.).

Question 3: Providing the opportunity for education along with a job to any motivated youth as well
as partnerships with NGO’s and peacekeeping organizations that can help with the educational
aspect and assist with dealings governments and other entities.