ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 1 

The Economist defines globalization as the “global integration of the 

movement of goods, capital and jobs,”1 and for decades, the process 

has been advancing. The combination of labor cost advantages, increasingly efficient freight systems, and trade agreements fueled globalization by 

providing regional cost advantages for manufacturing. Over the last six decades, 

it transformed agricultural societies into industrial powerhouses. 

Then, the 2008–2009 global financial crisis—particularly the collapse of 

China’s demand for commodities—slowed global trade. This led to early speculation that a number of factors were slowing globalization.2

 In fact, according to World Bank statistics, global merchandise trade as a percentage of gross 

domestic product (GDP) recovered relatively quickly from the 2009 crisis, almost reaching pre-crisis levels by 2011 (see figure 1). Speculation about slowing 

globalization ceased, even though trade as a percentage of GDP flattened and 

then declined from 2011 to 2014 (see figure 2).3 It was not just manufacturing; 

services followed the same pattern.4 Global financial flows also declined sharply 

following the crisis but did not recover (see figure 3): “The ‘Great Retrenchment’ 

that took place during the crisis has proved very persistent, and world financial 

flows are now down to half their pre-crisis levels. . . . Overall, net flows have 

fallen substantially relative to the years preceding the sudden stop.”5

As recently as 2014, the Mackenzie Global Institute reported, “The network 

of global flows is expanding rapidly as emerging economies join in.”6 But by the 

time it produced its 2016 report, the institute had changed its tone, declaring 

that “after 20 years of rapid growth, traditional flows of goods, services, and finance have declined relative to GDP.”7

Most analysts concluded that the reduction in trade was simply a cyclical 

downturn that would be reversed when China’s economy recovers. They predict 

Will Technological 

Convergence Reverse 

Globalization?

by T.X. Hammes

STRATEGIC FORUM

National Defense University

About the Author

Dr. T.X. Hammes is a Senior Fellow 

in the Center for Strategic Research, 

Institute for National Strategic Studies, 

at the National Defense University.

Key Points

◆ Numerous trends are slowing, and 

may even be reversing, globalization over the next decade or two. 

Manufacturing and services, driven 

by new technologies, are trending 

toward local production. For economic, technical, and environmental reasons, new energy production 

is now dominated by local sources—solar, wind, hydro, and fracked 

natural gas. To meet an increasing 

demand for fresh, organic foods, 

firms are establishing indoor farms 

in cities across the developed world 

to grow and sell food locally.

◆ Recent trade flow statistics indicate 

these factors have already slowed 

globalization. Technological and 

social developments will accelerate 

these inhibiting trends. Voters in 

the United States and Europe are 

increasingly angry over international trade. Prospects for passage 

of major trade agreements are dim. 

Authoritarian states, particularly 

China and Russia, are balkanizing 

the Internet to restrict access to information. Technological advances 

are raising the cost of overseas 

intervention while deglobalization 

is reducing its incentives.

◆ This paper argues that deglobalization would have momentous 

security implications. Accordingly, 

deglobalization must be monitored 

closely and if the trend continues, 

U.S. leaders will need to consider restructuring organizations, alliances, 

and national security strategy.

July 2016

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH
2 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

globalization will resume and even accelerate.8

 In contrast, this paper will argue that the convergence of new 

technologies will dramatically change how we make 

things, what we make, and where we make them. Trends 

in energy production, agriculture, politics, and the Internet will accelerate these changes, retarding, if not entirely 

reversing, globalization. Over the next decade or two, 

these trends will result in the localization of manufacturing, services, energy, and food production. This shift will 

change the international security environment.

How We Make Things

The combination of robotics, artificial intelligence, 

and three-dimensional (3D) printing is rapidly changFigure 1. Trade (% of GDP)

Figure 2. Merchandise Trade (% of GDP)

Source: World Bank, “Trade (% of GDP),” available at <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS/countries/1W-CNUS?display=graph>.

Source: World Bank, “Merchandise Trade (% of GDP),” available at <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TG.VAL.TOTL.GD.ZS/

countries?display=graph>.

2008

59.2

56.8

29.9

24.8

28.2

30.9 30.7 30 29.9

43.6

49.3 48.8

45.7

43.9

41.5

51

55.9

59.5 59.7 59.4 59.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

World China United States

2008

56.2

43.6

49.2

50.7 50.1

46.7

43.8

41.5

48.9 49.8

46.9

42.3

51.8

23.5

18.5

21.7

24.2 24 23.3 23.2

48.6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

World China United States
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 3 

ing how we produce goods. The emergence of automated or “dark” factories that need only a few humans 

to supervise and maintain robotic production lines is 

a global trend. A fully automated factory in Mexico 

needs only six people per shift to produce thousands 

of cases of beer.9 The Changying Precision Technology 

Company in China has established an automated truck 

manufacturing plant that employees 90 percent fewer 

people.10 According to the Boston Consulting Group, 

about 10 percent of all manufacturing is currently automated, but this figure will rise to 25 percent by 2025. 

Driving the trend is the dramatic decrease in the operational cost of robots. In electronics manufacturing, a 

robot costs only about $4 per hour for routine assembly 

tasks.11 In contrast, the cost of labor in China quadrupled in the last decade,12 now averaging about $4 per 

hour and continuing to increase rapidly.13 Robots have 

reached the economic crossover point at which they are 

cheaper than Chinese labor, and with China’s total labor force now declining, the robots’ cost advantage will 

only increase. 

The world is on the cusp of the shift of labor to automation. Carl Frey and Michael Osborne’s 2014 report, 

“The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs 

to Computerisation?” suggested that 47 percent of current jobs are at risk.14 The J.P. Gownder report, “The Future of Jobs, 2025: Working Side by Side with Robots,” is 

much less pessimistic but still forecasts a 16 percent loss 

of jobs to automation.15 Despite the range of estimates, all 

agree automation will have significant impact on how we 

make things. In fact, between 2010 and 2014, world industrial robot installations increased by 17 percent annually. In 2014, robot sales increased by a further 29 percent, 

with sales expected to reach 400,000 annually by 2018.16

This estimate does not account for the newly developed 

collaborative robots, or cobots, which are designed to work 

alongside humans rather than in a separate space. In effect, they are an assistant focused on increasing the efficiency of the supported worker. They are very new and 

represented less than 5 percent of global sales in 2015. 

But at an average cost of only $24,000, they will appeal 

strongly to the smaller companies that account for 70 

Figure 3. Post-Crisis, Global Financial Flows Settled at a Lower Level (Quarterly Data)

Source: Matthieu Bussière, Julia Schmidt, and Natacha Valla, International Financial Flows in the New Normal (and Why We Should Care), CEPII 

Policy Brief No. 10 (Paris: Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, March 2016), available at <www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/

pb/2016/pb2016-10.pdf>.

Level (left)

% of GDP (right)

Q1

2005

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.0

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

1.5

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

USD Trillions As % of GDP

-2.0

-2.5

Q1

2006

Q1

2007

Q1

2008

Q1

2009

Q1

2010

Q1

2011

Q1

2012

Q1

2014

Q1

2013
4 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

percent of global manufacturing.17 A Price Waterhouse 

Cooper survey showed 94 percent of those chief executive 

officers (CEOs) who had already adopted robots say they 

increased productivity.18 Increased productivity, combined with reduced labor costs, makes the rapid adoption 

of these robots attractive even to small businesses.

Even as robots are changing traditional manufacturing, 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, 

is creating entirely new ways to manufacture a rapidly 

expanding range of products. The diversity of the products—from medical devices to aircraft parts to buildings 

and bridges—and the order of magnitude increase in 

the speed of printing are already challenging traditional 

manufacturing. Because it used to take days to print a 

part, 3D printing had been used primarily for prototyping and producing very high-value parts. That is changing rapidly. In a March 2015 TED Talk, Joseph DeSimone, CEO of Carbon3D, demonstrated the capability 

to print 100 times faster than usual; his goal is to print 

1,000 times faster.19 In April 2016, his firm released the 

first commercial version of this machine. It reflects the 

lessons learned in production for Ford Motor Company, 

Johnson & Johnson, BMW, and others.20 DeSimone is 

not alone in seeking speed as well as higher quality. The 

Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory is partnering with Cincinnati Incorporated, a manufacturer of high-quality machine tools,  to develop a 

process to print 200 to 500 times faster.21 The fact that 

key patents are expiring soon will further accelerate improvements in printer capabilities and capacities. 

Commercial firms are taking advantage of these advances. United Parcel Service (UPS) has established a 

new initiative called “Direct Digital Manufacturing” focused on providing rapid 3D printing of any customer’s 

design. The managers of CloudDDM, the firm running 

the factory for UPS, state, “The fully-automated facility 

will house a staggering 100 3D printers which can be 

used to manufacturing one-off parts, or mass manufacture 1,000 of the same part. . . . The 3D printers found 

within this new facility all run 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, and require just three employees total; one per 

8-hour shift.”22

In addition, UPS and Staples are offering in-store 

3D printing services at more than 100 stores nationwide: 

“UPS can see a major change coming. The concept is 

simple, local production of a vast number of components 

will hit the international shipping market hard.”23 This 

new method of manufacturing has three major advantages: it largely eliminates labor cost advantages through 

the removal of humans from the process, it reduces shipping time for finished products, and it eliminates most 

shipping costs. 

Obviously, the key question is, how quickly will 

3D capacity and capability increase? Price Waterhouse 

Cooper surveyed over 100 industrial manufacturers to 

determine their plans for 3D printing. Over two-thirds 

already use it, mostly for rapid prototyping, but over 10 

percent are already using it for production.24 Also, investment in 3D printing is expanding at an exceptional rate. 

From 1987 to 2010, only $300 million was raised by 3D 

firms, about $12 million a year. From 2011 to 2015, over 

$4 billion had been raised, or about $800 million a year.25

The increased investment is paying off. In 2015, global 

spending on printers alone reached $11 billion, with projections of $29 billion by 2019. Fifty-two percent of the 

CEOs surveyed expect 3D printing to be used for highvolume production in the next 3 to 5 years. This is up 

from 38 percent only 2 years ago.26 Hewlett-Packard is 

betting its Jet Fusion process will compete with injection 

molding for the mass production of plastic parts. It will 

start shipping its $130,000 printers this October.27

What We Will Make

To date, robotics has not had a major impact on 

what we can make. Robots have simply automated current production processes. However, 3D printing will 

have a major impact on manufacturing by bringing two 

other changes: mass customization and design for purpose. Since each print is guided by software, each individual product can be made different simply by selecting 

different options in the software. This will revolutionize 
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 5 

the personal style and individual functionality of each 

product. 

Printed clothing and shoes are moving from highend individualized fashion to home-printed wardrobes. 

“Fast fashion,” the ability to quickly design, make, and 

deliver new styles to stores, is driving a significant section 

of the fashion industry. Yeh Group, a garment manufacturer, has teamed up with Loughborough University to 

design and create 3D-printed fashions that will be made 

“ethically, sustainably, and on-demand in 24 hours or 

less.”28 The clothing will be made to order yet will require dramatically less water and energy to produce. As 

the software is perfected and material base widened, all 

clothing may be made to individual order since there is 

practically no additive cost to customizing each product. Today, companies are even exploring the use of bioprinted leather to create belts and shoes.29

Even as the 3D industry focused on prototyping 

and new design possibilities, a demand arose for limited 

production. As early as 2009, comedian Jay Leno saw an 

opportunity to make some non-metallic precision replacement parts for his antique automobile collection.30

He has exploited each improvement in 3D printing since 

and has moved to printing metal parts. Many enthusiasts 

followed his example and established an entire industry 

for 3D-printed custom parts. Leno notes that “with 3D 

printing, the automotive industry has changed more in 

the last decade than it previously did in the last century.”31

As the technology improves, 3D printing is rapidly 

moving from prototyping to production. Years ago, Boeing 

took advantage of 3D printing’s unique capabilities to redesign a cooling duct for the F-18 Hornet, a strike fighter 

already in military service for more than two decades. The 

duct was previously made of 16 separate parts that had to 

be laboriously welded together. The printed part is a single 

unit that is lighter, stronger, and optimized for air flow efficiency.32 Similarly, General Electric recently began using 

3D-printed nozzles on its new LEAP jet engines. Rather than being assembled from 18 smaller parts, the new 

nozzle is printed as a single piece that is lighter, stronger, 

longer lasting, more efficient, and cheaper.33

The auto, truck, and aircraft parts industries have 

clearly seen the potential of 3D printing. Rather than 

stocking the wide variety of parts in the spectrum of colors and finishes they use, parts makers are maintaining 

only digital files and then printing on demand. Alcoa is 

already printing titanium fuselage parts for Airbus, and 

major manufacturers are developing the standards to certify a wider range of metal parts.34

Aftermarket customization and retrofitting product 

updates are also sweet spots for 3D printing, and numerous other applications are being explored. Entrepreneurs 

across a variety of fields are exploring how 3D printing’s 

inherent trait of essentially free customization can be used.

Perhaps more revolutionary is the fact that, for the 

first time, designers can design an object to optimally 

fulfill its purpose. Current manufacturing techniques often require that optimal design be subordinated to manufacturing limitations. While the designer may have envisioned the most efficient form for a product, that form 

may be impossible to machine or build. Compromising 

design to account for manufacturing limitations results 

in lower operational efficiency and higher manufacturing 

costs. 3D printing frees the designer to create practically 

any form and see it printed to specification. In short, 3D 

printing can produce an expanding array of parts both 

faster and better than conventional manufacturing.

The use of 3D printing also allows designers and 

engineers to experiment with new techniques to increase 

strength and functionality. Honeycombed structures, 

such as those in bird bones, maximize strength for a given weight but have been very expensive and difficult to 

make with traditional manufacturing. And 3D printing 

can make them with relative ease. Furthermore, the process expands the possibility of using new alloys, including 

gradient alloys that expand the material properties of the 

product and increase the precision in production:

Gradient alloys would allow small amounts of one 

metal to be gradually overlaid with another in 

varying ratios creating a gradual transition from 

one metal or alloy to another. Stainless steel and 
6 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

aluminum for example cannot be welded together, 

but a structural component made of a stainless steel 

to aluminum gradient alloy could allow stainless 

steel and aluminum members to be joined without 

using fasteners.35

Even more remarkable, 3D printing can actually improve the performance of existing materials. For instance, 

3D-printed ceramics can have 10 times the compressive 

strength of commercially available ceramics, can tolerate higher temperatures, and can be printed in complex 

lattices, further increasing the strength-to-weight ratio.36

Where We Make Things

By reducing labor costs while simultaneously increasing productivity and quality, these new technologies 

have brought some manufacturing back to the United 

States. Until now, the speed of this shift has been limited 

because, for the most part, these factories used expensive 

industrial robots that for safety reasons had to operate 

separately from humans. However, recent improvements 

in sensors and programming mean robots are evolving. 

We are seeing an accelerating shift to inexpensive cobots, which work alongside humans to increase human 

efficiency. This fact, plus the dramatic cost reductions, 

are leading to much wider employment of robots. They 

are moving beyond carefully structured assembly lines 

to performing cooperative tasks, shipping, stocking, and 

even selling. Robots driven by task-specific artificial intelligence will master more of the multitude of tasks involved in manufacturing, sales, and service. 

The combination of robotics, artificial intelligence, 

and 3D printing is reducing the need for and cost advantage of cheap labor: 

Increasing automation is likely to change the 

way companies evaluate where to open and expand factories. Boston Consulting expects that 

manufacturers will “no longer simply chase cheap 

labor.” Factories will employ fewer people, and 

those that remain are more likely to be highly 

skilled. That could lure more manufacturers back 

to the United States from lower-wage emerging 

market countries.37

Thomas Roehmer, of the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Sloan School of Management, stated there 

are five good reasons to reshore manufacturing jobs: U.S. 

workers are 12 times more productive than Chinese 

workers, and the wage gap is narrowing quickly; more 

customers want both immediate gratification and madeto-order products; the learning curve within a company 

is much faster if all employees are located close together; 

the maker movement (3D manufacturing) is changing 

the competitive field; and energy costs are much lower in 

the United States.38 In fact, reshoring is happening today 

and will likely continue to increase in the future: “A 2013 

survey by the Boston Consulting Group found that 54 

percent of executives at U.S. companies with sales in excess of $1 billion are planning to return production to the 

[United States]. That figure is a sharp increase from the 

37 percent of executives who said they were considering 

reshoring in a 2012 survey.”39

The trends increased the following year. Boston 

Consulting Group shared the following findings from 

its fourth annual survey of U.S.-based manufacturing 

executives:

◆ A 17-percent increase in the number that reports 

they are actively reshoring now, which is 2.5 times the 

number actively reshoring in 2012.

◆ Thirty-one percent would put new capacity to 

serve the United States in the country versus 20 percent 

who would choose China—a reversal from 2 years ago, 

when China was favored 30 percent to 20 percent.

◆ Companies cite shortened supply chains and reduced shipping costs as the biggest reasons. Other 

reasons include workforce skill and control over process, 

quality, and innovation.

◆ Fifty-six percent believe that decreasing costs in 

automation have improved their product competitiveness.
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 7 

◆ Seventy-one percent believe that advanced manufacturing technologies will improve the economics of 

localized production.40

With the cost of labor no longer a significant advantage, it makes little sense to manufacture components in 

Southeast Asia, assemble them in China, and then ship 

them to the rest of the world when the same item can 

either be manufactured by robots or printed where it will 

be used. The future trends presaged in Boston Consulting 

Group’s survey are also reflected in the reversal of manufacturing employment trends over the past two decades. 

The United States lost manufacturing jobs every year 

from 1998 to 2009—a total of eight million jobs. But in 

the last 6 years, it regained about one million of them.41

Another factor accelerating the shift of manufacturing back to the United States is the reduction in risk 

to intellectual property. Chinese firms are notorious for 

counterfeiting high-value products they are contracted 

to produce. One technique is for the Chinese contractor 

to build a duplicate factory identical to the one it builds 

to produce legitimate goods for a luxury brand. A simpler approach is to produce the agreed-upon number for 

the luxury firm and then, using the same production line, 

continue producing additional products for the counterfeit market. Despite major brand-name efforts to protect 

their intellectual property, the problem persists. China’s 

share of global manufacturing is 17 percent, but it is the 

origin of 84 percent of counterfeit or pirated goods.42

The problem does not end with counterfeiting. Showing 

great creativity, some of the Chinese firms hired to stop 

counterfeiting instead counterfeit themselves. Paid based 

on the value of counterfeit products they seize, some 

of the firms have set up their own factories to produce 

counterfeit goods, then present them as seized goods 

to collect big commissions.43 While taking production 

out of China will not stop counterfeiting, it will make it 

much more difficult and thus reduce the profit margin. 

Collocation has other benefits. It reduces shipping 

costs and reduces—in some cases even eliminates—inventory. “Just in time” local production means no finished 

items need to be kept in stock, only a supply of input 

materials. A greater benefit of onshoring manufacturing is that it allows closer interaction between design 

and manufacturing. In a world used to frequent hardware upgrades, collocation accelerates those upgrades by 

speeding the “design, test, build, employ, improve” cycle. 

General Electric just finished building an Advanced 

Manufacturing Works right next to a large manufacturing plant both to take advantage of proximity and to 

learn more about how to maximize that benefit.44

A trend in industries from fashion to cell phones 

to automobiles is rapid product cycles, and 3D printing 

has been a major factor in the first step—rapid prototyping—by greatly reducing the time needed to get the new 

product/part from design to prototype. As 3D printing 

capabilities continue to expand, it will speed the process all the way to production. Local Motors CEO Jay 

Rogers notes that with his company’s 3D-printed cars, 

“Model years cease to exist, products are developed 20 

times faster.”45 Local Motors is able to fully print and assemble a car in 48 hours. An essential element of speed is 

the collocation of design and production facilities as well 

as easy customer input, since each car can be unique to 

that customer. Cost advantages will drive manufacturers 

to use 3D print technology, then use robotics to assemble 

and package products near where they are sold.

Hal Sirkin, an analyst with Boston Consulting 

Group, predicts that “you’re going to see more localization rather than more scale. . . . I can put up a plant, 

change the software and manufacture all sorts of things, 

not in the hundreds of millions but runs of five million 

or ten million.”46

Nor will this trend be limited to developed economies. The cost of 3D printers, robotics, and artificial intelligence is dropping drastically. Printers vary from massive 

building-size units to ones the size of a microwave, but 

all have decreased in cost by at least 10 times in the last 

5 years. Worldwide, more than 278,000 desktop printers 

(those costing under $5,000) were sold in 2015, up 75 

percent from 2014. Metal printer sales are also growing at 

an exceptional rate, up 72 percent in 2013 and another 45 
8 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

percent in 2015.47 Some firms are even producing small 

solar-powered printers, thus eliminating the requirement 

for a power grid and dramatically expanding the number 

and location of potential producers. China has reduced 

the price of a robotic arm to around $15,000, with a payback of investment in as little as 1.5 years.48 The bottom 

line is that an increasing number of products will be produced locally, which will steadily reduce the need for international trade in manufactured goods.

Because 3D printers build objects from the bottom 

up, they use material only where it is needed. Traditional 

(subtractive) manufacturing often starts with a block of 

material and carves it to create the object—and leaves 

a lot of waste. The material savings from 3D printing is 

particularly impressive “when using expensive materials 

like titanium, nickel-alloy steels, and thermal plastics.”49

Return of Service Industries

Service industries are following suit as artificial intelligence (AI) takes over more high-order tasks. Call 

centers are already moving from low-wage areas to server 

banks. IPsoft.com’s home page leads with a counter that 

tracks the number of “Customer Incidents Addressed 

Without Human Intervention” (over 38 million as of 

April 2016).50 In his book The Master Algorithm, Pedro 

Domingos notes that outsourcers are aggressively advertising their bots with slogans such as “Greetings from 

Robotistan, outsourcing’s cheapest new destination.”51

Early adopters of AI-driven customer service centers like 

United Services Automobile Association have achieved 

very positive results.52 Pairing AI with humans has resulted in lower costs (fewer humans) and higher customer satisfaction.

Nor is artificial intelligence limited to routine call 

center tasks. The sophistication of artificial intelligence 

is growing so quickly that the Georgia Institute of Technology recently employed a software program it named 

“Jill Watson” as a teaching assistant for an online course. 

It did not tell the students until after they had submitted 

end-of-course critiques. All the students thought Ms. 

Watson was an effective and helpful teaching assistant; 

no one guessed she was a software program.53 Baker & 

Hostetler, a law firm, announced it has hired her “brother,” Ross, also based on Watson, as a lawyer for its bankruptcy practice.54

Even as AI moves into sophisticated tasks, robotics 

will also take over mundane tasks such as delivery, stocking, cleaning, and so forth. Not surprisingly, Amazon is 

pioneering this effort. They have already created warehouses where robots bring the goods to people who pick 

and pack them for shipping. Amazon is also sponsoring 

a contest to develop a robot that can take over the picking and packing and thus remove even more people from 

the warehouse.55 Since these services are provided locally, 

this move to automation will have little impact on globalization. However, it could reduce the number of lowpaying jobs often taken by first-generation immigrants, 

thus reducing remittance payments globally.

Many back office tasks will go the way of telephone 

operators and call center staffs. Service jobs that require 

the human touch or have to deal with non-routine tasks 

will remain, but a massive number of people will be replaced. Artificial intelligence is already handling tasks 

formerly assigned to associate lawyers and new accountants, reporters, radiologists, and many other specialties. 

In short, non-routine tasks, whether manual or cognitive, 

will still be done by humans, while routine tasks—even 

cognitive ones—will be done by machines (see figure 4). 

And this is not a new phenomenon; computer technology has been eliminating jobs since 1990. 

With labor costs much less of an issue, better communications links, better infrastructure, more attractive 

business conditions, and effective intellectual property 

enforcement will encourage services to return to developed nations. The limited number of more complex 

questions that require human operators will be better 

handled by native language speakers who are intimately 

familiar with the local culture.

Only the First Step?

The changes in manufacturing and services may be 

only the first step in deglobalization. The reduced demand 
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 9 

for transportation, alternative energy technologies, and increased energy efficiency will reduce the global movement 

of coal and oil. While starting from a small base, renewable energy is growing very rapidly. Wind, solar, thermal, 

and hydro power are locally produced and growing rapidly. 

In 2014, renewables made up 58.5 percent of net additions 

to global power systems.56 In 2015, 68 percent of the new 

installed capacity in the United States was renewable.57

Energy from renewable sources can be traded across adjacent borders but not globally. Even more important for 

the United States, fracking means less expensive natural 

gas is replacing coal and oil for generation of electricity. 

As hybrid and all-electric vehicles improve, the source 

of transportation energy will move from petroleum to 

electric energy. Fracking, alternative energy, and new efficiencies have already dramatically reduced the U.S. need 

for imported energy.58 If other nations can make similar 

advances in these areas, large segments of the energy market will become local. Growth in these energy sources will 

slow and perhaps eventually reverse the global trade in gas 

and oil.

Agriculture is another area that has seen increased 

global trade over the last few decades. High-value fruits, 

vegetables, and flowers move from nations with favorable growing conditions to those without. However, 

indoor farming has begun to undercut this trade by 

providing locally produced, fresher, organic products. A 

facility in Tokyo produces 30,000 heads of lettuce per 

day in only 25,000 square feet—less than half a football field—and is building another all-robot operation.59

Within 5 years, this second operation plans to produce 

500,000 heads of lettuce daily.60 Now that the concept 

has been proved, Japanese electronics firms are putting 

their unused factories into food production.61 “According to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and 

Industry, Japan currently has about 211 computer-operated plant factories—hydroponic and aeroponic farms 

Figure 4. Jobs: Routine vs. Nonroutine, Cognitive vs. Manual

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren’t Growing,” January 4, 2016, available at <www.stlouisfed.org/

on-the-economy/2016/january/jobs-involving-routine-tasks-arent-growing>.

Routine Manual

Nonroutine Manual

Nonroutine Cognitive

Routine Cognitive

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Jan 1983

Employment

(Persons, Millions)

Jan 1985Jan 1987Jan 1989Jan 1991Jan 1993Jan 1995Jan 1997Jan 1999Jan 2001Jan 2003Jan 2005Jan 2007Jan 2009Jan 2011Jan 2013
10 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

growing food in closed environments without the utilization of sunlight.”62

The industry is not restricted to Japan. A firm in the 

United States is planning to establish 75 indoor factory 

farms. Growing Underground is exploiting the concept 

in London. The German firm INFARM places small, 

vertical farms inside supermarkets to allow shoppers to 

pick garden-fresh herbs.63 Similar urban farms are being 

built across Europe and Russia. Depending on the product, such farms can produce 11 to 15 crop cycles per year. 

In addition to meeting the growing demand for 

fresh, local produce, these farms may gain a cost advantage. They do not require herbicides or pesticides, use 

97 percent less water, waste 50 percent less food, use 40 

percent less power, reduce shipping costs, and are not 

subject to weather irregularities. On a larger scale, these 

processes will seriously reduce the market for long-range 

shipping of high-value agricultural products. It is less 

clear whether bulk products such as grain can be farmed 

using the same techniques. However, Japanese firms are 

growing rice in a number of their facilities.

Cultured (vat-grown) meat will also have an effect 

on global trade. Currently in its infancy, cultured meat 

remains expensive and of inferior quality. But the fact 

that it has been done and is steadily improving in taste 

and texture changes the nature of the problem. It is no 

longer a question of biological feasibility but rather of 

engineering and production. Moreover, proponents state 

that it takes 95 percent less water, 98 percent less land, 

and 45 percent less energy and produces 95 percent less 

greenhouse gases to grow a pound of cultured meat compared to growing it on the hoof.64 Cultured meat will not 

require antibiotics and will be produced in a much more 

sanitary environment than current processes.

Almost all predictions show meat consumption increasing globally over the next couple of decades. The 

U.S. market for meat and poultry alone was $186 billion in 2014.65 The growing global market will provide 

a massive financial incentive to master the production 

of cultured meat. When it succeeds, it will reduce the 

import/export not just of meat products but also of the 

agricultural feed products necessary to raise animals. The 

top five soybean exporters shipped a total of over 60 million metric tons in 2015, most of it as animal feed.66

All the factors listed above will be reinforced by social pressures to “buy local” and by the desire to reduce 

the environmental impact of production. Local manufacturing production both creates jobs near the consumer and dramatically reduces transportation energy and 

packaging waste. Indoor farming can almost eliminate 

the environmental impact of farming on land and waterways. The growing movements to restrict fertilizer use in 

major drainages (for example, the Chesapeake Bay) will 

add to pressure to change how we grow food. Cultured 

meats will not only greatly reduce the environmental 

footprint of the meat industry but will also appeal to the 

growing animal rights movement.

A further driver of fragmentation is the effort by authoritarian governments to segment the Internet. In his 

book Splinternet, Scott Malcomson notes that

when the web took off in 1995 Russia and China 

started saying they wanted “more control over our 

particular parts of it.” They have been trying to gain 

that control ever since. The U.S. response to those 

attempts was not a universal one but a national 

one, calling on American companies to provide 

special access for American government agencies, 

not foreign agencies. In terms of the once universal 

web this was simply an admission of defeat. . . . 

The United States did not intend to help fragment 

the web into national spheres of interest, but that is 

what happened.67

Initially considered an impossible goal, China has 

steadily improved its ability to control what people can 

access inside its territory:

What China calls the “Golden Shield” is a giant 

mechanism of censorship and surveillance that blocks 

tens of thousands of websites deemed inimical to the 

Communist Party’s narrative and control, including 

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Instagram.
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 11 

In April, the U.S. government officially 

classified it as a barrier to trade, noting that eight 

of the 25 most trafficked sites globally were now 

blocked here. The American Chamber of Commerce 

in China says that 4 out of 5 of its member 

companies report a negative impact on their 

business from Internet censorship.

Yet there is to be no turning back. Later this 

year, China is expected to approve a new law on 

cybersecurity that would codify, organize, and 

strengthen its control of the Internet.68

China considers “Internet sovereignty” a legitimate 

aspect of a state’s control of its own territory. Other authoritarian governments are obviously both interested in 

and experimenting with these techniques. Totalitarian 

nations have decided the costs of connectivity exceed the 

benefits of globalization. Restricted access to the Internet will inevitably reduce these nations’ participation in 

the global economy. The revelation by Edward Snowden 

that the United States was exploiting the connectivity 

for intelligence provided additional incentive for these 

nations to restrict the Internet.

Cumulative Effects

With the exception of tighter control of the Internet, each of these technologies will result in better 

products for less money and will decrease the volume of 

international trade. The key question is, how much will 

globalization decrease from the sum of shifts in manufacturing, automation of services, localization of power, 

and food production?

The most frequently expressed economic concern 

about the convergence of robotics and artificial intelligence is about the elimination of jobs. Today, the cost of 

a robot is about the same as one year’s labor in low-wage 

countries (noting that robots work around the clock). It 

makes sense to replace even cheap labor with robots. Thus, 

it makes increasing economic sense for many nations to 

onshore production. These factories and service centers 

will create some new, better paying jobs. Unfortunately, 

many more jobs will simply cease to exist: assembly line 

workers, warehouse workers, drivers, and many others.

Just as significant as the loss of jobs is the real possibility that these changes will slow or even reverse globalization. Localizing production will dramatically reduce 

traffic in components and finished manufactured products, thus disrupting established trade patterns. Currently, 

we ship raw materials to one country, where workers put 

together the sub-assemblies, pack them, and ship them to 

another country for assembly and packaging. This second 

country then ships the packaged product to the consuming country. With the emergence of 3D manufacturing, 

we will ship smaller quantities of raw materials to a point 

near the consumer, produce them, and then ship them 

short distances for consumption. In many fields, such as 

medical supplies, the products may well be printed on 

site, thus further reducing packaging and shipping. In 

short, manufacturing becomes local. Further reducing 

global trade is the localization of energy production and 

return of high-value agriculture to developed nations.

Other factors may further slow globalization. First, 

protectionism is growing. Since 2008, more than 3,500 

protectionist measures have been instituted globally, as 

well as numerous additional administrative requirements 

that increase the difficulty of international trade.69 These 

include an increasing number of countries passing laws 

requiring their governments to purchase locally produced 

products, even if they are much more expensive than imported alternatives.70 As robotics, AI, and 3D printing 

eliminate jobs, the political pressure for protectionism 

will rise. The pressure will be reinforced by the global 

overcapacity in many industries, such as steel. To prevent 

dumping, nations are already raising import duties.71

Political campaigns in the United States and Europe 

reveal the growing popular opposition to international 

trade. While the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been negotiated, it has not received congressional approval. Further, 

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed opposition to it,72 and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has recently reversed her 

position and now opposes the treaty.73 It is unlikely to pass 
12 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

in this contentious election year. The Atlantic counterpart, 

the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is still 

being negotiated but faces rising domestic political opposition on both sides of the Atlantic.74

For undeveloped nations, the convergence of these 

technical and social trends may block the path to industrialization. Without the cost advantage of inexpensive 

human labor, these countries will not be able to follow 

the path to prosperity taken by Japan, Korea, and China:

Countries such as Indonesia are already suffering 

from something that Harvard economist Dani 

Rodrik has dubbed “pre-mature de-industrialisation.” This describes a trend where emerging economies see their manufacturing sector begin to shrink 

long before the countries have reached income 

levels comparable to the developed world. Despite 

rapid economic growth over the past 15 years, Indonesia saw its manufacturing industry’s share of 

the economy peak in 2002. . . . Rodrik believes the 

country will never be able to grow at the kind of 

rapid rate experienced by China or South Korea. 

“Traditionally, manufacturing required very few 

skills and employed a lot of people,” he says. “Because of automation, the skills required have increased significantly and many fewer people are 

employed to run factories.75

The resultant lack of economic opportunity in conjunction with youth bulges in many of these nations will have 

major social and security impacts. Both internal instability and economic migration are likely to increase.

Implications

Immediately following the 2008 financial crisis, there 

was speculation that globalization might have peaked. 

The next 3 years of slow but fairly steady economic recovery buried such speculation. In fact, the recent flattening 

of international trade and global flows could simply be 

a pause on the way to further globalization. Or it could 

be a harbinger of a major structural shift in international 

economics. Analysts must continue gathering data to determine which outcome is more likely, which will not be 

easy. The changing global economy has left economists 

struggling to measure it. The Economist recently noted 

that GDP is a poor measure of prosperity and not even a 

reliable gauge of production.76 Compounding the questionable utility of GDP statistics, much of the new economic activity is poorly measured using current methods. 

Thus, even as we gather data, prudent planning requires 

considering deglobalization as an alternative future when 

formulating economic, diplomatic, and military policies. 

The implications of globalization reversing reach across 

America’s economic and security futures. 

In his book Economic Interdependence and War, Dale 

C. Copeland observed that economic power is the real 

source of military power and that, in modern times, economic power has been built on the international division of labor.77 This created a dilemma for policymakers. Trade, while essential to economic growth, created 

a dependency on other nations and therefore a security 

vulnerability; witness the oil crises since the 1970s.

However, the United States is well positioned today 

to change that relationship. North America is essentially 

self-sufficient in food production and soon will be the 

same in energy. It is a world leader in robotics, artificial 

intelligence, materials science, and 3D manufacturing. As 

a result, the United States is already seeing an increase in 

reshoring of manufacturing. Intellectual property rights 

backed by a relatively transparent legal system and the 

world’s largest demand also make the United States an 

attractive location for services as they move from cheap 

labor to cheap automation. Thus, deglobalization may 

solve the dependency dilemma for the United States.

This has major implications for national security. 

First is the potential for isolationism among the American people. While the assumption that global trade is 

good may still exist among policymakers and economists, 

it is rapidly fading among the general population. In 

2002, Pew Research found that 78 percent of Americans 

supported global trade. By 2008, support had fallen to 53 

percent.78 In 2014, when Pew changed the question from 

whether trade was good for the nation to whether trade 
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 13 

improved the livelihood of Americans, favorable ratings 

plunged. Only 17 percent of Americans thought trade led 

to higher wages, and only 20 percent believed it created 

new jobs.79 Even the U.S. International Trade Commission is not particularly enthusiastic about the economic 

boost that might come from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It estimated that, if ratified, the partnership would 

lift U.S. gross domestic product by only 0.15 percent.80

Such meager trade benefits will not do much to sway a 

Congress sensitive to popular opinion. 

In terms of security strategy, developments across robotics, 3D manufacturing, nano-explosives, and artificial 

intelligence are changing the military balance of power by 

making stealthy, long-range precision strikes by air and 

sea increasingly available to small powers and even insurgent groups. Additive manufacturing will make these 

systems inexpensive and numerous. Thus, force projection 

will be much more difficult, with the potential for high 

U.S. casualties.81

In these conditions, the American public may demand a return to a limited strategic concept of defending 

the hemisphere and assuring access to the global commons. This implies a significant shift to maritime, air, 

space, cyber, and electronic warfare capabilities and away 

from ground forces. The U.S. military’s primary mission 

may revert to the punishment of bad behavior rather than 

attempts at intervention to stabilize a region.

This would represent a major change to U.S. policy. 

Since 1945, the United States has pursued globalization 

for both economic and security reasons. The burdens of 

U.S. leadership in safeguarding international norms and 

free trade were justified as necessary to preserve national 

prosperity, a view that remains prominent among U.S. 

foreign policy and national security elites. For example, 

ten leading practitioners recently concluded:

The best way to ensure the longevity of a rules-based 

international system favorable to U.S. interests is 

not to retreat behind two oceans. . . . The proper 

course is to extend American power and U.S. leadership in Asia, Europe, and the Greater Middle 

East—regions where threats to the international 

order are greatest and where either new approaches 

or more consistent application of time-honored approaches are most urgently needed.82

However, for economic and domestic political reasons, whichever party wins the next election will likely encourage each of the trends discussed in this paper with tax 

breaks, trade policy, and administrative actions. Popular 

opinion supports reshoring of U.S. industry, which means 

encouraging robotics, 3D manufacturing, and artificial 

intelligence. Local energy production greatly improves 

our balance of payments, brings petrochemical-based industries back to the United States, reduces damage to the 

environment, and provides energy security. Indoor factory 

farming reduces the use of energy, water, pesticides, and 

herbicides as well as reducing transportation costs. Thus, 

the cumulative effect of supporting current trends, which 

may be irreversible in any case, will be to discourage and 

undermine the case for globalization while potentially 

strengthening the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trading bloc. 

Similar pressures may drive nations across the globe to 

similar regional trade blocks.

In turn, if globalization no longer has major economic benefits for the United States, then employing 

U.S. power in an effort to maintain global security will be 

seen purely as a cost. This will create a very different domestic environment for the practice of U.S. foreign policy. 

Deglobalization will reduce Americans’ interest in propping up global stability at exactly the time the widespread 

dissemination of cheap smart weapons will significantly 

increase the costs of doing so. Faced with growing social 

and infrastructure needs, Americans may no longer be 

willing to underwrite international security with their tax 

dollars. It will be difficult to continue to convince Americans to spend heavily to defend Europe when 300 million 

Europeans are spending on social programs instead. The 

same attitude will extend to Asia, where most allies spend 

well under 2 percent of their GDP on defense; even Korea spends only 2.6 percent compared to the 3.5 percent 

spent by the United States.83
14 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

Our allies in Europe and Asia already believe U.S. 

resolve is wavering. A lean toward isolationism will have a 

dramatic effect on our alliances. The European nations of 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would no longer 

be able to assume the United States will guarantee their 

security regardless of how poorly they provide for their 

own defense. Of more concern, our allies in Asia may feel 

a need to procure nuclear weapons if they believe U.S. 

commitment to the security of Asia is weakening.

Summary

The convergence of new technologies has been referred to as the 4th Industrial Revolution. Klaus Schwab, 

founder and executive chairman of the World Economic 

Forum, writes, “The speed of the current breakthroughs 

has no historical precedent. When compared with previous industrial revolutions, the Fourth is evolving at 

an exponential rather than a linear pace. Moreover, it is 

disrupting almost every industry in every country. And 

the breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management 

and governance.”84

Previous revolutions took many decades; this one will 

be much faster. It will unfold over the next few decades, 

bringing amazing advances in manufacturing and services. Like the previous revolutions in means of production, there is no doubt the global economy will change in 

many ways. Robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, 

indoor farming, renewable energy, and even meat production all seem to be moving to localized production. The 

net effect is slowing, and possibly even reversing, globalization. The economic implications for the United States 

are mostly positive. The security implications are debatable but certainly momentous. Clearly, the basic assumptions undergirding 60 years of post–World War II grand 

strategy would have to be reconsidered. Deglobalization 

trends must be monitored closely and if they continue, 

U.S. leaders will need to consider restructuring organizations, alliances, and national security strategy.

Notes 1 “Turning Their Backs on the World,” The Economist, February 

19, 2009, available at <www.economist.com/node/13145370>.

2 Ibid.

3 World Bank, “Merchandise Trade (% of GDP),” available at 

<http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TG.VAL.TOTL.GD.ZS/

countries?display=graph>. 

4 World Bank, “Trade (% of GDP),” available at <http://data.

worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS/countries/1W-CNUS?display=graph>.

5 Matthieu Bussiere, Julia Schmidt, and Natacha Valla, International Financial Flows in the New Normal: Key Patterns (and Why We 

Should Care), CEPII Policy Brief 10 (Paris: Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, March 2016), available at 

<www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/pb/2016/pb2016-10.pdf>.

6 McKinsey Global Institute, “Digital Globalization: The New 

Era of Global Flows,” April 2014, available at <www.mckinsey.com/

business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/

global-flows-in-a-digital-age>.

7 Ibid., 8.

8 Kishore Mahbubani and Lawrence H. Summers, “The Fusion 

of Civilizations: The Case for Global Optimism,” Foreign Affairs (May/

June 2016), 126.

9 “Constellation Brews a Fully Automated Factory,” available at 

<www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLim5pkfOw>.

10 Conner Forrest, “Chinese Factory Replaces 90% of Humans 

with Robots, Production Soars,” Tech Republic, July 30, 2015, available 

at <www.techrepublic.com/article/chinese-factory-replaces-90-ofhumans-with-robots-production-soars/>.

11 Paul Davidson, “More Robots Coming to U.S. Factories,” USA 

Today, February 10, 2015, available at <www.usatoday.com/story/

money/2015/02/09/bcg-report-on-factory-robots/23143259>.

12 David Z. Morris, “Will Tech Manufacturing Stay in 

China?” Fortune, August 27, 2015, available at <http://fortune.

com/2015/08/27/tech-manufacturing-relocation>.

13 “Wages and Employment,” China Labor Bulletin, available at 

<www.clb.org.hk/content/wages-and-employment>.

14 Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, “The Future of 

Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization?” September 17, 2013, available at <www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/

academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf>.

15 J.P. Gownder et al., “The Future of Jobs, 2025: Working Side by 

Side with Robots,” Forrester.com, August 24, 2015, available at <www.

forrester.com/report/The+Future+Of+Jobs+2025+Working+Side+By+S

ide+With+Robots/-/E-RES119861>.

16 Brian Wang, “Annual World Industrial Robot Installations 

Expected to Double from 2014 to 2019,” Nextbigfuture.com, April 4, 

2016, available at <http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/annual-worldindustrial-robot.html>.

17 Peggy Hollinger, “Meet the Cobots: Humans and Robots 

Work Together on the Factory Floor,” Financial Times, May 5, 2016, 

available at <https://next.ft.com/content/6d5d609e-02e2-11e6-af1dc47326021344>.

18 Vinod Baya and Lamont Wood, “Service Robots: The Next 

Big Productivity Platform,” PwC Technology Forecast, no. 2 (2015), 9, 

available at <www.pwc.com/us/en/technology-forecast/2015/robotics/

features/assets/26769-2015-tech-forecast-robotics-article-1-v6.pdf>. 

19 Joseph DeSimone, “What If 3D Printing Were 100X Faster?” 

TED Talk, March 2015, available at <www.ted.com/talks/joe_desimone_what_if_3d_printing_was_25x_faster?language=en>.

20 “Carbon Unveils the M1—First Commercial CLIP-based 

Additive Manufacturing Machine,” Carbon3D.com, April 1, 2016, 
ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 297 15 

available at <http://carbon3d.com/news/carbon-unveils-the-m1-firstcommercial-clip-based-additive-manufacturing-machine>. 

21 “ORNL, Cincinnati Partner to Develop Commercial 

Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing System,” Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, February 17, 2014, available at <www.ornl.gov/news/

ornl-cincinnati-partner-develop-commercial-large-scale-additivemanufacturing-system>.

22 Eddie Krassenstein, “CloudDDM—Factory with 100 (Eventually 1,000) 3D Printers and Just 3 Employees Opens at UPS’s Worldwide Hub,” 3DPrint.com, May 4, 2015, available at <https://3dprint.

com/62642/cloudddm-ups>.

23 Nick Hall, “UPS and SAP Do a Deal to Expand 3D Print 

Capability,” 3DPrintingIndustry.com, May 18, 2016, available at 

<http://3dprintingindustry.com/2016/05/18/79207>.

24Alan Earis and Vinod Baya, “The Road Ahead for 3D Printers,” PwC Technology Forecast, no. 2 (2014), available at <www.pwc.

com/us/en/technology-forecast/2014/3d-printing/interviews.html>.

25 Andrew Wheeler, “ExOne 3D Printers Are Getting Six New 

Metal Alloys,” 3DPrintingIndustry.com, February 20, 2015, available at 

<http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/02/20/exone-3d-printers-newmetal-alloys>.

26 “3D Printing Comes of Age in U.S. Industrial Manufacturing,” 

Price Waterhouse Cooper/Manufacturing Institute, April 2106, 1, 

available at <www.pwc.com/us/en/industrial-products/publications/assets/pwc-next-manufacturing-3d-printing-comes-of-age.pdf>.

27 Mike Orcutt, “Can HP Make 3-D Printing into a Mass Manufacturing Technique?” MIT Technology Review, May 17, 2016, available 

at <www.technologyreview.com/s/601472/can-hp-make-3-d-printinginto-a-mass-manufacturing-technique>.

28 “Loughborough Project Aims to Produce Personalized, 3D 

Printed Fashion in 24 Hours or Less,” 3Ders.org, April 20, 2016, available at <www.3ders.org/articles/20160420-loughborough-to-producepersonalized-3d-printed-fashion-in-24-hours-or-less.html>.

29 Andras Forgacs, “Bio-printing of Leather and Meat,” 

TEDx Talk, November 7, 2013, available at <www.youtube.com/

watch?v=x1Q2oLxEOF8>. 

30 Jay Leno, “Jay Leno’s 3D Printer Replaces Rusty Old Parts,” 

Popular Mechanics, June 7, 2009, available at <www.popularmechanics.

com/cars/a4354/4320759>.

31 Clare Scott, “Jay Leno’s Garage Sees More 3D Printing, 

Repairing Handmade Cars Thanks to 3Ds’ Geomagic Design X 

& Quickparts,” December 8, 2015, available at <https://3dprint.

com/109741/jay-leno-3d-systems-repair-car>.

32 Thomas A. Campbell and Olga S. Ivanova, “Additive Manufacturing as a Disruptive Technology: Implications of Three-Dimensional 

Printing,” Technology and Innovation 15 (2013), 67, available at <www.

researchgate.net/publication/257942760_Additive_Manufacturing_as_a_Disruptive_Technology_Implications_of_Three-Dimensional_Printing>.

33 “3D Printing Creates New Parts for Aircraft Engines,” General 

Electric Global Research, available at <www.geglobalresearch.com/

innovation/3d-printing-creates-new-parts-aircraft-engines>.

34 Michael Molitch-Hou, “Alcoa to 3D Print Metal Fuselage 

Parts for Airbus,” 3DPrintingIndustry.com, April 7, 2016, available at 

<http://3dprintingindustry.com/2016/04/07/alcoa-to-3d-print-metalfuselage-parts-for-airbus>.

35 “3D-Printing Next-Gen Alloys,” Penn State College of Earth 

and Mineral Sciences, April 23, 2014, available at <www.matse.psu.

edu/3d-printing-gradient-metals>.

36 Katherine Bourzac, “3-D-Printed Ceramics,” MIT Technology Review, April 19, 2016, available at <www.technologyreview.

com/s/601245/new-3-d-printing-technique-makes-ceramic-parts/>.

37 “Robots Replacing Human Factory Workers at Faster Pace,” 

Los Angeles Times, February 10, 2015, available at <www.latimes.com/

business/la-fi-robots-jobs-20150211-story.html>.

38 Thomas Roehmer, “Why It’s Time to Bring Manufacturing 

Back Home to the U.S.,” Forbes, February 2, 2015, available at <www.

forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2015/02/02/why-its-time-tobring-manufacturing-back-home-to-the-u-s/#2e2b3a577026>.

39 “U.S. Manufacturing Returning to North America,” SupplyChain24/7.com, May 31, 2015, available at <www.supplychain247.

com/article/us_manufacturing_returning_to_north_america>.

40 “Made in America, Again: Fourth Annual Survey of U.S.-

Based Manufacturing Executives,” Boston Consulting Group, 

December 2015, available at <www.slideshare.net/TheBostonConsultingGroup/made-in-america-again-55937000>. 

41 Josh Zumbrun, “Forces That Opened Up Borders Show Signs 

of Sputtering,” Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2016, A2.

42 “Stamping It Out,” The Economist, April 23–29, 2016, 51.

43 “China Anti-Counterfeiting Agents Make Many of the Fakes 

Themselves—Report,” The Guardian, December 10, 2015, available at 

<www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/11/china-anti-counterfeitingagents-make-many-of-the-fakes-themselves-report>.

44 Michael Franco, “Behind the Scenes at GE’s Future-Forward 

Factory,” Gizmag.com, April 25, 2016, available at <www.gizmag.

com/ge-plant/42984/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_

campaign=72e5da4348-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_

term=0_65b67362bd-72e5da4348-92283385>.

45 Tyler Koslow, “Siemens and Local Motors Expand Partnership to Further Develop Local Motor Labs,” 3DPrintingIndustry.com, April 26, 2016, available at <http://3dprintingindustry.

com/2016/04/26/77332>.

46 Ben Bland, “China’s Robot Revolution,” Financial Times, April 

28, 2016, 13, available at <https://next.ft.com/content/1dbd8c60-0cc6-

011e6-ad80-67655613c2d6>.

47 “Wohlers Report 2016 Reveals $1 Billion Growth in 3D 

Printing Industry,” 3Ders.org, April 5, 2016, available at <www.3ders.

org/articles/20160405-wohlers-report-2016-reveals-1-billiongrowth-in-3d-printing-industry.html>.

48 Bland, 7.

49 Jessica Lyons Hardcastle, “Is 3D Printing the Future of 

Sustainable Manufacturing,” EnvironmentalLeader.com, November 24, 

2015, available at <www.environmentalleader.com/2015/11/24/is-3dprinting-the-future-of-sustainable-manufacturing>.

50 See IPSoft.com.

51 Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the 

Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (New York: Basic 

Books, 2015), 198.

52 Nanette Byrnes, “AI Hits the Mainstream,” MIT Technology Review, March 28, 2016, available at <www.technologyreview.

com/s/600986/ai-hits-the-mainstream/>.

53 Melissa Korn, “There’s a Reason the Teaching Assistant Seems 

Robotic,” Wall Street Journal, May 7–8, 2016, 1.

54 Susan Beck, “AI Pioneer ROSS Intelligence Lands Its First Big 

Law Clients,” AmericanLawyer.com, May 6, 2016, available at <www.

americanlawyer.com/id=1202757054564/AI-Pioneer-ROSS-Intelligence-Lands-Its-First-Big-Law-Clients?slreturn=20160412132159>.

55 Will Knight, “Inside Amazon’s Warehouse, Human-Robot 

Symbiosis,” MIT Technology Review, July 7, 2015, available at <www.

technologyreview.com/s/538601/inside-amazons-warehouse-humanrobot-symbiosis>.

56 “Renewables 2105: Global Status Report,” Ren 21.net, July 

2105, 17, available at <www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/

REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf>.
16 SF No. 297 ndupress.ndu.edu

57 Joe Ryan, “A Renewables Revolution Is Toppling the Dominance of Fossil Fuels in U.S. Power,” Bloomberg.com, February 4, 2016, 

available at <www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-04/renewables-top-fossil-fuels-as-biggest-source-of-new-u-s-power>.

58 “U.S. Energy Imports and Exports to Come into Balance for 

the First Time Since 1950s,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 15, 2015, available at <www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.

cfm?id=20812>.

59 “World’s Largest Indoor Farm Is 100 Times More Productive,” 

UrbanistWeb.com, available at <http://weburbanist.com/2015/01/11/

worlds-largest-indoor-farm-is-100-times-more-productive>.

60 “Average Age of Japanese Farmers Is 66 so Japan Starting to 

Shift to Robotic Farms,” NextBigFuture.com, February 16, 2016, available at <http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/average-age-of-japanesefarmers-is-66.html>.

61 Jun Hongo, “Fully Automated Lettuce Factory to Open in 

Japan,” Wall Street Journal, August 21, 2015, available at <http://blogs.

wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/08/21/fully-automated-lettuce-factoryto-open-in-japan>.

62 Robin Plaskoff Horton, “Indoor and Underground Urban 

Farms Growing in Size and Number,” Urban Gardens.com, October 18, 

2015, available at <www.urbangardensweb.com/2015/10/18/indoorunderground-urban-farms-growing-in-size-and-number>.

63 Derek Markham, “This Berlin Supermarket Has a Vertical 

Micro-farm Inside It,” TreeHugger.com, March 23, 2016, available at 

<www.treehugger.com/green-food/berlin-grocery-store-store-verticalmicro-farm.html>.

64 Forgacs.

65 “The United States Meat Industry at a Glance,” North 

American Meat Institute, available at <www.meatinstitute.org/index.

php?ht=d/sp/i/47465/pid/47465>.

66 “Soybean Meal Exports by Country in 1000 MT,” 

IndexMundi.com, available at <www.indexmundi.com/

agriculture/?commodity=soybean-meal&graph=exports>.

67 Scott Malcomson, Splinternet: How Geopolitics and Commerce 

Are Fragmenting the World Wide Web (New York: OR Books, 2016), 

171.

68 Simon Denyer, “China’s Scary Lesson to the World: Censoring the Internet Works,” Washington Post, May 24, 2016, available at 

<www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-scary-lessonto-the-world-censoring-the-internet-works/2016/05/23/413afe78-

fff3-11e5-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html>.

69 Josh Zumbrun, “Forces That Opened Up Borders Show Signs 

of Sputtering,” Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2016, A2.

70 Marcos Troyjo, “From Deep Globalisation to the Risk of 

Deglobalisation: The Rise of Local-Contentism,” World Financial 

Review, November 12, 2013, available at <www.worldfinancialreview.

com/?p=392>.

71 Karishma Vaswani, “U.S. Slaps China Steel Imports with Fivefold Tax Increase,” BBC News, May 18, 2016, available at <www.bbc.

com/news/business-36319141>.

72 Chris Keall, “Trump Trashes ‘Horrible’ TPP,” National Business 

Review, March 13, 2016, available at <www.nbr.co.nz/article/trumptrashes-horrible-tpp-ck-186175>.

73 Abby Phillip, “In Ohio, Hillary Clinton Strengthens Opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Washington Post, March 12, 

2016, available at <www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/

wp/2016/03/12/in-ohio-hillary-clinton-will-voice-support-for-tougher-trade-rules>.

74 Ian Bremmer, “Populism and Suspicion on Both Sides of the 

Atlantic Could Doom a New Trade Deal,” Time, May 16, 2016, 12.

75 Bland, 8.

76 “The Trouble with GDP,” The Economist, April 30–May 6, 2016, 

21.

77 Dale C. Copeland, Economic Interdependence and War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 30–32.

78 “Global Public Opinion in the Bush Years (2001–2008),” 

Pew Research Center, December 28, 2008, available at <www.

pewglobal.org/2008/12/18/global-public-opinion-in-the-bush-years2001-2008/#enthusiasm-for-globalization>.

79 Bruce Stokes, “Most of the World Supports Globalization in Theory, But Many Question It in Practice,” Pew Research 

Center, September 16, 2014, available at <www.pewresearch.org/

fact-tank/2014/09/16/most-of-the-world-supports-globalization-intheory-but-many-question-it-in-practice>.

80 William Mauldin, “Study Projects TPP Will Provide Modest 

Gains for U.S. Economy,” Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2016.

81 T.X. Hammes, Technology Converges and Power Diffuses: The 

Evolution of Small, Smart, and Cheap Weapons, Policy Analysis No. 786 

(Washington, DC: CATO Institute, January 27, 2016, available at 

<http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa786-updated.

pdf>.

82 Kurt Campbell et al., Extending American Power: Strategies to 

Expand U.S. Engagement in a Competitive World Order (Washington, 

DC: Center for New American Security, May 2016), 2, available at 

<www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReportEAP-FINAL.pdf>. 

83 World Bank, “Military Expenditure (% of GDP),” available at 

<http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS>.

84 Klaus Schwab, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It 

Means, How to Respond,” World Economic Forum, January 14, 2016, 

available at <www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond>.

The Center for Strategic Research within the Institute for 

National Strategic Studies provides advice to the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 

unified combatant commands through studies, reports, 

briefings, and memoranda. The center conducts directed 

research and analysis in the areas of strategic and regional studies and engages in independent and leading-edge 

research and analysis in related areas.

The Strategic Forum series presents original research by 

members of NDU as well as other scholars and specialists in national security affairs from the United States and 

abroad. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations 

expressed or implied within are those of the contributors 

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Defense 

Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Visit NDU Press online at ndupress.ndu.edu.

Laura J. Junor

Director

CSR

William T. Eliason

Director

NDU Press

INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES

R.D. Hooker, Jr.

Director for Research

and Strategic Support