Integrate Nationalism with Globalism
By: Vinod Bhardwaj
Tags: Globalization, Nationalism, Inequality, Envoronment, Localization

There’s a question that needs an answer in the 21st century, and you’re not going to like it. It goes like this. Who does the world belong to?

Human beings are annihilating life on planet earth with breath-taking speed. We’re in the middle of the first anthropogenic mass extinction, the first human-made great annihilation. The world’s richest 2000 people have more wealth than 50% of humanity combined. The world is twenty percent white, and 80% everything else, and its rich countries are in the 20%. The world's poor are all not white, while the world’s wealthy are almost entirely white. Does that byte a bit?

The global economy continues to be fuelled by quickly flowing information, swiftly generated knowledge, and the myriad applications found for this information and knowledge. The new global economy is characterized by increased uncertainty, openness, flexibility, and choices, all of which impact lifestyle, business models, the working environment, the educational system, and national security. Globalization in technology, jobs, and trade affects almost all sectors and industries, both specifically and broadly. The creation of disruptive technologies is being affected by the globalization of information and business. It is resulting in the globalization of jobs and the social environment.

During the half-century after WWII, the transition from primary agriculture to advanced manufacturing drastically transformed some European and Asian countries, such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Ireland. Another paradigm shift occurred not long ago. U.S. corporations’ offshore operations, whose initial function was manufacturing, have changed to scientific research and technology development. Today, most countries are redirecting larger portions of their workforce to pursue higher-value activities such as scientific research, intellectual property creation, and system design and integration rather than supplying low-cost labor for assembly and manufacturing. Technology and, more generally, knowledge are diffusing today at an unprecedented rate along pathways limited only by the Internet’s global reach.

Synonyms for globalism include development, growth, and maturation, and multinational executives are routinely encouraged to have a global mindset. In recent years, however, nationalist sentiments seem to be on the rise. During the current pandemic and economic downturn, political leaders might find it more practical to search for their citizenry solutions instead of combining efforts to find a global one. Before the crisis, protectionist, populist politicians were gaining favor in many parts of the world. And even in the corporate arena, one could see signs of a turn inward, with companies touting the jobs they are creating or bringing back home and encouraging consumers to buy domestically produced goods.

Nationalism is linked to harmful things like bigotry and xenophobia. But it, too, can carry positive connotations, such as patriotism and good citizenship. Given this, and nationalism’s increasing relevance, we believe that today’s executives can’t choose whether to be globalists or nationalists. Instead, they must figure out how to be both at the same time. Is this possible? At first glance, it might seem that one has to pick either globalism or nationalism because they appear to be opposed. I believe that this “either/or” approach leads to highly undesirable outcomes. However, an exclusive focus on globalism could cause an executive to ignore, or even worse, look down upon those who display national pride and allegiance, making it more difficult to see opportunities at home. On the other hand, a strong nationalist focus narrows one’s perspective differently, limiting possibilities abroad. Either bias can reduce effective communication, understanding, and collaboration.

The current Covid-19 crisis provides a unique learning opportunity for how to integrate nationalism and globalism. In India, efforts to quickly respond to the outbreak were impeded by the scarcity of personal protection equipment (PPE), such as masks, because globally-oriented corporate policies had pushed the manufacturing of such products in faraway markets. In other words, nationalistic concerns were not taken into account. We’ve learned that an effective emergency response requires that adequate supplies also be available at home. As we advance, corporations could balance a global and nationalistic stance by either investing in domestic product development. Manufacturing and foreign investments or adding a clause in contracts with foreign suppliers require a rapid increase in supply to the home country under certain circumstances (e.g., COVID crises).

In my view, Prime Minister urged to go vocal for local, to recent significant innovations to help fight the pandemic has motivated every manufacturer to promote local industries and curb down imports of machinery and raw materials. I think that at least trying to make everything in our country will make a massive impact on the growth of the economy and the employment rate.

I particularly feel that in India, people should support ‘Make in India’ and become self-dependent, try to minimize imports, and maximize exports. Indian industry will be a significant contributor to increasing the global reach by exporting Indian products to the UAE, Dubai, etc. The lockdown to an extent affected the exports’ scale, with the number of orders, they are regularly dispatching their products. It is a long way to go when India is one of those countries on which the world depends, and that will be a beautiful sight to watch.