The World Economic Forum has only just ended and one of its main conclusions keeps echoing into our ears every day all around the globe: the clear reality that if wealth and resources are not shared better, there may be dire consequences.
In our media-frenzied world, it has become impossible no to be confronted with protests against ‘the system’ or ‘the state of affairs’ taking place everywhere on the planet. Whilst these protests are not specifically directed against globalisation, most protesters express a deep distrust of our globalised economy — and one of the main consequences of this is the rise of populism, which newspapers ranging from the New York Times to The Economist all agree about. And although facts clearly show that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (reports by Oxfam showed that in 2016 the world’s 62 richest people were as rich as half of the world’s population, and that in 2017 the world’s 8 richest have the same wealth as the poorest half) what’s most important here is the perception that people have of the problem. In a media-driven world, it is only logical that they (the media) weigh heavily on people’s perception of politics and economics — and therefore, on people’s voting intentions. It was therefore critical that the general distrust in globalisation was addressed at a higher level of international politics.
Thankfully, that’s what happened at this year’s World Economic Forum. The social and economic divide may be growing, but at least the WEF has acknowledged it and agreed to talk about it. IMF director Christine Lagarde insisted that “growth will not be sustainable if it is not inclusive”, and her highlighting of the issue was followed up by supportive comments from US VP Joe Biden and also from CEO’s, analysts and academics alike. In an article written for the Forum’s website by Peter Vanham, a former Financial Times reporter, a glimpse of the debate appeared: should wealth redistribution be voluntary or imposed via taxation? This is an age-old debate in economics, but what’s interesting is that it has been at the forefront of discussions and remarks at Davos. It was refreshing to see the debate being embraced by so many at the WEF.
Not only that, but civil society is chipping in for a word, and trying to weigh in on the debates held at Davos. An example is philanthropist and businessman Christophe Mazurier, who openly questioned what was at stake at the WEF this year and what the actual outcomes of the Forum may be in a 20th January article published on the French newspaper Le Figaro’s website. He acknowledged the fact that Chinese leader Xi Jinping explained a trade war would create a losing situation for everyone, but he also questioned the depth of those comments. Mr Mazurier insisted that the world’s top political leaders be held accountable for their declarations and do more than simply deliver polite diplomatic comments. He pleaded for a reasonable solution which would steer clear from both isolationism and over-optimistic wishful thinking; a solution by which globalisation should be reconsidered to help ease out the extreme inequalities of our age — or else, he warned, an open conflict may be looming.
In today’s international environment, which, to say the least, is evolving rapidly, there is a growing sense that globalisation has to be reorganised so that more people benefit from it, or society may have to face the consequences of not dealing with the problem. It is good to see that academics like Oxford professor Ian Goldin (whose book Age of Discovery was quoted by the FT on the subject), analysts and journalists like Peter Vanham and members of civil society like Mr Mazurier have contributed to reopening the debate amongst the powerful and wealthy. Because as Christine Lagarde puts it, “if policy makers don’t get it now, I don’t know when they will”.