"Zero-Sum: The destructive logic that threatens globalization," read the title of this week's WEF-timed cover story in the Economist (reprinted on this page Jan. 15). Since 1945, the magazine stated, "the world economy has run according to a system of rules and norms underwritten by America. This brought about unprecedented economic integration that boosted growth, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and helped the West prevail over Soviet Russia in the Cold War. Today that system is in peril. Countries are racing to subsidize green energy, lure manufacturing away from friend and foe alike and restrict the flow of goods and capital. Mutual benefit is out and national gain is in. An era of zero-sum thinking has begun."
The magazine lists and laments examples, leading with one from the country it credited with undergirding globalism: the U.S. Specifically, it calls out the made-in-America provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which it says has "set off a dangerous spiral into protectionism worldwide." Some of that grumbling has already been heard in quiet conversations between Washington and Western capitals. And there were echoes in Davos about the impact on internationalism that may make solving transnational challenges like climate change even more daunting.
As the Economist framed it: "A final worry is that the more economic conflict proliferates, the harder it becomes to solve problems that demand global collaboration. … If countries cannot cooperate to tackle some problems, these will become impossible to fix and the world will suffer accordingly."
The world, according to Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a political risk and research consultancy, is already in a "geopolitical recession." There's global foreboding about an economic one, too. And yet Bremmer, speaking from the WEF, said in an interview that the Davos vibe is "moderately optimistic, compared to what you see in the headlines on the state of the global economy."
And yet "on the geopolitical side there is enormous concern," he said, with "uncertainty and recognition that nobody has the tools to respond to it. And that is most particularly true in terms of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and where the war is heading. But it's also true more broadly as well. This polarization that we're seeing, the idea that the World Economic Forum is saying that fragmentation is their primary concern, that's exactly the opposite of what the West has been trying to accomplish for all these years."
What the West, and the world, needs to accomplish on climate change is ecologically, economically, and geopolitically essential. "Everyone understands it, everyone is invested in it," Bremmer said. "And yet the responses are overwhelmingly national, they're at the local, sovereign level." While the challenge is global, he added, "you don't actually have a global response. How can you talk about globalization — it's the most obvious global challenge out there — that is only being met with primarily a national response?"