Risk of conflict due to the decline of global adhesion

In recent years, the world is moving towards super-globalization in the face of the drastic changes in globalization. Historically, this has often been a period of intensified political and economic conflicts in major powers, the high frequency of currency banking economic crises, and a marked rise in global systemic risks.

Regardless of depth, breadth, or degree of sovereignty transfer, the super-globalization since the 1990s has exceeded any period in history. The more open the economies, the tighter the bond and the higher the interdependence. Driven by the comprehensive transportation and communication technology revolution, a new division of labor emerged during this period: the international division of labor. One product can accomplish different processes in different places around the world. As a result, a comprehensive logistics with zero inventory, timely supply and a global supply chain system have been developed. All links of the chain seem to be in super-adhesion, forming an organic combination with efficient operation.

In this super-adhesion degree, customs, commodity inspection, border inspection, etc. of various countries form a cross-border network, and the “last mile” of air, sea, and land transportation in the supply chain are seamlessly connected, and the economic and trade of various countries are deeply bonded together. . At this time, a serious problem appeared to be solved urgently. That is, the efficiency of the super-globalized roulette wheel is turning faster and faster. Who will ensure the fair, just, balanced and safe operation of the global economy? The economic sovereignty of each country has been transferred to the world market, but no “world government” has undertaken the functions of macroeconomic management and macropolicy coordination. The technology bubble that emerged in the 1990s and the financial bubble that emerged in the first decade of the 21st century both indicate that superpowers that have lost their opponents and checks and balances are bringing superglobalization into increasingly serious bubbles, imbalances, and social instability .

In the distribution of super-globalized excess dividends, the global unbalanced bubble dividends are concentrated in the hands of the top companies in the top market. Whether it was the bursting of the technology bubble in 2001 or the bursting of the financial bubble in 2007, it was the vested interest groups that held the dividends of globalization that were saved, and the middle class and ordinary people in advanced economies were damaged. The higher the overall efficiency of super globalization and the more globalization dividends, the higher the degree of inequity within developed countries. When various contradictions accumulate to a certain degree, those who have lost interest will rise up against super globalization and market integration. When Wall Street financial oligarchs, multinational corporations, and other oligarchs earn huge profits, and the bottom blue-collar workers and the middle class in the United States both become net profit-impaired, the higher the degree of economic cohesion and production efficiency, the greater the destructive effect.

In Europe, Britain took the lead as a saboteur, saying goodbye to the EU’s highly integrated adhesion in a “Brexit” way. The United States subsequently followed, and US President Trump has always claimed that the United States has suffered a loss in globalization, and then turned to trade protectionism and continued to “retreat from the group.” What is confusing is that the only super-large parliament in super-globalization is “losing money”, demanding reciprocity and fair treatment. The excess dividends of super globalization are actually taken away by the United States. The excess dividend is so huge that greed has blown up the technology and financial bubbles, created global irrationality and false prosperity, and led to the economy becoming more and more detached from reality. Once the bubble bursts, the biggest beneficiary of the globalization dividend becomes the “damaged” of the benefits of globalization. From this perspective, “anti-globalization” has gained a lot of support in the West.

Historically, high economic cohesion did not go far in the end. Because economic cohesion improves global economic efficiency, enhances economic welfare, and forms a golden period of growth. However, due to the lack of a corresponding global economic governance mechanism, fairness and social problems cannot be solved, which ultimately leads to intensification of conflicts, triggering various conflicts and confrontations. For example, in the 1920s and 1930s, the comprehensive national powers of the defending great powers such as Great Britain and France changed from prosperity to decline, and the emerging powers of the United States and Germany changed from weak to strong. The change in strength contrast triggered changes in the international pattern and world order. Synchronization of various contradictions eventually produced the “Great Depression”, trade wars, and even triggered world wars. The essential problem is that economic globalization from 1870 to 1913 increased economic cohesion, but failed to establish a corresponding world governance mechanism. After the end of World War I, the United States advocated the establishment of an international alliance to balance Britain and France. However, when the League of Nations was formed, the United States did not participate and maintained an isolationist foreign policy. The international community finally fell into the trap of conflict confrontation. Historical experience shows that while globalization improves the economic cohesion of various countries, if the reform of the global governance mechanism cannot be promoted and the contradiction between the inherent fairness and efficiency of economic cohesion resolved, it will eventually lead to the emergence of destructive mechanisms and plunge the world into conflict. confrontation.

The old balance has been broken, and the global economy has begun to find a new balance. Faced with this trend, what should China do?

The first half of economic globalization is driven by openness, marketization, and innovation, which is manifested in increased efficiency. Now that economic globalization has reached the second half, systemic risks have risen significantly, conflicts among major powers may become increasingly fierce, and currency crises, banking crises, financial crises, and economic crises will occur at a high frequency. When various contradictions, conflicts and confrontations are difficult to foresee to a certain extent, and the opening of the flow of commodities and factors meets the resistance of global anti-economic cohesion, it is necessary for China to promptly promote strategic contraction. Emphasis must be placed on institutional openings such as rules, that is, to promote the reform of rules, regulations, management, and standards modernization, promote the modernization of domestic governance, and promote high-quality economic development and the construction of a modern economic system.

At present, the core question is to what extent. If it shrinks to East Asia, it will involve the adjustment of the pattern of division of labor in the international triangle. The original pattern of division of labor is that East Asia provides the world with labor and manufacturing links, the United States and Europe provide the world with technology and markets, and the Middle East and Asia, Africa, and Latin America provide the world with energy and resources. There are three issues involved in future adjustments: First, how to transform and upgrade the industrial chain and supply chain in East Asia? This requires strengthening the cooperative relationship based on strategic mutual trust between China, Japan, South Korea and ASEAN. Second, where do energy and resources come from? This requires high-quality joint construction of the “Belt and Road”. Third, where does technology and market come from? This requires the establishment of cross-border innovation networks.

Therefore, in the new era, my country needs to construct a new level of open economic system and form a new pattern of comprehensive opening. It is necessary to dialectically view changes in the international environment. The author believes that the overall opening strategy should be shifted. The first is to actively promote the institutional opening of rules and other rules to form a new open situation of dual-wheel drive of commodity factor flow and rules and other institutional openings; the second is to actively promote the domestic domestic and international double-cycle mutual circulation as the main body Promoting a new development pattern; third, actively promoting the deepening of the East Asian production network as the first priority, forming a new industrial system with local demand, local innovation, and local macro-policy coordination; fourth, actively promoting high-quality co-construction of the “Belt and Road” and implementing joint consultations Jointly build a shared view of global governance; Fifth, actively promote the construction of cross-border innovation networks and form a new environment for all-round international cooperation in science, technology and innovation.