Det er i disse år blevet mode at tale om de-globalisering, men det vil være dyrt for erhvervslivet og især for USA med en afvikling af globaliseringen, fordi ingen kan leve uden det tætte globale samspil – også mellem USA og Kina, hedder det i en analyse fra Merrill. Hvis der virkelig sker en tilbagerulning af globaliseringen, vil aktiemarkederne opleve kraftige nedture – mere end faldet i S&P 500-indekset på 6,4 pct. siden nytår. De amerikanske investeringer i udlandet vokser ufortrødent, og Kina er lige på nippet til at blive en større kapital-importør end USA. Men de globale virkomheder står alligevel over for store forandringer, bl.a. om forsyningssikkerhed. Det ironiske er, at det ofte indebærer, at virksomhederne bliver mere afhængige af produktion i andre lande. Merrill citerer Mark Twain, der sagde, at nyheden om hans død er overdreven. Det samme kan siges med påstanden om, at det er slut med globaliseringen.
Deglobalization Will Come At A Cost To America
Nothing is more fashionable these days than writing the obituary for globalization. The cause of death according to the consensus includes the push to “onshore” production and reduce global supply chain vulnerabilities; the weaponization of finance in lieu of Russian sanctions; the widening gulf between democratic and authoritarian regimes; rising political populism; and U.S.-Sino decoupling. Call it a death by a thousand cuts—and a tragedy that could leave lasting scares on the U.S.
Missing from the debate about deglobalization is this: If the world of unfettered cross-border flows of goods, services, people, capital and data is really a thing of the past, then one of Corporate America’s biggest bets of the post-war era is about to go bust.
No entity in the world has wagered more resources on globalization over the past four decades than U.S. multinationals, with America’s stock of outward foreign direct investment (FDI) rising from $215 billion in 1980 to $8.1 trillion in 2020, according to figures from the United Nations.
The Netherlands, with some $3.7 trillion in FDI stock in 2020, was a distant second, underscoring the outsized global footprint of U.S. firms.
Going global became the mantra of many U.S. companies as the world of the late 20th century was unlocked by falling trade barriers, investment reforms, industry liberalization, falling communications and transportation costs, and the proliferation of regional trading blocs. These structural dynamics were complimented by seminal one-off events like the opening of China,
economic reforms in India, the collapse of communism, and enlargement of the European Union. Since then, there has been no looking back. The outward stock of U.S. FDI jumped nearly 80% between 2000 and 2010, and by another 69% between 2010 and 2020 (Exhibit 2).
And based on recently released figures from the BEA, both U.S. foreign investment inflows and outflows rebounded strongly in 2021. The former hit $368 billion, the strongest level since 2016, while the latter topped a record annual level of $403 billion. That’s another way of saying that if globalization is dead, someone forgot to tell the world’s top multinationals.
If globalization were truly deceased, the S&P 500 would be down a lot more than the modest -6.4% decline from the peak set in January 2022. The good news is that the markets have not bought into all the hype about de-globalization.
That said, however, multinationals confront a much more challenging environment than in the past given rising nationalist calls for “reshoring” and economic self-sufficiency, among other policy pressure points. Firms are not deaf or blind to these tensions. Neither are the markets.
Firms are focused on building in more resiliency into their supply chains, but in many cases that means relying more on foreign labor, overseas markets and non-U.S. resources. To be sure, the past won’t be prologue—globalization is being recast and reconfigured. But to paraphrase Mark Twain—an American writer—the death of globalization has been exaggerated. That is bullish for U.S. Equities since a sharp turn towards deglobalization would come at a steep cost to the U.S.
