What do you think?
Rate this book
Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History
A controversial look at the end of globalization and what it means for prosperity, peace, and the global economic order
Globalization, long considered the best route to economic prosperity, is not inevitable. An approach built on the principles of free trade and, since the 1980s, open capital markets, is beginning to fracture. With disappointing growth rates across the Western world, nations are no longer willing to sacrifice national interests for global growth; nor are their leaders able—or willing—to sell the idea of pursuing a global agenda of prosperity to their citizens.
Combining historical analysis with current affairs, economist Stephen D. King provides a provocative and engaging account of why globalization is being rejected, what a world ruled by rival states with conflicting aims might look like, and how the pursuit of nationalist agendas could result in a race to the bottom. King argues that a rejection of globalization and a return to “autarky” will risk economic and political conflict, and he uses lessons from history to gauge how best to avoid the worst possible outcomes.
Globalization, long considered the best route to economic prosperity, is not inevitable. An approach built on the principles of free trade and, since the 1980s, open capital markets, is beginning to fracture. With disappointing growth rates across the Western world, nations are no longer willing to sacrifice national interests for global growth; nor are their leaders able—or willing—to sell the idea of pursuing a global agenda of prosperity to their citizens.
Combining historical analysis with current affairs, economist Stephen D. King provides a provocative and engaging account of why globalization is being rejected, what a world ruled by rival states with conflicting aims might look like, and how the pursuit of nationalist agendas could result in a race to the bottom. King argues that a rejection of globalization and a return to “autarky” will risk economic and political conflict, and he uses lessons from history to gauge how best to avoid the worst possible outcomes.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published May 23, 2017
42 people are currently reading
984 people want to read
About the author
Stephen D. King
14 books11 followersStephen D. King is HSBC's group chief economist and the bank's global head of economics and asset allocation research.
He writes a weekly column for the London Independent and is a member of the European Central Bank Shadow Council and the Financial Times Economists' Forum.
He is a British national living in London.
He writes a weekly column for the London Independent and is a member of the European Central Bank Shadow Council and the Financial Times Economists' Forum.
He is a British national living in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
October 22, 2017
This is a book explaining the retreat of globalisation.
1. The elephant graph and the ideas of Milanovic was invoked: the middle class in the West had not seen their life improve at all over the last 30 years. They therefore want to turn back the clock and are voting for nationalist isolationist leaders.
2. Social media is disrupting the old party system when extremists were prevented; now extremist politicians can easily find supporters and this in turn affects the main stream politicians, making them more populist.
3. The West's economic power is in decline in relative terms. America had supported the World Order since the World Wars devastated the British Empire. It had ensured world peace and rebuilt Japan and Europe, and helped Communist Soviet Union collapse through attrition. Now however America's power is not so overpowering anymore. Plus, Americans are in no mood to be the global police any more.
4. With rise of the robots, offshoring may finally reverse and factories will be brought back to rich countries to be staffed by robots. Poor countries will find it even harder to get out from the poverty trap. More will therefore want to migrate to the West, except that the citizens of the West want less of immigration. Walls will be built where possible, but Europe is in deep trouble because of its porous borders.
5. With America having not the means and the will to maintain world order, China and Russia will take control of Asia and Eastern Europe respectively. A multi-polar world ensues.
6. Central banks will increasingly look to maintain national interest, to beggar their neighbours as increasingly they realise their main concern is for their own citizens.
7. The Grave New World would see more isolationism, much less migration, much less foreign aid, an increasing migration problem in Europe, China and Russia much more influential, more racism, and poorer economic growth.
Wow this is pretty heavy stuff. However, with the recent election result in America, New Zealand, the rise of right wing party in France and Germany, the analysis seems spot on. More depressingly, the resistance to globalisation is likely going to cause the economic problem everyone to get even worse. Plus, King does not really have any viable solution. So it is depressing indeed.
1. The elephant graph and the ideas of Milanovic was invoked: the middle class in the West had not seen their life improve at all over the last 30 years. They therefore want to turn back the clock and are voting for nationalist isolationist leaders.
2. Social media is disrupting the old party system when extremists were prevented; now extremist politicians can easily find supporters and this in turn affects the main stream politicians, making them more populist.
3. The West's economic power is in decline in relative terms. America had supported the World Order since the World Wars devastated the British Empire. It had ensured world peace and rebuilt Japan and Europe, and helped Communist Soviet Union collapse through attrition. Now however America's power is not so overpowering anymore. Plus, Americans are in no mood to be the global police any more.
4. With rise of the robots, offshoring may finally reverse and factories will be brought back to rich countries to be staffed by robots. Poor countries will find it even harder to get out from the poverty trap. More will therefore want to migrate to the West, except that the citizens of the West want less of immigration. Walls will be built where possible, but Europe is in deep trouble because of its porous borders.
5. With America having not the means and the will to maintain world order, China and Russia will take control of Asia and Eastern Europe respectively. A multi-polar world ensues.
6. Central banks will increasingly look to maintain national interest, to beggar their neighbours as increasingly they realise their main concern is for their own citizens.
7. The Grave New World would see more isolationism, much less migration, much less foreign aid, an increasing migration problem in Europe, China and Russia much more influential, more racism, and poorer economic growth.
Wow this is pretty heavy stuff. However, with the recent election result in America, New Zealand, the rise of right wing party in France and Germany, the analysis seems spot on. More depressingly, the resistance to globalisation is likely going to cause the economic problem everyone to get even worse. Plus, King does not really have any viable solution. So it is depressing indeed.
August 19, 2017
It could be argued that the present phase of globalisation ended in 2007. Since then, nationalism has returned at an increasingly virulent rate. The key question we face for our immediate future is whether or not the new nationalism will herald a period of de-globalisation?
In order to answer that question, we need to first establish what globalisation is. If we start with the familiar, we can define globalisation as the deeper integration of global markets, in terms of geography, information glows, and trade. It as allowed for goods, people, and capital to flow on a global scale.
This is, however, a superficial view of how globalisation works. A deeper view would point to the institutions that make globalisation work. Many of these were created just after the Second World War. GATT, the precursor to the WTO, springs to mind as one such institution. As do the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the EU, and NATO. An important point here is that these institutions were created to reflect the beliefs prevalent in Europe and North America and to serve those interests.
The world has changed. The rise of the new challengers - China in particular - has called into question the extent to which these institutions can be said to be fit for purpose. There is a belief amongst those whose interests aren't served by these institutions that something different might be required.
One approach has been that if you can't beat them, join them. Russia joined the G7, making it the G8, before being excluded after upsetting western interests in Ukraine. A broader institution - the G20 - has been created to try to encompass the emerging nations, but the various interests represented have prevented this gaining much traction. An alternative approach has been for the emerging nations to create their own institutions. However, such institutions are in their infancy and have yet to create traction.
That is where we are today. We are moving away from an old order and moving into a new order. This is what the book maps out. This process is not without its risks, especially of conflict between America and China, but it does offer the prospect of some gains to come. The timescales involved - possibly 50 years, possibly 100 years - are beyond the immediate policy horizon of 3 years, which is why governments appear to be helpless and hapless in the face of these changes.
If the thesis is correct, then the first half of this century is likely to be a turbulent one. We certainly appear to be moving in that direction.
I enjoyed reading the book. It is well written and well argued. Surprisingly for a book about economics, it doesn't manage to get bogged down in trivia. The argument keeps to the point and rolls forward. This makes it a relatively easy read. The book deals with an important issue that could form the shape of our longer term futures, and it deserves our attention for this reason.
In order to answer that question, we need to first establish what globalisation is. If we start with the familiar, we can define globalisation as the deeper integration of global markets, in terms of geography, information glows, and trade. It as allowed for goods, people, and capital to flow on a global scale.
This is, however, a superficial view of how globalisation works. A deeper view would point to the institutions that make globalisation work. Many of these were created just after the Second World War. GATT, the precursor to the WTO, springs to mind as one such institution. As do the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the EU, and NATO. An important point here is that these institutions were created to reflect the beliefs prevalent in Europe and North America and to serve those interests.
The world has changed. The rise of the new challengers - China in particular - has called into question the extent to which these institutions can be said to be fit for purpose. There is a belief amongst those whose interests aren't served by these institutions that something different might be required.
One approach has been that if you can't beat them, join them. Russia joined the G7, making it the G8, before being excluded after upsetting western interests in Ukraine. A broader institution - the G20 - has been created to try to encompass the emerging nations, but the various interests represented have prevented this gaining much traction. An alternative approach has been for the emerging nations to create their own institutions. However, such institutions are in their infancy and have yet to create traction.
That is where we are today. We are moving away from an old order and moving into a new order. This is what the book maps out. This process is not without its risks, especially of conflict between America and China, but it does offer the prospect of some gains to come. The timescales involved - possibly 50 years, possibly 100 years - are beyond the immediate policy horizon of 3 years, which is why governments appear to be helpless and hapless in the face of these changes.
If the thesis is correct, then the first half of this century is likely to be a turbulent one. We certainly appear to be moving in that direction.
I enjoyed reading the book. It is well written and well argued. Surprisingly for a book about economics, it doesn't manage to get bogged down in trivia. The argument keeps to the point and rolls forward. This makes it a relatively easy read. The book deals with an important issue that could form the shape of our longer term futures, and it deserves our attention for this reason.
May 23, 2019
推荐序
全球化需要新思维
吴晨
《经济学人·商论》总编
吵吵嚷嚷两年多的英国脱欧，站在局外人的角度来看，觉得英国人是在瞎折腾，这是纯粹的内耗，但是如果从全球化的视角去看，脱欧却标志着这一轮高歌猛进的全球化的尾声。
在20世纪八九十年代开启的这一轮全球化中，得益于信息技术的发展，跨国公司成为全球化最大的推手，制造业的外包、全球产业链和供应链的构建、全球金融的大开放与资本流动加速，营造了全球经济的欣欣向荣与以中国为代表的新兴市场的崛起。
但是在全球经济大发展的同时，全球化也制造了明显的输家，尤其以西方发达市场的蓝领阶层为甚，技术、外包和移民带来的工作转移与工资停滞，与精英阶层获得的财富增值形成了鲜明的对比。英国脱欧的本质因此是对这一轮全球化的收益和责任不均衡所提出的抗议。
《21世纪资本论》指出21世纪全球化面临的最大问题，即仅有经济、市场与金融的全球化，但没有治理的全球化、征税的全球化、转移支付的全球化、对全球化输家的补偿（培训和救济），那么这样的全球化是无法持续的，因为金融资本可以在全球寻找机会，本地市场劳动力的议价能力越来越低，机会与财富的分配日益不均，贫富差距日益拉大，会割裂社会的机理，推动民粹的抬头，最终葬送全球化的进程。
《世界不是平的》更是一再强调，全球化并不是在真空中发生的，全球化也并不是一条单行线，如果无法适应新的全球经济、金融与政治现实，全球化的前景就会混沌不清。我们现在面临的世界恰恰如此。
全球化所崇尚的四大自由——商品、服务、金融与人的流动——依赖一套机制和体制来支持和约束，仅仅靠市场的“看不见的手”，无法解决全球化可能造成的问题，或者说无法克服市场本身所造成的波动和周期。历史上的全球化都曾经面临挑战而停滞甚至反复，究其原因，恰恰是它所塑造的全球体制和机制无法跟上不断变化的国际经济与政治的现实。19世纪工业革命之后的全球化，依靠的是英国的法治和皇家海军的武力来维护的，但这样的秩序面临列强的竞争之后便无法维持，需要用两次世界大战的血腥来解局。
“二战”之后的国际经济秩序则依赖美国主导的国际金融体系及其背后的武力来背书。美国为国际新秩序提供了经济、金融与军事保障，而美国经济、金融与军事实力也给自己提供了用自己的镜像来塑造世界的机会。美国主导的国际经济秩序有一系列的全球机制来支持，包括世界银行、国际货币基金组织、关贸协定和之后的世界贸易组织，以及经济合作与发展组织等，而这些机制的建设无一不是以西方国家——美国以及战后恢复起来的欧洲和日本——的利益与诉求为出发点的。
“冷战”结束之后，美国的影响力达到顶峰，福山甚至预言了《历史的终结》。他们都没有看到，内外部环境的变化——一个更加整合和多元的全球经济格局，以及一个贫富差距日益扩大的国内经济格局——都需要现有的体
制与机制做出改变。欧元区提供了一个非常好的例子，当政治整合滞后于经济整合的时候，当民族国家的利益与欧盟整体的利益发生冲突的时候，张力就特别明显。欧元区的整合，恰恰是因为没有统一的银行体系、没有推进统一的政府而导致更为严重的南北分化。同样，国际贸易和资本的自由流动，也恰恰因为没有适应性的国际治理体系，而放任了贫富分化的加剧。
当今的全球化正面临着三个方面的挑战。
一是全球经济多元化的挑战。随着以中国为代表的新兴市场的崛起，全新一批全球化的参与者有完全不同的历史背景、历史叙事和对全球化的认知，它们对全球化的方向和目标有不同的想法，全球化往哪里去，需要达成新共识。
二是全球治理的滞后。“二战”之后建立的全球化的制度创新已经无法应对新的环境，经济合作与发展组织虽然扩容，但仍然是富国俱乐部，无法真正让中国和印度这样的新兴市场大国参与其中。国际货币基金组织仍然由美欧主导，无法适应全球大规模储蓄的不平衡和支付危机。而如果没有全球治理的全球化，或者说没有非西方国家参与讨论全球治理新思维，并达成共识，那么全球化面临的问题就很难解决、解决这些问题的责任就很难去分担，西方民粹主义的抬头就会进一步瓦解全球化。三是随着全球经济的整合更为深入，经济周期下行时对全球经济尤其是新兴市场经济的打击也更为严重，需要有预防与纾困机制。资本的全球化是把双刃剑，如果我们仅仅看到了资本全球化推动新兴市场经济发展的一面，却忽略了资本全球化在经济周期下行时同样通过资本抽离给新兴市场经济带来的打击，全球化在周期面前就会显得尤为脆弱。《世界不是平的》这本书就提出应该建立起一套新的机制——全球金融流动组织（Global Organization of Financial Flows）来治理热钱盲动给全球经济带来的负面打击。
全球化并没有把世界缩小为地球村，我们距离一个机会、发展与富足都公平的世界还很遥远，但是全球化的确给全球经济带来了整体的发展和富足。反思全球化，就是要找出逆全球化思潮的原因，理解多元世界不同的诉求，构建多极世界的治理结构。唯有如此，才能推动全球化的前行。
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/55011471
全球化需要新思维
吴晨
《经济学人·商论》总编
吵吵嚷嚷两年多的英国脱欧，站在局外人的角度来看，觉得英国人是在瞎折腾，这是纯粹的内耗，但是如果从全球化的视角去看，脱欧却标志着这一轮高歌猛进的全球化的尾声。
在20世纪八九十年代开启的这一轮全球化中，得益于信息技术的发展，跨国公司成为全球化最大的推手，制造业的外包、全球产业链和供应链的构建、全球金融的大开放与资本流动加速，营造了全球经济的欣欣向荣与以中国为代表的新兴市场的崛起。
但是在全球经济大发展的同时，全球化也制造了明显的输家，尤其以西方发达市场的蓝领阶层为甚，技术、外包和移民带来的工作转移与工资停滞，与精英阶层获得的财富增值形成了鲜明的对比。英国脱欧的本质因此是对这一轮全球化的收益和责任不均衡所提出的抗议。
《21世纪资本论》指出21世纪全球化面临的最大问题，即仅有经济、市场与金融的全球化，但没有治理的全球化、征税的全球化、转移支付的全球化、对全球化输家的补偿（培训和救济），那么这样的全球化是无法持续的，因为金融资本可以在全球寻找机会，本地市场劳动力的议价能力越来越低，机会与财富的分配日益不均，贫富差距日益拉大，会割裂社会的机理，推动民粹的抬头，最终葬送全球化的进程。
《世界不是平的》更是一再强调，全球化并不是在真空中发生的，全球化也并不是一条单行线，如果无法适应新的全球经济、金融与政治现实，全球化的前景就会混沌不清。我们现在面临的世界恰恰如此。
全球化所崇尚的四大自由——商品、服务、金融与人的流动——依赖一套机制和体制来支持和约束，仅仅靠市场的“看不见的手”，无法解决全球化可能造成的问题，或者说无法克服市场本身所造成的波动和周期。历史上的全球化都曾经面临挑战而停滞甚至反复，究其原因，恰恰是它所塑造的全球体制和机制无法跟上不断变化的国际经济与政治的现实。19世纪工业革命之后的全球化，依靠的是英国的法治和皇家海军的武力来维护的，但这样的秩序面临列强的竞争之后便无法维持，需要用两次世界大战的血腥来解局。
“二战”之后的国际经济秩序则依赖美国主导的国际金融体系及其背后的武力来背书。美国为国际新秩序提供了经济、金融与军事保障，而美国经济、金融与军事实力也给自己提供了用自己的镜像来塑造世界的机会。美国主导的国际经济秩序有一系列的全球机制来支持，包括世界银行、国际货币基金组织、关贸协定和之后的世界贸易组织，以及经济合作与发展组织等，而这些机制的建设无一不是以西方国家——美国以及战后恢复起来的欧洲和日本——的利益与诉求为出发点的。
“冷战”结束之后，美国的影响力达到顶峰，福山甚至预言了《历史的终结》。他们都没有看到，内外部环境的变化——一个更加整合和多元的全球经济格局，以及一个贫富差距日益扩大的国内经济格局——都需要现有的体
制与机制做出改变。欧元区提供了一个非常好的例子，当政治整合滞后于经济整合的时候，当民族国家的利益与欧盟整体的利益发生冲突的时候，张力就特别明显。欧元区的整合，恰恰是因为没有统一的银行体系、没有推进统一的政府而导致更为严重的南北分化。同样，国际贸易和资本的自由流动，也恰恰因为没有适应性的国际治理体系，而放任了贫富分化的加剧。
当今的全球化正面临着三个方面的挑战。
一是全球经济多元化的挑战。随着以中国为代表的新兴市场的崛起，全新一批全球化的参与者有完全不同的历史背景、历史叙事和对全球化的认知，它们对全球化的方向和目标有不同的想法，全球化往哪里去，需要达成新共识。
二是全球治理的滞后。“二战”之后建立的全球化的制度创新已经无法应对新的环境，经济合作与发展组织虽然扩容，但仍然是富国俱乐部，无法真正让中国和印度这样的新兴市场大国参与其中。国际货币基金组织仍然由美欧主导，无法适应全球大规模储蓄的不平衡和支付危机。而如果没有全球治理的全球化，或者说没有非西方国家参与讨论全球治理新思维，并达成共识，那么全球化面临的问题就很难解决、解决这些问题的责任就很难去分担，西方民粹主义的抬头就会进一步瓦解全球化。三是随着全球经济的整合更为深入，经济周期下行时对全球经济尤其是新兴市场经济的打击也更为严重，需要有预防与纾困机制。资本的全球化是把双刃剑，如果我们仅仅看到了资本全球化推动新兴市场经济发展的一面，却忽略了资本全球化在经济周期下行时同样通过资本抽离给新兴市场经济带来的打击，全球化在周期面前就会显得尤为脆弱。《世界不是平的》这本书就提出应该建立起一套新的机制——全球金融流动组织（Global Organization of Financial Flows）来治理热钱盲动给全球经济带来的负面打击。
全球化并没有把世界缩小为地球村，我们距离一个机会、发展与富足都公平的世界还很遥远，但是全球化的确给全球经济带来了整体的发展和富足。反思全球化，就是要找出逆全球化思潮的原因，理解多元世界不同的诉求，构建多极世界的治理结构。唯有如此，才能推动全球化的前行。
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/55011471
November 3, 2017
King's book falls short in a number of areas:
1. Contempt for people who voted for Trump or Brexit...though he attempts to disguise this
2. The belief, or strong suspicion, that China will rule the world
3. An only partially disguised Leftist, anti-Western (disguised as multiculturalism) diatribe
Where the book works are in dealing with the history leading up to globalization and the earlier globalist movement in pre-WWI. Contextualizing the failure of the first attempt at globalization with the failure of this variety was interesting but it has been done to death.
Essentially, Grave New World is an unnecessary book. All of the ideas in this book are freely available online...why pay for the same ideas?
Rating: 2 out of 5 Stars
1. Contempt for people who voted for Trump or Brexit...though he attempts to disguise this
2. The belief, or strong suspicion, that China will rule the world
3. An only partially disguised Leftist, anti-Western (disguised as multiculturalism) diatribe
Where the book works are in dealing with the history leading up to globalization and the earlier globalist movement in pre-WWI. Contextualizing the failure of the first attempt at globalization with the failure of this variety was interesting but it has been done to death.
Essentially, Grave New World is an unnecessary book. All of the ideas in this book are freely available online...why pay for the same ideas?
Rating: 2 out of 5 Stars
November 1, 2017
天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分。In the openning of the 14th century Chinese novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, it is said that, the general trend of the world is that, integration comes after a long-time division and a split comes after a long integration. That is what Mr. King wants to tell us in his own narrative.
July 23, 2020
Maybe it's unfair to review this book in 2020 - maybe its claims seemed braver or cleverer in 2017 - but for me there was little new or interesting here. The key theses were vague and truistic, and the information supporting them was similarly familiar. The book often lapses into contemporary punditry which makes it especially dated. The highlights of the first half of the book are the historical context around the silk roads - perhaps why Peter Frankopan is quoted on the cover calling the book "Prophetic, brilliant and disturbing" (when really you should just read Frankopan's world history book The Silk Roads instead). I will say, there is a sudden leap in novelty and insight in Part 4 regarding economic soveriegnty and integration in Europe. It's a great chapter which made me glad I hadn't quit earlier. I was almost moved to a 3 star rating, except for the incredibly daft epilogue which is literally an imagined Republican convention address by a future presidential nominee in the Trump family. Overall, if globalisation is interesting to you, you have abundant other reading options and you should take them.
June 16, 2017
Pretty good book that outlines some of the challenges to the current world order. Suffer from the usual problems for books of its kind:
1) Very superficial when discussing current events and cultures where the writer has little first hand knowledge (of the one I can spotcheck: Japan, France, Germany and Scandinavia). OTOH, for historical events, where there is a solid body of literature available in English, the writer seems to be very well informed.
2) Extrapolating current trends way too far into the future. Tomorrow never knows, man. Technology drives society and culture, not the other way round.
1) Very superficial when discussing current events and cultures where the writer has little first hand knowledge (of the one I can spotcheck: Japan, France, Germany and Scandinavia). OTOH, for historical events, where there is a solid body of literature available in English, the writer seems to be very well informed.
2) Extrapolating current trends way too far into the future. Tomorrow never knows, man. Technology drives society and culture, not the other way round.
August 10, 2022
Somewhat mediocre
Having read Peter Zeihan's books, I was looking forward to this one by King exploring similar ground. Sadly I found he lacked an ability to separate fact and analysis from what appears to be his own essentially status quo preferences. Anything left or right of business as usual is subtly derided as populist, conspiracy-based or some other epithet. His analysis feels very surface level and the utterly unnecessary caricature of an imagined 2024 Republican convention truly let slip his prejudices. Interesting in parts but it left me feeling delighted to have finished it!
Having read Peter Zeihan's books, I was looking forward to this one by King exploring similar ground. Sadly I found he lacked an ability to separate fact and analysis from what appears to be his own essentially status quo preferences. Anything left or right of business as usual is subtly derided as populist, conspiracy-based or some other epithet. His analysis feels very surface level and the utterly unnecessary caricature of an imagined 2024 Republican convention truly let slip his prejudices. Interesting in parts but it left me feeling delighted to have finished it!
May 30, 2018
I very much enjoyed this book, especially the last chapter. A must read in a world dominated by populist political agenda. I’ve long thought about the fact that the inherent dynamics of globalist capitalism has led to the financial crisis which in turn introduced a world in which ultimately Trumpian politics triumphs over common sense and rational reformism. This book summarises these points clearly and in a simple manner. Plus it emphasises this very fact that human beings are not machines and thus assigning a purely utilitarian approach in analysing decisions might be deeply flawed.
May 9, 2018
Is globalization inevitable? The author argues that the lack of international political consensus, inadequate institutions built upon post-WWII realities, rise of superpowers in the East, growing nationalistic sentiments in the developed world threaten to not only undermine, but also roll back the cross-border flows of goods, services, capital, and people.
May 29, 2017
Rigorously argued by the HSBC top economist who warned about excess global leverage in 2004, Stephen D. King provides a clear historical perspective on the drivers and dangers of increased political and economic isolationism.
September 7, 2017
Interesting read, however not fully agree with all the arguments made in the book. It provides an up to date overview of new challenges in the 21st century but go too far to extrapolate and read into future!
November 18, 2017
This book is astonishing in its scope, written by an obviously big thinker. If you can stay with it - especially the multi-cultural histories of the globalism (no, it's not just an issue for today -- it's been around a long time), it provides a perspective I haven't found elsewhere.
July 13, 2018
An interesting look at the history of globalization and the resurgence of isolationist ideologies in recent years from an economic perspective. Somewhat too superficial in places, and I don't agree with all of the author's views and arguments.
September 15, 2017
Extremely well written, concisely presented information and ideas which gives much food for thought in a fair and well-balanced way.
January 3, 2018
Confusing and difficult to navigate central theme.
March 7, 2018
Provides an excellent overview of the historical trends that have led up to the retreat of globalization we face today. Especially timely given the announcement of Trump's tariffs.
July 31, 2018
Perspectivas diferentes
El libro te pone en perspectiva el mundo que que vivimos desde el punto de vista macroeconómico y te ayuda a entenderlo mejor
El libro te pone en perspectiva el mundo que que vivimos desde el punto de vista macroeconómico y te ayuda a entenderlo mejor
January 19, 2019
enjoyed the book very much, good analysis, but, i do not agree 100% with all author's views.
September 21, 2019
Tight sobering summary of why international economies haven't made people cosmopolitan.
March 1, 2020
Oof.
Fascinating. Depressing. Worrying.
Very well written and extremely relevant.
Fascinating. Depressing. Worrying.
Very well written and extremely relevant.
January 9, 2021
Audiobook: Rather dry and felt disjointed. I mistakenly thought this was a book by the horror author, but it was not.
May 11, 2023
Letto per un esame di storia delle relazioni internazionali; a tratti l’ho trovato addirittura divertente.
November 15, 2025
Expected to read a Stephen King book but this wasn’t to bad.
August 30, 2019
Some parts of this book (especially the last two chapters) sailed over my head, because I often have trouble wrapping my head around financial/economic concepts. But I think I get the gist of it: globalization, despite being successful according to empirical data and beneficial to many people/nations around the globe, is at risk of collapsing due to a mix of factors. Those factors are the US Dollar becoming less effective as the world's reserve currency due to negative economic trends; the rise of nationalism and/or populism in many countries; the belief that globalization has only benefited wealthy elites; a backlash against immigration; and a flawed system of handling parties who saw minimal gains (or even losses) according to the global structure.
(King doesn't mention it, but I believe that the fading memory of World Wars I & II - which paved the way for globalization - might have something to do with it.)
It's easy to see why King chose to title this book "Grave New World." Globalization may not be perfect, but the return to a multipolar world and the dissolution of multinational organizations like the EU will likely lead to several regional conflicts. I don't know if the pessimistic scenarios will come to pass, but they do seem like fairly likely outcomes.
(King doesn't mention it, but I believe that the fading memory of World Wars I & II - which paved the way for globalization - might have something to do with it.)
It's easy to see why King chose to title this book "Grave New World." Globalization may not be perfect, but the return to a multipolar world and the dissolution of multinational organizations like the EU will likely lead to several regional conflicts. I don't know if the pessimistic scenarios will come to pass, but they do seem like fairly likely outcomes.
July 3, 2018
Thoughts in process of reading- the author is abysmal at defining his terms, assuming that the reader is familiar with them setting out. For example, he uses "Jeffersonian doctrine" to describe US foreign policy since WWII with the creation of the World Bank, the IMF, GATT (now WTO), etc. Unfortunately, that is the polar opposite of what I remember from reading Walter Russell Meade, so I'm a bit leery of reading the rest of the book (I'm at Chapter 4), but going to finish because I'm curious as to how someone who clearly loves globalization will explain why the winds are currently blowing against it.
After the finish- the author is an elitist prick who pretends to not understand why the peons of the world don't like globalization and that they should all just defer to their betters. He correctly identifies the pressures inherent to the insane amounts of global migration in progress and the fact that free trade requires free movement of labor, but clearly fails to understand human nature as to why established populations might resent non-assimilating newcomers. He actually compares the coming tidal wave of Africans as nothing more than potato famine Irish and Europe will be lucky to have them because in his world every human is an interchangeable cog, no differentiation wanted.
I guess my point is that he clearly doesn't really understand why everything seems to have changed and offers no understanding why any group might be happy with their old culture and not feel a need to destroy it to fulfill the financial and political wishes of rootless cosmopolitans hanging out in Davos. Bottom line, you won't find any true answers in this book, but dig into the underlying data and you will eventually find the people who have been trumpeting the truth for years.
After the finish- the author is an elitist prick who pretends to not understand why the peons of the world don't like globalization and that they should all just defer to their betters. He correctly identifies the pressures inherent to the insane amounts of global migration in progress and the fact that free trade requires free movement of labor, but clearly fails to understand human nature as to why established populations might resent non-assimilating newcomers. He actually compares the coming tidal wave of Africans as nothing more than potato famine Irish and Europe will be lucky to have them because in his world every human is an interchangeable cog, no differentiation wanted.
I guess my point is that he clearly doesn't really understand why everything seems to have changed and offers no understanding why any group might be happy with their old culture and not feel a need to destroy it to fulfill the financial and political wishes of rootless cosmopolitans hanging out in Davos. Bottom line, you won't find any true answers in this book, but dig into the underlying data and you will eventually find the people who have been trumpeting the truth for years.
December 12, 2023
the title and cover were major read-bait, but i love myself a smart book.
even though it's meant as an argument in favour of globalization, it comes off as giving unbiased knowledge most of the time.
...but it does bring a few facts about the reality of trump and his campaign, right at the end, that part, as i've noticed from the comments, some of the people did not wish to accept, so they taxed the rating...but facts are still facts. if you're a trump supporter, i can tell you now, you will not like to hear you were manipulated (maybe skip the last chapter?), so you might as well skip and read something which gives you positive reinforcement on things you like, a go-to classic...and my criticism on all the ones who decided to call this book bad on unethical grounds. :)
it's unethical to tax great work because you don't like to be criticised...but i also found it funny that other things did not bother...i guess they were not noticed or understood.
even though it's meant as an argument in favour of globalization, it comes off as giving unbiased knowledge most of the time.
...but it does bring a few facts about the reality of trump and his campaign, right at the end, that part, as i've noticed from the comments, some of the people did not wish to accept, so they taxed the rating...but facts are still facts. if you're a trump supporter, i can tell you now, you will not like to hear you were manipulated (maybe skip the last chapter?), so you might as well skip and read something which gives you positive reinforcement on things you like, a go-to classic...and my criticism on all the ones who decided to call this book bad on unethical grounds. :)
it's unethical to tax great work because you don't like to be criticised...but i also found it funny that other things did not bother...i guess they were not noticed or understood.
July 17, 2017
This is a good book on the 'state of the world' and why, for all predictions on the contrary, history has not ended. The book covers a lot of ground and is an interesting read, but I found it perhaps a bit disjointed - lots of impressive nuggets but loosely bound together- and hence, the 4, rather than 5, stars.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews