Revision summary
Globalisation meant deep cross-border production and GATT/WTO-style rules that treated efficiency as first. Deglobalisation names tariffs, sanctions, pandemic reshoring and U.S.–China tech security. The WTO’s weakness and regional rewrites such as USMCA show politics back in trade. Trade and data still move; regionalisation is not 1930s autarky. Comment: hyper-globalisation is being displaced; a closed world is not the completed fact.
Model answer
Introduction
Globalisation after the 1990s meant deeper cross-border flows of goods, capital, data and production, under rules associated with the World Trade Organization and with the spirit of GATT. The claim that deglobalisation is displacing globalisation says those flows are now shrinking or being re-routed by politics. The comment should agree in part. A thicker border is real. A closed world is not yet the fact.
Body
What globalisation was
It was not only more trade. It was production networks, container shipping, multinational firms, and a legal bet that most-favoured-nation treatment and bound tariffs would keep politics off the dock. Wallerstein would say it was the latest deepening of a long world-economy. Liberal institutionalists would say it was regimes lowering transaction costs. For two decades after 1995 that description fitted the data better than a 1930s picture.
What deglobalisation names
COVID-19 exposed single-point supply failure. The United States–China strategic contest turned semiconductors, telecom and critical minerals into security goods. Tariffs returned as ordinary tools, including under the Trump administration and in later industrial policy on both sides of the Pacific. Sanctions after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weaponised finance, energy and technology. The WTO dispute system, treated in 4(b), no longer polices the largest players. Firms speak of friend-shoring, China-plus-one, and national industrial policy. NAFTA’s replacement by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, treated in 2(c), is a regional rewrite of openness, not an expansion of global multilateralism.
This is displacement in the sense that efficiency is no longer the first rule. Security, labour politics and great-power rivalry now sit in the trade ministry.
Comment
Displacement is not a full reversal. Trade-to-output ratios have wobbled rather than collapsed to 1970. Digital services, ideas and capital still move. Regional blocs — the European Union, USMCA, RCEP — are re-globalisation at a smaller scale, or regionalisation, not autarky. India still seeks markets and supply-chain roles even while it defends food stocks and digital policy space at the WTO.
The accurate comment is that hyper-globalisation of the 1990s–2000s is being displaced by managed, securitised interdependence. Deglobalisation as a slogan overstates autarky. As a description of the death of naive openness, it is fair.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD G[1990s globalisation] --> D[Securitised trade] D --> T[Tariffs sanctions friend-shoring] D --> R[Regional blocs] R -.not full autarky.-> W[Still cross-border flows]
Conclusion
Tariffs, sanctions, pandemic shocks and strategic industry policy have pushed against the old globalisation. They have not ended cross-border production. Deglobalisation is displacing the unpolitical version of globalisation. It is not replacing it with a world of closed states.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What are the distinctive features of the post-modern state in the advanced capitalist economies? Analyse.
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Is deglobalisation the same as protectionism?
Protectionism is one tool. Deglobalisation also includes export controls, investment screening and industrial subsidies.
-
Did COVID cause it?
The pandemic accelerated it. The U.S.–China contest and the WTO appellate crisis were already in motion.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q1(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime indicate its intentions for the realization of a Greater Russia on the lines of the Soviet era. Comment. -
2024 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
What were the limitations of NAFTA? How did its replacement by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement counter them? Explain. -
2024 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
The return of trade barriers and economic sanctions has diminished the spirit of GATT. In this context, discuss the factors contributing to the decline of WTO in recent times. -
2024 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Do you agree with the view that the EU has thus far proved to be the most successful experiment in the regional integration processes? Account for its successes and also some of the recent challenges that it is faced with. -
2024 · Q5(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the rationale behind replacing the "Asia-Pacific" strategy with the new term "Indo-Pacific" strategy. -
2024 · Q7(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
"India and USA have become such strong strategic partners that they need not become formal allies." Comment. -
2023 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the crucial functions of empirical political theory in Comparative Politics? -
2023 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the difficulties faced by a political theorist in comparing the States?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the interpretive approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The interpretive approach studies political action as meaning in context, following Weber’s verstehen and later cultural and linguistic turns. It replies to behaviouralism’s search for covering laws by asking how votes, nations and authority are understood locally. Thick description, ethnography and discourse analysis are typical tools. It explains legitimacy, nationalism and everyday state practice that a constitution or a class map alone cannot supply. Limits are relativism, weak generalisation, and neglect of material and institutional constraint if used alone.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the central tenets of the World-Systems Theory.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Wallerstein’s unit is the capitalist world-economy since the long sixteenth century, not the isolated nation-state. Core, semi-periphery and periphery form a durable three-tier division of labour. Unequal exchange and strong/weak states move surplus toward the core. The theory rejects modernisation’s national ladder and differs from Waltz’s interstate anarchy as first cause. Limits include economic determinism and underplaying state autonomy and culture; mobility exists but hierarchy persists.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime indicate its intentions for the realization of a Greater Russia on the lines of the Soviet era. Comment.
Comparative Politics
Russia’s wars in Georgia and Ukraine, plus pressure on Belarus and nuclear signalling, show expansionist intent in the post-Soviet space. The Greater Russia story denies full independence of neighbours, especially Ukraine. The Soviet analogy fits geography of control more than ideology: today’s regime is nationalist and oligarchic, not a communist world-system. Morgenthau and Waltz explain power and structure; they do not make the war merely defensive. Comment: accept expansionism; reject a simple USSR restoration.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.