Is Past Prologue?

The collapse of the Doha multilateral trade negotiations. The rise of populist, anti-globalization political figures. It's not hard to be pessimistic about the future course of global integration. People today are considerably more anxious about the prospects of integration, no longer confident that globalization will deliver both prosperity and security. It seems like a long time ago that Tom Friedman heralded an age of peace via "golden arches," and Francis Fukuyama anticipated the universal embrace of liberal democracy and the end of man's ideological struggle. These utopian views stand in stark contrast to today's narratives of a world askew, looking less like "the end of history" and more like a history of the end.

Despite the discontinuities, there is much to be learned from historical precedent. The 1990s was not the first age of capitalist explosion or technological transformation. Between 1870 and 1914, the world also witnessed unprecedented global integration, spurred by scientific innovation. During this time, electric power replaced steam, telephone use spread rapidly, Model T Fords with internal combustion engines rolled off a mass production assembly line. Increased liquidity and rapid movement of foreign exchange, a merging of domestic markets, and the rise of multinational banks connected European financial hubs to individuals in virtually every corner of the world.

Just as the era of globalization has important historical roots, so does today's backlash against it. Global integration and capitalism of the late 19th century caused a sense of public disorientation and isolation. Within a generation, there was a transformation in the way people worked, lived and communicated. Such massive changes led to deep unrest, prompting the need for social safety valves. While some European countries experimented with socialist or communist ideologies, America's dispossessed were given shelter in legislative and regulatory prescriptions and found a voice through social activists such as Upton Sinclair and Jane Addams, and politicians like Theodore Roosevelt. These leaders spearheaded progressive measures, thus allowing the United States to develop the world's leading free-enterprise-based economy.

What the world needs now is a new progressive era. Free markets and open borders generate the benefits of economic expansion and higher living standards, but at the same time, leave casualties in their wake. The private sector is the engine of growth, but it must also facilitate a new international social order. The 21st century can usher in an era of good global citizenship where principles of "conscious capitalism" are central to corporate strategy. But perhaps most pressing is the need for a new international paradigm to address the disparities between what Harvard's Dani Rodrik dubs the "mobile minority" and the "immobile majority." For all the talk about global-ism, there remains a glaring asymmetry between the opportunities and the threats we face and the approach we take to address them.

History does offer direction. At the turn of the century a progressive approach balancing growth and social conscience emerged to heal a troubled nation. Today, a similar global approach is needed to extend the benefits of integration more broadly. To do less, risks once again the reversals of fortune witnessed as the guns of August brought globalization's last golden era to a premature end.

Paul A. Laudicina is A.T. Kearney's newly elected managing officer and chairman of the board. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

{jcomments on}