Introduction
Nationalism as a political ideology is not only a complex, but also a multidimensional conception that involves a collective and shared identification with one’s nation. The concept of nationalism holds that a territory or nation should govern itself independently with self determination being the driving force (Mayda and Rodrik, 2005, p. 1397). The process of creating a national identity that is anchored on shared characteristics such as language, race and mostly importantly culture among others furthers the concept of patriotism as through collective achievements, a sense of belonging and pride is created. Many scholars have observed that nationalism in its multidimensional form has a subjective aspect to it. Members of a given nation often feel a sense of unity and cohesion which in certain situations goes further than class disproportional ties and disparities (Mayda and Rodrik, 2005, p. 395). In the nationalists’ concepts of what defines nationalism, a nation is a special sorority that holds an honored and privileged position in one way or the other in the world. Nonetheless, Charen (2017) argues that nationalism that continues to define the world is not in any way an improved or upgraded version of patriotism, but rather, it is a different and a more disparaging animal. She further maintains that is very hard to think of a proponent of nationalism who does not misrepresent patriotism and its ideals into something belligerent and aggressive; be it towards foreign challengers, domestic minorities or even both. The rise of nationalism across many parts of the world carries a promise of a better world while at the same time posing serious threats to the social, political and economic structures and foundations that hold the global world together (Charen, 2017; Sbragia 2010, p. 369). This paper seeks to critically analyze and examine the impacts of the ever-rising spirit of nationalism on global economic relationships between countries. With the focus on the United States of America under the leadership of president Donald Trump, this paper goes ahead to explore the contentious and controversial assertion that a rise nationalism will unravel the benefits of closer economic relationships between countries.
The Rise of Nationalism in Recent Elections
All societies in the world today in one way or the other draw on nationalism and its ideals to define relations amongst its members and the outside world. However, the wave of authoritarianism and nationalism in the recent years has rocked America and Europe who are the key players in global economy. Countries and the entire globe is fast shifting from the traditional civic nationalism to what can be termed as dangerous blood and soil, ethnic nationalism (League of nationalists; Global politics, 2016, p.51). Positive patriotism that characterized the universal civic nationalism is slowly undergoing mutations to become negative nationalism where minorities are disregarded and distrusted. Ethically based form on nationalism is on the rise; where in developed democracies according to the economist is a potential vote-winner.
The unexpected rise of President Trump within the Republican Party and winning of the hotly contested presidential race, after convincing more than 61 million to vote for him is an indication of the unstoppable nature of nationalism. President Trump promised to “Make American Great Again” by building a wall along the Mexican border, extradite illegal immigrants who had moved into the country illegally, and create more jobs among other pledges. Similarly, the French people compared to others are surprisingly opposing globalization and do not see the benefit of international trade with most of them thinking that immigrants do not have any positive effect to their country (Sbragia 2010, p. 377). The decision by Britons to exit the European Union under the captainship of Nigel Farage shows that the need to associate with outsiders is dying off because of the rise of nationalism (League of nationalists; Global politics, 2016, p. 51). A large group of Britons felt that the membership of EU subjected their country to so many rules whose returns were insignificant although the costs were huge. This nationalistic thinking is fueling the dramatic success of the Austrian right wing party. Most European countries are out to introduce armed detention and militarized camps to keep refugees, Turkey is turning into an authoritarian state with its relationship with other EU member states deteriorating day in day out, and the Germany anti-immigrant platforms have steadily been increasing. India on the other hand is on the radar for the emergent of radical groups who have been seen criticizing the government for being too soft with Muslims are those who have been seen to harm cows, which are sacred to the Hindu religion (“League of nationalists; Global politics”, 2016, p. 51). The new concept of nationalism is spreading faster than anyone can contain with the consequences being visibly tragic. Global economy is under threats with every nation thinking about its own interests and benefits rather than creating peaceful world where international trade can flourish (“League of nationalists; Global politics”, 2016, p. 51).
Nationalism as a Demagogue’s Patriotism
Charen (2017) in her debate on National Review asserts the fact that nationalism can be looked at as patriotism of a demagogue. She insists that demagogues are divided into two; those of the right and left where both groups play upon natural and even compassionate intuitions for their own intentions and purposes. Demagogues of the left tend to water down the beauty and love for impartiality and justice into a yearning to scapegoat others. An example of this is Bernie Sanders who during his campaigns did not just appeal to people’s desire for fairness and parity, but he also encouraged them to believe that their situation was as a result of other rich people’s undoing. He endeavors to make people believe that poverty is as a result of a few rich individuals who have taken and siphoned the share of those who are poor.
Conversely, demagogues of the right who can also be termed as nationalists harbor the belief that the troubles and problems that befall members of an nation are as result of immigrant who take away jobs, resources and opportunities from them. This ideology and belief is undoubtedly not natural love for one’s country or home and according to Charen (2017), contrary to the founding ideals of America, tantamount to scapegoating. President Trump deepens the people’s appreciation of the American history and its institutions and according to Charen, he portrays strutting nationalism courtesy of his strong belief of “America first” even though the display of true patriotism in him is little. The love for his country, which he is also privileged to lead, is little in the sense that he has not familiarized himself with the very basics that characterize the American system (League of nationalists; Global politics, 2016, p. 51).
Nationalistic Attitude towards Immigration
Research that has been aimed at finding out the relationship between national identity and xenophobia has suggested that the differences in the extent of xenophobia, which is as a result of the majority’s attitude towards immigrants or foreigners, is strongly associated with the nature of national identity within a particular society (O’rourke and Sinnott, 2006, p. 840). This means that the logic of the relationship between the majority and newcomers is to be found in the way different societies are tailored and organized, ranging from ethnic to multicultural societies (“The veterans; France’s Republican primary”, 2016, p. 43). Taking national identity as a social phenomenon that is expressed at a personal level with varying degree of emphasis on either the ethnic or civic bases of national identity by members of a nation, the ethnic national identity, which is the rising form of nationalism results in the most unfavorable perceptions towards immigrants resulting in much higher rates of xenophobia.
According to an article “League of nationalists; Global politics” (2016, p. 51), by 2010, the population of foreign-born people in the United States had reached 40 million from 10 million in 2000. Britain on the other hand recorded an increase in the population of foreigners moving into the country from an initial figure of 2.9 million to 7.5 million in 2011. Immigration has been seen as one of the ways through which movement of labor and capital (MPL) is enabled between countries; a move that seeks to unify development and economic revolution (Van Dijk 2000, p. 96). However, the rise of ethnic based nationalism has been on the rise with nationalists and the majority embracing anti-immigrant attitudes. Close to 77% of people in France believe that immigration which is as a result of globalization has not helped their country in any way (“The veterans; France’s Republican primary”, 2016, p. 43). The Alternative for Germany is a fast rising wing that seeks to lock out immigrants from entering Germany because of perceived negative effects foreigners continue to cause in the country. In spite of the growing pressure by nations to secure their borders and territories from immigrants, Canada is one of the few countries that is still open and receptive to immigrants admitting up to 321,000 immigrants in 2016 (“The last liberals; Canada”, 2016, p. 21).
Some of the most multicultural countries in the world such as the United States were quick to embrace the idea of building a wall at the Mexican border aimed at controlling and if possible stopping illegal immigration of people into the country (“League of nationalists; Global politics”, 2016, p. 51). Additionally, more than 61 million people who voted for Mr. Trump did not see a problem with his policy of deporting foreigners who had settled in the country illegally and his negative perception of the Muslim community. In Britain, anger and discontentment for immigration helped those who were against the country being a member of the European Union in convincing its citizens to vote it out of the organization. For the case of Israel, which is a multiethnic society, immigration has been reduced to discrimination and favoritism where Jews are granted citizenship immediately they move into the country thus being entitled to all privileges whereas the natives who are Arabs (Palestinians) are marginalized upon (“League of nationalists; Global politics” 2016, p. 51).
The nationalistic attitude towards immigration is detrimental and threatens the close social, political and economic relationships that have been established between countries. The fear of competition for resources, privileges and opportunities with foreigners has been seen as one of the major causes of xenophobia and ethnic conflict between native majority and immigrants. Denyer notes that a new era of nationalism in china and around the world when reforms are slowly but steadily happening may not necessarily mean that doors are opening for foreign investment (2015, p.11). Governments are becoming more and more nationalistic with the adoption of protectionist approach to policy and policymaking.
Nationalistic Attitude towards Businesses and Trade Agreements
The conviction by economists since the time of Adam and Smith that free trade between people, nations, and continents benefits those taking part is slowly dying off with courtesy of organized oppositions and protests against Free trade in certain parts of the world (Brookshire 2017, p. 24). One such protests against free trade occurred in Seattle in 1999, an indication that non-economists are not anywhere close to agreeing with the postulation and perceived benefits of free trade. Nationalism is undoubtedly at the center of resentments and disagreements between lay people and economists on what global business and free trade can potentially put on the table.
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was perceived as one of the largest regional trade agreement or rather idea that would have set new standards in trade and investment between the United States, Canada and many other countries that rim the pacific (Granville 2015, p. 11; Germanos 2016, p.13). However, both the Republican and the Democrats’ nominees disregarded the agreement, which was one of the achievements of President Obama’s administration, during the presidential campaigns claiming that it would lead to massive loss of the nation’s jobs overseas. With the election of Mr. Donald Trump as president, the deal came to its imminent death when he signed a statement to formally abandon the agreement. According to Germanos (2016, p.13), nationalists looked at the TPP as a giveaway to business which would encourage export to low wage nations at the expense of USA, limit competition, and increase prices on pharmaceuticals.
The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) has been termed by President Trump as the worst trade deal in history and plans to have the agreement torn continues to loom. The free trade area incorporates Canada, Mexico, and USA although it is speculated to have benefited Mexico more than any of the countries. Exports to Mexico from the united states by 2015 were nearly 470% compared to the time when NAFTA had not been signed into law in 1993 (Brookshire 2017, p. 31). NAFTA has since remained a target for nationalists who hold that the agreement does not serve the American interests with President Trump saying that the deal has not only shifted the US manufacturing industry but also thousands of jobs to Mexico promising to renegotiate or pull out of it.
The European Union has seen the rise of nationalism that threatens to trump the unity and integration between member countries (Sbragia 2010, p. 377). In 2005, France and the Dutch who are key players in the union had their citizens vote to rebuff a proposed European constitution in a referendum. The exit of Britain from the union through a referendum shows that citizens are no longer seeing the benefit of foreign corporations, involvements and trade. The slowed down growth and development of economy in the entire Europe continues to hurt the European Union with the member states pushing to devolve power from the union to their respective nations (Toshkov and Kortenska, 2015, p. 917). The rise of nationalism and anti-establishment parties within individual member states undermines elementary EU policy. The desire to create and maintain a powerful figure and national; identity at international platforms is driving nationalism to higher scales causing turbulence within Unions, EU being one of them.
Nationalistic attitude towards stock exchange and exchange rates
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has in the recent years warned politicians, leaders, regulators and nations against taking nationalist stance when it comes to financial markets. This is because investments should be allowed to flow freely and easily across borders into places where it can fetch the best returns (Granville 2015, p.11). Nationalism is one of the barriers that stock exchange seeks to overcome since it advocates for ring-fencing of capital markets. This is achieved through the adoption of protectionists’ policies that impair cross border activities.
Nationalist sentiments that seek to preserve nations’ stock exchange have been witnessed in the United States, Germany and France following the prospect of a possible merger between New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Deutsche Boerse (Valiante 2011, p. 211). The move raised concerns about not only the prospective name of the new company that would be formed, but also the loss of jobs; which are ultimately against the move. The Australian government in 2016 blocked the move by a local exchange company called ASX Ltd. to amalgamate with Singapore Exchange operator (Valiante 2011, p. 211). The reason behind the move by the government was that a country had the mandate to maintain control and power over domestic trade-settling systems. Nationalism down regulates the free movement of capital and investments across borders because every nation seeks to maintain its identity and ability to control its affairs. This in the long-run hurts economic relationship between countries.
Globalization, its Benefits, and Disadvantages
Globalization is regarded as the process through which business that entails exchange of goods, services, expertise, acquaintance and capital becomes progressively more interconnected (Sbragia 2010, p. 371). As Collins connotes (2015), the concept of globalization affects businesses, societies, environments, economies and almost all corporations in the world have felt the effects of globalization. In a world where technology is evolving fast and new methods of productions are invented daily, businesses need to understand the aspects that characterize the effects of globalization in order to adapt effectively to the changes that come as its result.
The benefits of globalization are immense, and one such country that has reaped heavily from it is the United States of America (Sbragia 2010, p. 379). Most companies in the US have risen to become top players in the world dominating the global market place courtesy of globalization. Consumers from the US and other nations get an opportunity to enjoy low and affordable prices for goods and services from global producers with low rates of inflation. This means that globalization helps to increase the real value of people’s incomes. Additionally, the economy of America has grown faster than any other developed economy in the world with the per capita GDP nearly doubling by the year 2007 in the wake of globalization (Collins 2015). Nations in the world have witnessed a drop in unemployment with the US standing at 4.4%, a figure about half the rate in most European economies. Globalization increases competition meaning that the quality of goods and services reaching the consumers is better and refined thus enhancing innovation.
In spite of its numerous benefits, globalization decreases environmental integrity since corporation from developed countries take advantage of weak regulations in developing countries (Collins 2015). Globalization also increases the availability of jobs both skilled and non-skilled, which leads to corporation seeking for cheap labor in order to maximize on their profits thus causing imbalanced economic growth. This is evident with America and Mexico where the availability of cheap labor in Mexico has influenced corporations to relocate for the US to Mexico; a move that eats into the economy of USA and grows the economy of USA prompting nationalists to reconsider the profitability of NAFTA (Brookshire 2017, p. 59). Globalization threatens the growth of small scale industries since big corporation stiffly compete them taking them out of business. For example, in India, the bamboo furniture making industry has been chocked and faces extinction because of stiff competition of cheap plastic furniture (Topalova 2007, p. 301).
Conclusion
Even though the spread of nationalism is something that might not capture the thoughts of most people who see it as a usual occurrence, the repercussions are bitter and dire. Building of walls, promoting apprehension and xenophobia instead of compassion for immigrants, reconsidering membership in Unions that have been constituted to enhance cohesion such as the EU, putting disproportionate prominence on self-interest when it comes to trade, and blocking international partnership between companies from different countries only serve to create a less safe and unfriendly international community. The fact that President Trump sees nothing amiss with other nations such as Japan and South Korea constituting their own nuclear arsenals indicates that protecting other countries is not a priority to the United States anymore. The consistent rise in nationalism will indeed unravel the benefits accrued from cordial, close and amiable economic relationship between countries.
Bibliography
Brookshire, B. E., 2017. Building the trade wall to Mexico: What NAFTA, Brexit, and TPP Mean for the future of US Trade. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2910097
Charen, M., 2017. Patriotism not nationalism – Nationalism is not an enhanced version of patriotism, but a different and more destructive animal. National review, viewed 17 February 2017, <www.nationalreview.com/article/445004/national-review-nationalism-debate>
Collins, M., 2015. The pros and cons of globalization. Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-consof-globalization
Denyer, S., 2015. A nationalist china unsettles foreign companies. Washington Post, 11.
Germanos, A., 2016. Obama campaigns for pro-corporate TPP as opposition spreads. Green Left Weekly, no.1108, p.13.
Granville, K., 2015. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Explained. New York Times, 11.
“League of nationalists; Global politics”, 2016, The Economist, vol.421, no.9016, p. 51.
Mayda, A.M. and Rodrik, D., 2005. Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others? European Economic Review, vol.49, no.6, pp.1393-1430.
O’rourke, K.H. and Sinnott, R., 2006. The determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration. European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 22, no.4, pp.838-861.
Sbragia, A., 2010. The EU, the US, and trade policy: competitive interdependence in the management of globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, vol.17, no.3, pp.368-382.
“The last liberals; Canada”, 2016, The Economist, vol.421, no.9013, p. 22.
“The veterans; France’s Republican primary”, 2016, The Economist, vol.421, no.9016, p. 43.
Topalova, P., 2007. Trade liberalization, poverty and inequality: Evidence from Indian districts. In Globalization and poverty (pp. 291-336). University of Chicago Press.
Toshkov, D. and Kortenska, E., 2015. Does immigration undermine public support for integration in the European Union? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, vol.53, no.4, pp.910-925.
Valiante, D., 2011. NYSE Euronext-Deutsche Börse merger: Let the dance go on! Intereconomics, vol.46, no.4, pp.209-216.
Van Dijk, T.A., 2000. Ideologies, racism, discourse: Debates on immigration and ethnic issues. Comparative Perspectives on Racism, pp.91-116.
