Thirty years ago, the world was concerned about the prospects of the burgeoning world economy and the ability of corporate bodies to act responsibly. In the foregoing, the world observed the necessity to have measures in place to regulate organizations at an international scale. Today, the concerns in the world have shifted as the rate of international trade has decreased tremendously. In fact, the volume of international trade fell by the largest margin in the years following the 2008 financial crisis. The crisis in itself resulted in a significant shrink in the volume of international trade with immediate recovery in the subsequent years. Today, any chances of the global trade hitting such levels as the ones attained in 2007 are treated with skepticism. The rise in trade had increased from a 1980 figure of $500 billion to a 2007 figure of $11.8 trillion (James & James, 2009, p. 38). In the three decades period immediately prior to the financial crash, international trade grew at rates higher than the world economy. In contrast, the period after 2011 has recorded significantly slower growth in international trade. In essence, therefore, the world is witnessing a post-peak period of globalization.

The current globalization is not the first to peak and eventually fall in world’s history. The first one started immediately after the end of the Civil war in the US in 1865 and resulted in free trade and unhindered flow of capital across the globe. During this time of peak globalization, the world wallowed in similar thoughts of an unlimited peak in international trade. In fact, the thoughts of an end to the concept of economic globalization then appeared to be inexorable and inevitable. Leaders prepared their followers for an ever-increasing interconnectedness of the world in which competition would be encouraged. However, the first era of globalization came to a sudden halt with the onset of World War I (Weber & Pickering, 2011, p. 68). Eventually, international markets stalled and growth in international trade shrank to its lowest. Today, the world is witnessing similar trends, albeit in the absence of war. Although the current shrink in international growth is not characterized by a world war, it sure depicts the signs of a collapsing globalization. It is likely therefore that the peak of globalization was observed in 2007 and that the current gains in international trade are only but kicks of a dying horse.

Despite the signs witnessed in recent times, the answer to the question of globalization’s peak is not straightforward. The revolution that has spurred the process of globalization for the past three decades is sure to continue in the foreseeable future. Aspects of globalization such as cheaper and effective communication are sure to continue. The exchange of scientific knowledge, information and talent are also bound to increase thus improving corporate operations at the international arena. However, the continuity of these features is likely to be dimmed by the emergence of new barriers sparked by the evidence of globalization having attained its peak (Curtis, 2009, p. 429). Over the past few years, governments have relaxed in their bid to have efficient rules that guarantee the institutional foundations of globalization. In the United States, for instance, there is concern that the citizens are losing jobs to the Chinese leading to suggestions against globalization. Even if globalization has not already peaked, the signs being witnessed indicate the unfolding of events in the future. Although globalization may continue, it will only exist in the form of internationalization through cross-border exchange of resources (Abdel, 2007, p. 103).

The inefficiency of international institutions in curbing the flouting of free trade regulations is a positive sign of the peak of globalization. Regional agreements, signed in the past, are not being implemented fully leading to suggestions of a lack of political goodwill (Prasad et al., 2005, p. 215). Organizations such as the WTO have reached their zenith with imperfect enforcement rules. Although the rulings given are deemed to be fair, the organization has no capacity to implement penalties arising from violations. Instead, it leaves the aggrieved country to initiate WTO-sanctioned tariffs on the culprit. However, there are problems when the country violating the rules is bigger than the aggrieved country such as the case of the EU or the US. Following these unfolding, countries are now in favor of bilateral and regional agreements as opposed to the cumbersome multilateral agreements (House, 2007, p. 26). In fact, it is reported that more than 260 bilateral agreements have been signed in the last ten years, a figure that has doubled within that time.

Still, the breakdown in talks between developing and developed countries is a sign of an end to globalization. Poor developing countries are becoming more aware of the developed countries’ tendency to sign agreements in their favor at the expense of the poor countries. The lack of constructive direction on the part of developed countries such as the US further complicates the equation (Rodrik, 2007, p. 42). Today, most developing countries do not renew their agreements with the US or the EU after they have expired. The reason for this outcome is the feeling that the developed world is after a larger market access while they restrict their home markets. Moreover, there is increased tension over free movement of people and labor. Countries have more regulations curbing the entry of people into their countries. The small number of people that migrated from Europe to the US cannot be compared to the large horde of Europeans that entered the US in the first era of globalization. The EU is highly pessimistic about the idea of assimilating new immigrants from African and Arabic countries.

The energy market is another aspect that is effective in the assessment of globalization. Oil’s importance in the world has plummeted in the past century propelling it into the position of a global commodity (Leigh, 2008, p. 48). In fact, there are suggestions that an end to the trade of oil would result in an end to the global market. Sadly, the oil market is undergoing radical changes that could point to the possibility of the unfathomable. All countries involved in the oil market have changed tact in a bid to suit their needs. Governments in countries that have the commodity have increased their control over its production. Today, the extraction of oil is rarely done by foreign companies but is a reserve of the national governments. In Russia, the government no longer contracts foreign corporations to harvest its oils but relies on homegrown companies to do the extraction (Robb, 2007, p. 61). These attempts to take control of the commodity are signs of the end to come.

On the other side is a set of countries that do not have oil production within their borders. These countries depend on oil imports for the sustenance of their energy requirements. In the past, the demand for energy within a country dictated the amount of oil imported into the country. Today, strategies have changed as countries race to acquire as much oil as possible even when there is no demand (Smeral, 1998, p. 380). These steps are all aimed at cushioning the oil importing countries from any potential disruption in the supply of the commodity. The US, despite having huge oil reserves, imports huge volumes of the commodity, perhaps in a bid to use it when it is exhausted. China, on the other hand, has increased its drive to attain stakes in oil production abroad. These situations point to a preparation of the countries for times when oil will be harder to find. Essentially, therefore, the signs indicate a likely world recession in the near future.

Another sign of the peak of globalization and its eventual dip is the existence of two visions among different countries. In fact, the current decline in world trade should have been obvious given the difference in ideas regarding the contextualization of globalization (Ignatow, 2011, p. 747). While the European countries have envisioned globalization that is driven through institutionalized rules, the US employs its powers in striking bilateral deals to suit its interests. The European countries support the establishment of international organizations such as the WTO and the IMF and their empowerment to drive the globalization agenda. In this vision, the European countries suppose that a managed globalization would eventually supersede the powers of the US. In this regard, regulations have been enacted in support of the independence of these bodies. In contrast, the US is highly skeptical of global organizations and international rules. Instead, its preference is on specific trade agreements with other countries. Even when the US has offered support to international organizations, its interests come first and must never be compromised (Ostry & Spiegel, 2004, p. 371). The approach is exploitative as it places the US at the center at the expense of other countries.

The existence of two different sets of visions on globalization and the absence of harmony has resulted in the weakening of the concept over time. While the European Union allows unrestricted movement of capital investment within the member states, the world has no common rule agitating for the same. In fact, attempts by the IMF to initiate such rules of oversight were quashed by the US Congress after the financial crisis. The practice of capital movement is different among the different regions of the world. Different regions have different mechanisms and regulations either in support of against the flow of capital within the neighboring states (O’Rourke, 2001, p. 42). International organizations are in fear of negative ramifications on the part of developing countries when they liberalize their foreign capital regulations.

The growth of public skepticism is another pointer to the decline in the concept of globalization over time. Also, there is a general feeling that the concept of globalization is beneficial to some while being disadvantageous to others (Kraemer et al., 2005, p. 328). There is an uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization leading to the erection of regulations aimed at cushioning the population in different countries. A perfect example would be the rush to enact laws in both China and the US amidst speculations of exploitation. The politics within trading partner countries have stalled the embracement of cross-border trade. The prospects of globalization resulting in the loss of livelihoods for the local people make it unfavorable in most situations (Abdel & Segal, 2007, p. 103). Even when the overall profit is increased by globalization, the share appropriated to the local community is diminished as more funds travel across the border.

In addition to the uproar regarding the benefits of globalization, the commitment of different countries to the free flow of goods has faltered in recent years. In countries such as China, foreign investors are restricted from investing in certain sectors of the economy such as real estate and communications. In other countries, investments in local companies are receiving greater scrutiny for fear of exporting jobs to their home countries. Across the world, there is increased gap between the rich and the poor owing to in part the consequences of globalization (Muhammad et al, 2011, p. 23). Countries have consequently put up measures to address the issues resulting to a dip in the process of globalization. The changes witnessed in these countries with regard to the pessimism about globalization point to a process that is on a slow death.

In conclusion, despite all signs pointing towards the death of globalization, there is hope that the process can be sustained. Indeed, the process is not actually dead despite the absence of an effective institutional framework. There is a chance that the current era of globalization will not follow the path of the first era that ended in 1914. However, the faults within the existing institutions such as WTO make it harder to realize this goal. International corporations should brace for tough times in the global market owing to increased skepticism. This paper finds compelling reasons to believe that 2007 was the peak of globalization and that subsequent years are its ailing stage. Eventually, the concept will dip just like it did in the first era.

References

Abdelal, R. and Segal, A., 2007. Has globalization passed its peak. Foreign Aff., 86, p.103.

Curtis, F., 2009. Peak globalization: Climate change, oil depletion and global trade. Ecological     Economics, 69(2), pp.427-434.

Howse, R., 2007. End of Globalization Debate: A Review Essay.

Ignatow, G., 2011. What has globalization done to developing countries?. International Sociology, 26(6), pp.746-768.

James, H. and James, H., 2009. The end of globalization: lessons from the Great Depression. Harvard University Press.

Kraemer, K.L., Gibbs, J. and Dedrick, J., 2005. Impacts of globalization on e-commerce use and firm performance: a cross-country investigation. The Information Society, 21(5), pp.323-340.

Leigh, J., 2008. Beyond peak oil in post globalization civilization clash. The Open Geography       Journal, 1(1).

Muhammad, A.C., Faheem, M.A., Dost, M.K.B. and Abdullah, I., 2011. Globalization and its impacts on the world economic development. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(23).

O’Rourke, K.H., 2001. Globalization and inequality: historical trends (No. w8339). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ostry, A.S. and Spiegel, J.M., 2004. Labor markets and employment insecurity: Impacts of globalization on service and healthcare-sector workforces. International Journal of occupational and environmental health, 10(4), pp.368-374.

Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., Wei, S.J. and Kose, M.A., 2005. Effects of financial globalization on developing countries: some empirical evidence. In India’s and China’s Recent Experience with Reform and Growth (pp. 201-228). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Robb, J., 2007. Brave new war: The next stage of terrorism and the end of globalization. John Wiley & Sons.

Rodrik, D., 2007. Has globalization gone too far?. California Management Review, 39(3), pp.29-53.

Rodrik, D., 2013. The perils of premature deindustrialization. Project Syndicate.

Smeral, E., 1998. The impact of globalization on small and medium enterprises: new challenges for tourism policies in European countries. Tourism management, 19(4), pp.371-380.

Weber, L. and Pickering, S., 2011. Globalization and borders: death at the global frontier.             Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.