Deglobalization: raw materials versus technology.
The transformation of geopolitical and geo-economic relations is gaining momentum. At the moment, everything is developing in such a way that we can confidently speak about the loss of the former influence by the conventional Western center of power. These processes are reflected in the growing popularity and use in the media and expert communities of such ideas and manners as discourses as deglobalization, multipolar world, islandization, technological sovereignty, fragmentation of the financial and trade-economic system, etc.
Centrifugal tracks.
In fact, the political and non-economic aspects (including sanctions) were only the result of more fundamental technical and economic reasons, which we will need to identify if we pretend to an in-depth analysis of the processes. Deglobalization began much earlier than it was widely talked about, and certainly not with the Ukrainian crisis or the "color revolutions" of the XXI century.
On the one hand, globalization has brought some positive changes to the development of the economy: over a billion people no longer live in poverty, many goods and services have become cheaper, and diversification has made the economy less risky.
On the other hand, there were problems. For example, integration processes has resulted in the emergence of cheap labor, which takes away jobs in rich countries and exacerbates social inequality. Dollarization has led to volatility in the currencies of developing countries, as foreign investors withdrew their funds at the first signs of instability.
With such trends, both rich and developing countries had their own good reasons for rejecting globalization in its previous form. As a result, we see that the US political forces insist on pursuing an industrial policy aimed at increasing subsidies for the domestic production of certain goods (especially strategic ones, such as chips and other components for the infrastructure of the digital economy). Tariffs on some goods have increased as well as restrictions on capital. Once being the main driver of globalization, the IMF now controls the movement of capital. At the same time, the rising dollar and interest rates put pressure on emerging markets, which makes them more skeptical of global markets and strive to form their own techno-economic blocks. Their time is coming.
At the same time, there is a high probability that the density of interconnections and the level of interdependence between countries in these blocks will be significantly higher than it was during globalization.
The impact of technological progress.
The first period within the framework of building such blocks can carry an increased burden on the economies of countries and reduce the well-being of the population. The effect of breaking old ties, reducing resources (investment and markets) for business scaling, new forms of protectionism (ban on technology exports) and a decrease in the pace of technology transfer will make themselves felt. At the same time, countries that withstand and build their technical and economic blocks will be able to experience not only an increase in economic well-being, but, most importantly, retain the political sovereignty and stability of their own society.
The supporting structure of the technical and economic blocks is technological sovereignty. Speaking about the general presentation of this concept, experts, as a rule, note two alternatives: either the independent development of key technologies, or a shift towards establishing reliable partnerships. For Belarus, as a country that, on the one hand, has retained its industrial potential, on the other hand, does not have an impressive investment resource and win-win access to global markets in the current conditions, in our opinion, a middle path between these alternatives is more appropriate.
The most active growth of globalization occurred in the period after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Over the past decade, the pace of globalization has slowed significantly, reaching its peak during the financial crisis of 2008. That year is a kind of starting point for Belarus, because not without the influence of the global trend of cost savings (global corporations were rapidly entering the era of automation, and the banking sector was under pressure from financial technologies), the amount of expenditures of the consolidated budget and state extra-budgetary funds began to decrease.
We will return to the financial crisis itself and finance in terms of their current role in deglobalization processes and creating an impetus for deeper regional integration within the framework of the EAEU, BRICS and SCO.
For now, it is worth dwelling on the powerful technological factor of deglobalization. For instance, the fundamental reason is scientific and technological progress, or rather, its impact on the reduction of global value chains. If earlier, in order to produce cheaper, global corporations had to move their production to countries with low wages, now with the development of technology and automation of production, activities that used to be carried out in different countries within the value chains can increasingly be provided in one place. This will enable companies to reduce logistics and supply chain management costs. The growth of competition at the global level will continue to push companies to optimize their own costs, including through the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). In fact, it will allow companies to more accurately predict demand, optimize inventories and effectively manage production processes. Personalized AI-based marketing will make it possible to better cover the individual needs of a nearby target audience, only after that to move on to meeting the far arc demands. Collectively, these factors are and will remain powerful incentives to reduce global value chains and weaken globalization itself.
The strengthening of the trend towards the multipolar world formation is already being actively voiced. So, in Nizhny Novgorod on June 10-11, during a meeting of BRICS foreign ministers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described this integration association as an actual global majority, attracting more and more countries.
This viewpoint is supported by a large number of experts and analysts who focus on the fragmentation of the world. The point of uncertainty remains mainly the type of configuration by which it will occur. Experts emphasize that there is already quite fierce competition for basic resources. And through them, there is a struggle for countries that will economically tend to cooperate more closely with one or another center of economic power.
Based on such theses, experts are currently interested in the question of how, for example, the SCO association is self-sufficient in terms of providing key commodities. In general, many studies and resulting forecasts are characterized by an overestimation of the importance of the raw material factor, based on the assumption that raw materials are the basis for the development of any industrial economy. It is noted that, on the one hand, technologies are superimposed on the raw material base and without it any innovations are dead. On the other hand, the availability of a full-fledged raw material base is a magnet for attracting new partners and enhancing one or another integration association. The third question is posed in terms of mechanisms for the exchange of technologies by the West or other developed countries for labor and raw materials.
Bet on own potential.
Given the end-to-end and systemic nature of new technologies, such a statement of the issue – the exchange of technologies for raw materials and workers – should be discarded in principle. For example, today we see bans on the export of technologies related to the creation of quantum computers and components for their development, which have been introduced by several Western countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and several European states. Exactly the same bans will be associated with artificial intelligence as a way of producing means of production. A tool that can "expand" the bottlenecks of the backlog, thereby offering affordable ways to obtain ideas, material, financial and technical resources to reduce the backlog and leap forward. The sale of even outdated models, provided that energy and data are available for their training, can break all the frames of the catching-up development of global capitalism, and our competitors will definitely not do this. It will also be more difficult to copy and set up own release than before, because these technologies are much more complex than the previous ones.
Raw material optimism is understandable, because, having impressive resources, in general, it is logical to conclude that resources are needed for production, and in this regard, Western elites cannot condemn their people to eating insects and fuel shortages. But the fact that the lack of fuel does not frighten Western politicians is clear, at least from the dynamics of the production of electric vehicles. Less obvious is the willingness to accept product restrictions and the limit of resources for production. But even here we see how translators of the ideas of global capitalism like Klaus Schwab talk about the need to prepare their population for the use of alternative cricket protein and increased taxes on natural livestock. Rare resources will be actively replaced by widely available ones as part of the production of new synthetic materials using the research potential of modern AI models. In order to enforce compliance with these directions in production and consumption within the framework of the technical and economic space available to them, ESG ratings invented by them will be used. Many of our experts think that these ratings relate to sustainable development and ecology. But upon closer examination, their true essence begins to show through.
Focusing on the practical actions and statements of Western politicians and understanding in this regard their unwillingness to a fair exchange of technologies for resources, there is only one conclusion: no talk about an exchange. It is necessary, counting only on oneself and friendly countries, to begin the path of technological sovereignty from the beginning, that is, from the scientific aspects of problems and technologies to their practical implementation, focusing mostly on system technologies, their applied effects and commercialization.
The opportunities from our country's participation in reputable regional integration associations can serve to strategically check the clock on this path, as well as create optimal conditions for the implementation of promising breakthrough projects. In this regard, in addition to the scientific and technical dimension, it is also important to note the economic, monetary and financial conditions of interaction, especially amid accelerating de-dollarization processes.