Last night the Trinity Philosophical Society (the Phil) hosted what one judge deemed to be the “best performance heard in this chamber”, the competitive Student Economic Review (SER) Debate featuring Trinity versus Yale. The motion was controversial and painfully relevant: This House Believes That Globalisation is Doomed to Fail.
Clare Elwell of the Phil kicked off the debate for proposition. In her extremely fast-paced speech, she proposed the main points for why globalisation is doomed to fail: it inherently creates negative circumstances and it continues to further its own destruction. She argued that globalisation allows corporations to take advantage of loopholes and use lawyers to stay on top while consumers stay on the bottom, citing Apple’s avoidance of tax payment in Ireland as an example. Elwell maintained that multi-nationalist trade has negative effects on immigration and used the example of China’s growing economic power and leverage over smaller island countries to illustrate how these countries lose hegemony and political say and experience a decline in human rights. Elwell referenced the United States and President Donald Trump’s policies – beginning a US-centric theme that would be sustained throughout the debate – arguing that Trump’s over-nationalisation is isolating itself from its closest allies and his efforts to renegotiate NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) will severely hinder globalisation’s progress. “Americans no longer believe that they need things like immigration”, she argued, and the US is experiencing the negative impacts of divide in the country and status quo.
“Trump is trying to make America into a manufacturing nation again” – Elwell cites the car companies of the 1940s in her hometown of Detroit and the city’s current “shambles, homelessness and extreme poverty” as an example that progress is circular and innovation is not sustainable. She stated that the stagnation of wages with the great divide between the one and ninety-nine percent results in people realising their place in the money hierarchy and rising up. Elwell argues that overall progress is becoming circular and these cyclical patterns of downward spirals indicates in her view that globalisation is doomed to fail.
Shirley Kuang, the first speaker for Yale, based her opposition to the motion on a rebuttal against Elwell. She emphasised that it is important to consider the effects of globalisation in the long term, and criticized the attitude that the “demise of Trumpism will mean the demise of globalisation”. Kuang argued that globalisation is broader than Trump and Brexit: it is “a history of the exchange of markets, goods, ideas and knowledge across countries”, and brings benefits economically and globally. She argued that thinking about the social effects of globalisation from an emotional standpoint, when emotions are very short term, is not relevant to whether globalisation is effective in the long term. Kuang argued that the inequality created by globalisation is not necessarily a bad thing— referring to the 650 million people lifted out of poverty in China she emphasised that globalisation has raised economic standards across the world despite the fact that standards of living are unequal on a global scale.
“Sure, things are unequal, but that doesn’t mean people’s lives are getting worse”, Kuang said, stating that redistributive policies and education are more important for long term benefit. She argued we must not reduce a globalised economy to one example or trade deal, such as the failure of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), and instead must acknowledge how globalisation facilitates increased profits and allows countries to integrate both horizontally and vertically. In response to a Point of Information (POI) concerning the rise of protection rates, Kuang conceded that maybe there would be some backlash in terms of protectionism, but the “unreliable logic of protectionism doesn’t stand against the logic of globalisation”. She stated that in the United States and developed countries there is a political push against protectionism that will allow globalisation to develop, especially considering wages and working conditions are lifted in globalised countries and incomes in these countries are ten percent higher than in those that are more isolationist.
Christopher Costigan rebutted on behalf of Trinity to say that the opposition was so far missing the point of the debate about whether globalisation is going to fail, maintaining that the discussion should be focusing on if globalisation will succeed, not how. Costigan offered his reasons why he begged to propose—he contended that people only inherently care about themselves, their families and their communities, and “certain communities who have built their entire lives over a certain industry cannot compete with globalised competition”. He argued that nobody sees tangibly how globalisation allows jobs to come in on the ground, and that those who hear “Oh, well your tires will be cheaper!” just don’t care. Costigan evaluated how state behavior inherently undermines globalisation: it may make states richer, but those who are most hurt never feel the benefit, such as the manufacturing, textiles, and energy industries.
He argued states are focused on growth and profit, not workers rights, and don’t fairly distribute the wealth to those most vulnerable. Costigan brought a refreshing point to the debate: it is the concept of a nation state that makes globalisation so difficult—“you are conditioned through the education system that the state is the most important thing to you: loyalty to your state and not those who are different to you”. When news of jobs going to globalisation reach the public, Costigan argued “you don’t want to believe the nuanced economic analyses when you are that individual on the ground”, and thus globalisation will ultimately fail because “as a mantra, people always want to believe”.
Furthermore, Costigan argued that this debate was essentially one of “the forces of truth against the forces of deceit”, of those who paint globalisation as wealth against those who must suffer the consequences. Costigan referenced the rise of populism as a political backlash against globalisation, for the “liberal elite are accused of sneering at the common man” and thus the populists convince the public to vote for them. Thus Costigan maintained that globalisation is doomed to fail because inevitably people will feel disenfranchised from a system that says the trajectory is good and labels it progress, despite producing no tangible results at an individual level.
In rebuttal, Yale brought forward their second speaker, Henry Zhang. Zhang identified an important methodological problem concerning the debate so far: “the question is descriptive, is causal, and we are the only team to offer a definition” for globalisation. He argued specific case studies as presented by the Phil debate team are insufficient to show why globalisation is inherently the cause of the problem in each case, and described this “reckless attributional causality” as dangerous for the proposition’s position. Zhang focused primarily on the economics of the debate, over social and political points, like the previous speakers. He argued that protectionist regimes exist in the first place, and that those in favour of the motion did not go deeper into why these economic anxieties are rooted in globalisation or cannot be amended by it.
Furthermore he argued that “the mechanisms on which the proposition team substantiate their case are forces that will not continue into the long term”, stressing the importance of long term perspective like his teammate Kuang. Zhang identified the problem of the centrality of the United States and China to the evening’s debate when he referred to them as “the only countries we are discussing, apparently”, to laughing agreement from the audience. Zhang maintained that developing countries, like China thirty years ago, are able to deliver benefits and produce export-driven growth that is “only a phenomenon of globalisation”. He was willing to concede that there will be some economic harm to small business, but lesser to that which may result from no globalisation.
Mark Finn for the Phil began his speech with a bold statement: “This is not a debate, this is a reality”. His argument focused on the apparent reality that globalisation is continuing to decline and revealing the culture that has created this decline. Finn maintained that “there will always be an anti-global trend” due to a constant mistrust of the elite – “those behind closed doors” – evident in the “constant opposition to elected UN and government officials”. A POI mentioned a comparison between the current global economic state to that of post-World War Great Depression era and the importance of rallying morale to increase economic growth, to which Finn replied that “they want to tell you that your happiness will increase as a result of economic growth” however much the reality may differ. Finn disputed the opposition’s emphasis on the long term: “I don’t care about long term economic growth, I care about being able to provide for my family—what was that Keynes said? Oh yeah we’re all dead in the long run”.
Finn elaborated on the point made by Costigan that nationalism will continue to spur on protectionism towards people, and that the trend of failure is circular and inevitable. He argued that it is human nature to mistrust those who are different to you, suggesting that the ultimate doom of globalisation is due to the human condition. Finn maintained that racism plays into this narrative, a narrative that results in campaigning and results in “the election of the likes of Trump”. He elaborated that it is not enough to say that Trump’s ban on immigration was over-ruled thus the problem is solved and globalisation is free to move forward—the constant narrative of broad uprising is not disproved because “Trump’s motions are over-ruled”, here inciting many “hear-hears” from the audience. Finn begged to propose by stating that this is a debate about the fact that it is a reality: “People want someone who will look out for them”.
The final speaker for the competitive debate stood up to the podium: Evan Lynyak. She began with this exclamation: “What a fabulous irony to hear impassioned speeches from an organization who flew us across the world so we could participate in this debate of the free exchange of ideas!” A mixed reaction from the audience. Lynyak pointed out some theoretical knowledge problems she found in relation to the proposition’s arguments so far, including an omitted variable problem: she referenced Elwell’s point about Apple not paying taxes, but argued that there was no explanation for why any of these problems are inherent in globalisation and why they will continue. She argued that those who oppose the motion “give economic incentives and show why these will always fundamentally overcome globalisation’s problem”. For example, Lynyak mentions the huge interest in multi-nationalist companies and resulting geographic arbitrage that has benefited millions and raised global standards of living, as well as the huge moneyed interest of global institutions that want to ship their products around the world. To a request for a POI from Finn Lynyak exclaimed, “You had a chance!” She argued that her competitors took a very United States and Europe centric perspective to the debate that fails to recognise how “millions around the world are lifted out of poverty with higher standards of worker protection” as a result of globalisation.
“Why does globalisation have to rely on the US and the UK who only provide examples of populism and antagonism?” Lynyak asked. She argued there are multinational actors in other countries who can provide positive global support. To a POI arguing that the rhetoric of losers in the developing world is the most persuasive, and that developing countries will never be convinced of the benefits of globalisation, Lynyak responded, “I just don’t believe this”. Those sitting in the back of the room could hear an audible, exasperated sigh from several judges. Lynyak went on to identify a numerical and temporal problem: “economy is not industry anymore, it is services”, and people are projecting other variables onto issues like trade. Lynyak concluded her argument by stating: “Globalisation can never be doomed because it will always resurge”.
The competition was thus concluded, the judges left the room to mull over their final decision, and the floor was opened up to four speakers from the Phil to continue the debate. Proposition argued that we must consider the personal identity, rather than the national, cultural or social identity of peoples and the effect this has on the prospects for the success of globalisation. Furthermore points were made about how economists focus on the statistics and fail to take into account the human factor, an apt and relevant argument to the evening’s discussion. The opposition disputed that “the drive for discovery transcends culture”, and people will always want to travel. Furthermore, it was said that the next logical step in terms of historical world order is a move from the nation state to an international order, and that best way forward is to create an environment where people can be global partners in a successful capitalist marketplace.
Those final words being said, the judges returned. The judges disclosed that they expected to hear a lot more about politics and history and less on the actual economics of globalisation, and interestingly added that “never at a debate has someone spoken so fast”. This speed of delivery was said to have been less effective from a debating point of view in terms of listening. On a comedic note, both RTÉ guests mentioned their appreciation of the discussion of tires in the speeches, to a reception of knowing nods from the majority of Irish guests. Finally, the verdict was announced: the winner, by a “narrow balance”, was Yale. Best speaker, also very narrow, was awarded to Christopher Costigan. Both teams, released from the sweltering atmosphere of the debate room, went on their merry way to the wine reception to reap the social benefits that globalisation has allowed them to indulge in for the evening.
