How geopolitical fragmentation impacts economic globalization?
International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Gita Gopinath´s speech at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research analyzing the impact of geopolitical tensions and fragmentation in the economic globalization, and how the reshaping of trading partners, foreign direct investments (FDI) flows and global trade restrictions, due to national security concerns and economic resilience, could retreat the gains from economic integration achieved in previous decades.
Main highlights:
- There are not yet clear signs of deglobalization at the aggregate level: According to the IMF, the ratio of goods trade to GDP has been roughly stable, fluctuating between 41 and 48 percent since the last global financial crisis.
- However, there are increasing signs of fragmentation as trade and investment flows are being redirected along geopolitical lines: The article considers a world divided into three blocs: a U.S. leaning bloc, a China leaning bloc, and a bloc of nonaligned countries. In summary, trade between blocs would have decreased since the invasion of Ukraine at a rate up to 20 percent greater than trade within the countries of each bloc.
- The emergence of “connector countries” has avoided a bigger impact on global trade. Some trade and investment are being re-routed through third-party countries, partially offsetting the erosion of direct links between the U.S. and China. For example, since 2017, greater Chinese presence in a country—measured either through exports or announced greenfield investment—has been associated with increased exports of that country to the U.S. In this regard, Mexico and Vietnam are cited as an example of countries that may have helped cushion the global economic impact of the commercial war between the U.S. and China. The article highlights the role of non-aligned countries as potential connectors that help cushion the effects of economic fragmentation.
- The cost of deglobalization will be greater than during the “Cold War.” Trade fragmentation would be much more costly this time around because unlike the start of the Cold War when goods trade to GDP was 16 percent, now that ratio is 45 percent. If global trade and financial fragmentation deepens, it could reduce efficiency gains from specialization, competition and knowledge diffusion, limit economies of scale, cross border capital flows. Additionally, efforts to tackle global challenges such as climate change and AI could be impeded (e.g. higher cost of critical minerals for renewable energy).
Filter results
According to IE University’s Center for the Governance of Change, deeper and more integrated financial markets would strengthen the euro’s global role. This requires, among other elements, resilient and interoperable payment systems and completing the banking union.
Partnerships between banks and private credit: The winners will be those that combine bank underwriting discipline, distribution, and customer access with private capital’s appetite for long-dated, illiquid risk, according to Oliver Wyman.
Lucrezia Reichlin (CEPR): A CBDC is not a prerequisite for monetary sovereignty. Confusing money with payments can risk misdiagnosing the problem and misaligning economic policy efforts.
According to the World Economic Forum´s Global Risk Report 2026, geoeconomic confrontation, mis- and disinformation and societal polarization make up the top three short-term risks, while environmental risks dominate in the long term.
According to the World Economic Forum, over the last few years AI has moved from experimentation to workflow integration, promising systemic gains in productivity while also raising critical questions around economic inclusion, values, trust and resilience.
According to AFME, a clearer, more coherent, and proportionate regulatory environment, without unnecessary layers and focuses on growth and competitiveness, is keyl to increase investor confidence, unlock private capital and deepen European capital markets
According to the Center for the Governance of Change at IE University, Europeans support technological progress if it reinforces security, inclusion, and social welfare; but resist it when change feels imposed, opaque, or misaligned with their values.
According to a recent report released by CEPS, European financial regulators should adopt competitiveness as a formal secondary objective, following the precedent established by the UK's Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
According to the OECD. SMEs and start-ups that grow rapidly contribute significantly to job creation, economic growth and competitiveness. Indeed, SMEs that grow by one-third over a three-year period, contribute about as much to job creation as large firms.
According to @McKinsey, banks must prepare for a new growth curve. Strategic precision —the ability to combine technology, capital discipline, and deep customer insight— will distinguish the leaders from the laggards.
According to Kristalina Georgeva IMF Managing Director, lifting growth requires three things: one, regulatory housecleaning to unleash private enterprise; two, deeper regional integration; and three, preparedness to harness AI.
According to The European House – Ambrosetti, the European Union has an opportunity to boost competitiveness and growth by simplifying regulatory and supervisory frameworks, particularly in the areas of sustainability and the financial sector.