Is globalisation dead or is it simply transforming itself?
June 3, 2025
By Ana Guzmán Quintana
The following article summarises the intervention of Ana Guzmán, representing Portocolom, during the Private Equity Impact Summit held last May in London. The event brought together more than 600 of the world’s leading impact investment professionals. Portocolom participated in two round tables, one of them under the title: ‘Adapting to the times: how to be an impact investor in a de-globalised world’.
We live in an uncertain world, to say the least, where – unfortunately – there seems to be no room for anything but polarised debates. Everything has to be answered from extremes, in a universe of black and white. We give simple answers to extremely complex problems, without stopping to think that the world moves, rather, on a scale of greys.
In this context, where radical and alarming movements are emerging that seek to return us to a model based on protectionism, many voices have begun to question globalisation: Has it reached its full potential? Are we heading towards a de-globalised world?
Globalisation is neither dead nor has it come to an end. In our view, we are in the midst of a process of reordering, of recalibrating the system. And although today we see catalysts that are accelerating this transformation, the change began several years ago.
The roots of today’s globalisation go back to the 1970s, when the economic system that had emerged after the Second World War broke down. It was then that the neoliberal model emerged, promoting the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. This new era brought with it economic growth, technological progress and falling interest rates, but also offshoring, job insecurity, and increasing inequality and inequality of opportunity. The financial crisis of 2008 and the digital revolution only aggravated social discontent, leaving behind a whole generation – especially those between 25 and 35 years old at the time.
Over the past five years, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, capital market exuberance, geopolitical conflicts and the increasing fragility of our systems – health, education, energy and supply chains – have highlighted the urgency of rebuilding greater local and regional autonomy and resilience. The rise of protectionist policies, such as those championed by Donald Trump, has only accelerated this fear-driven trend. But let’s face it: no nation can isolate itself completely and survive successfully.
I confess: I am a liberal by nature. I believe in the power of cooperation, in the strength of shared leadership and in growing together in those areas where we share global concerns. History teaches us that erecting protectionist walls often leads to power imbalances that rarely bring prosperity. But this does not mean that we should continue with ‘more of the same’ in terms of globalisation. We need a new balance: a model that combines the efficiencies of global trade with strategic self-sufficiency.
Because whether we like it or not, we live in a deeply interdependent world. Just think of a few examples: over 90% of rare metals are concentrated in very few countries; the production of solar panels depends on a very specific chain; the GPS system is American; and the global data infrastructure depends on undersea cables that cross oceans.
Attempting to undo globalisation would entail an economic decline of a magnitude for which we are not prepared.
The alternative is not isolation, but rebuilding and protecting our basic needs – health, education, food, infrastructure – with less systemic dependence and greater local resilience. Only then can globalisation be a win-win strategy, not a zero-sum game.
If we do not move in this direction, I fear that the centre of economic gravity will shift back to Asia, where civilisation was born… and where global economic dominance could once again be consolidated.