The tensions embedded within von Herder’s tightly interwoven tapestry leave the future path of globalization uncertain. On the one hand, countries may decide that the threats are too great and retreat to a more isolated position. On the other hand, globalization has proven itself time and again to be an adaptive phenomenon that takes more steps forward than back. Below are three scenarios that sketch different possibilities of how globalization may evolve between now and 2015.

The Rise of Localization

In the first scenario, the rise of localization, mounting security threats and economic uncertainty start to unravel the threads of globalization. Protectionism and nationalism proliferate. New security regulations restrict the cross-border movements of potentially harmful cargo, people, and money. Consequently, international trade and investment slows substantially. Income inequality both between and among nations rises sharply. Caught in a cycle of worsening economic conditions, even traditionally free-market governments respond to intense public pressure to safeguard jobs. Exporting nations in Asia seek restitution through the World Trade Organization (WTO), but the multilateral institution is unable to enforce free trade rules without the consensus of the advanced economies. Countries dependent on export-led growth, such as China, suffer serious economic setbacks. As international organizations lose their power to enforce global rules, they become little more than debating societies. Global problems, such as international terrorism, infectious disease, and environmental degradation, lack the institutions to develop workable global solutions. Countries instead opt for limited bilateral and regional arrangements.

Many protectionist regulations are implemented to bolster “national champions”—businesses that reflect each country’s comparative advantage or its strategic interests in certain crucial industrial sectors. These companies are granted limited monopolistic power at home in the hopes that they will become more competitive on the global market. Multinational companies scale back their international operations, generally limiting their scope to specific regions or small groups of affiliated countries, where the perceived risks are low or where local trade agreements have minimized regional tariffs and taxes.

On a psychological level, individuals are increasingly disdainful of global culture, global brands, and global norms, and seek refuge in the sanctuary of national identity. The anti-globalization movement, once the domain of nongovernmental organizations and street activists, finds growing resonance in the white-collar suburbs. Unfettered global integration is believed to cause more harm than good. Confronted with these fears, the representative democracies of the industrialized world increasingly favor stability over efficiency.

Bilateral Half-Measures

In the second scenario, bilateral half-measures, countries take incremental and modest steps toward globalization, but the pace is far slower and more cautious than during the heady 1990s. As countries seek to maintain their competitive advantage in the global marketplace, it becomes increasingly tricky to paper over differences such as levels of agricultural subsidies and the scope of intellectual property laws. Consequently, multilateral trade and investment agreements are supplanted by regional treaties among nations whose interests most closely converge. The world becomes a collage of contrasting international, regional, and national norms.

With no coherent global standards on issues such as the environment and biotechnology, companies that seek to expand globally must navigate a complex regulatory obstacle course. As a result, all but the largest corporations limit their expansion to a specific region, opting to dominate in one local standard while competing in other parts of the world on a more limited basis.

The agendas of world regions have become more divergent, owing in part to the absence of strong international leadership. Although the United States maintains a dominant position in the global economy, it has limited its commitments to multilateral institutions in favor of a more unilateralist stance. And the U.S. government no longer can claim the moral high ground on free trade, having embraced mild protectionist measures to enhance its own economic and military security.

The expanded European Union still lacks the mechanisms to implement a common political and foreign policy. A select group of poor, developing countries that possess valuable natural resources and other industrial inputs fare rather well, but most are still trying to find their economic niche. Some of these countries fall back on protectionist policies; others remain engaged in the global economy and see modest improvements in overall standards of living.

Homo Economicus

In the final scenario, homo economicus, the world returns to the path of ever-deepening global integration that began in the 1990s. Global trade is on a rebound. Offshoring and other capital flows continue, and their powerful developmental impact on Asia generates positive returns for Europe and the United States in the form of increased purchasing power abroad. All major economies are members of the WTO, which has eliminated the most onerous barriers to international trade. Still, in some specific areas, free trade negotiations have reached an impasse, as governments find it difficult to reach consensus on several thorny issues. Trade in services is booming, and secure digital connections allow far-flung, truly global production and distribution networks to emerge.

The countries that benefit the most are those, such as the United States, China, and India, that are the most open to economic integration. Advanced economies have relocated the bulk of their manufacturing capacity to emerging markets. China remains the world’s manufacturing powerhouse and more and more back-office and service functions head to India. Developed and developing nations start to bridge the income inequality gap. This increased globalization does not benefit everyone, however, and the losers voice their dissatisfaction. Responding to the public outcry over lost blue-collar jobs, governments divert more federal spending toward social safety nets and retraining programs, which helps mollify some of the opposition. Anti-globalization activists remain a small, but influential, group and focus their efforts on helping the least developed countries.

More often than not, transnational problems such as infectious diseases, computer crimes, terrorism, and financial instability foster international cooperation among governments and institutions, since no country can reasonably hope to completely isolate itself from such threats. Finally, although “global culture” remains a popular buzzword, it’s countered by the increased exposure to an ever more diverse set of people—and all the creativity, ideas, and perspectives they bring to the table. This return to benign globalization does not offer limitless opportunities .but they are vast, and they penetrate many levels of society.