GP / Blog / Politics & Governance

Issue forecast

Globalisation in retreat: the open order, national interest and a small state

When the 2019 paper asked whether globalisation should be welcomed or feared, the open world order still looked like the default. By 2026, with tariffs rising and supply chains splitting along political lines, the question reads differently, and for a trade-dependent Singapore it reads urgently.

Theme · Politics & GovernanceLast set at A-Level · 2019 (on whether globalisation is to be welcomed or feared)Foresight, not a prediction

In short

A globalisation question rewards a student who can tell retreat from reorganisation. The open order is plainly under strain, but 'globalisation is ending' overstates it; trade is reshaping, not disappearing. Argue whether the change is a genuine unwinding or a reordering, and what either means for a small state that lives by trade.

Why this could come up now

Globalisation is a hardy GP theme. It appeared in 2018 on whether national boundaries are still justified, and twice in 2019, on whether globalisation should be welcomed or feared and on dealing with states with poor human-rights records. The strand recurs, and its meaning shifts with the world.

The shift is now unmistakable. Through 2025 and 2026 the US imposed sweeping tariffs and pushed trading partners to decouple from China, and global supply chains have begun to fragment along political lines. For an economy with a trade-to-GDP ratio above 300 percent, this is not abstract.

As foresight, not a forecast of wording: globalisation recurs, and the retreat framing is its freshest form, because the optimistic 2010s version of the question no longer matches the world a candidate is living in.

201320162018201920222025

set at A-Level most recent appearance. Recurs through the late 2010s, then quiet while the real world turned against it. Overdue, and freshly meaningful.

What an essay on this would test

These questions test whether you can read a trend without exaggerating it. 'Globalisation is over' is as lazy as 'globalisation is unstoppable'. The skill is calibration: distinguishing a genuine retreat from a reordering in which trade continues but along new, more political lines.

They also test whether you can think about national interest from where you stand. A large, self-sufficient economy can afford some decoupling; a small, trade-dependent state cannot. A Singaporean answer that ignores that asymmetry has skipped the most interesting part.

Operative angles

retreat versus reordering: a true unwinding of openness, or the same volume of trade reorganised along new lines
national interest: when openness and self-protection pull apart, which should a state choose, and does the answer differ by size
interdependence: the security a small state buys by being woven into the world, and the exposure that comes with it

How to answer it: two ways in

Two distinct, defensible routes through the question. A strong script commits to one and uses the other as the concession it answers, rather than sitting on the fence.

It is genuinely unwinding

The open order is fracturing, and a small state should worry

Tariffs, decoupling and the politicisation of supply chains are not a blip but a structural shift away from the rules-based openness a small trading state was built to rely on, and that is a real danger.

When the largest economies turn to tariffs and pressure others to pick sides, the rules a small state depends on weaken.
Supply chains reorganised by politics rather than efficiency raise costs and shrink the space in which a hub economy thrives.
A state with a trade-to-GDP ratio above 300 percent has the most to lose if the open order it was built for keeps fraying.

Worked exampleThrough 2025 and 2026 the US signed a series of reciprocal trade deals explicitly designed to pull partners away from China, pushing trade to fragment along political rather than economic lines, exactly the kind of bloc-forming a small open economy has reason to fear (PIIE / trade-policy analysis, as of 2026-06).

It is reorganising, not ending

Globalisation is changing shape, and adaptation beats alarm

Trade is not collapsing but rerouting, and a nimble small state can prosper by diversifying partners and becoming the neutral hub a fragmenting world still needs, so the better response is adaptation, not panic.

Global trade volumes remain high even as flows reroute; this is reorganisation, not the end of exchange.
Fragmentation creates demand for trusted, neutral connectors, a role a small open state can play between blocs.
Diversifying trade partners and deepening regional agreements turns exposure into a hedge rather than a vulnerability.

Worked exampleEven amid decoupling, China's share of US imports fell only from about 22 percent to 16 percent while supply chains rerouted through third countries rather than vanishing, evidence that globalisation is reshaping rather than ending (trade-flow analysis, as of 2026-06).

The fuel: stats, facts and examples

~322%

Singapore's trade as a share of GDP, among the highest in the world, which is why fragmentation matters here

Source: World Bank, trade as percent of GDP (2024) · as of 2026-06

22% to 16%

fall in China's share of US imports under tariffs, as trade rerouted rather than disappeared

Source: trade-flow analysis cited by IMF/academic sources · as of 2026-06

2025-2026

the wave of US reciprocal tariffs and trade deals designed to decouple partners from China

Source: PIIE, US trade-policy analysis · as of 2026-06

Facts worth deploying

The US negotiated a series of reciprocal trade agreements in 2025 and 2026 built to reduce partners' economic ties with China, signalling a turn from open multilateral trade toward politically aligned blocs.Source: PIIE, as of 2026-06

Analysts find clear evidence of nearshoring to neighbouring countries but little consistent evidence of full reshoring to the US, so supply chains are rerouting more than they are returning home.Source: IMF / academic supply-chain research, as of 2026-06

Studies estimate long-run global output losses of several percent under a full reshoring scenario, far more than under softer friend-shoring, which is itself an argument that complete decoupling is costly enough to be unlikely.Source: IMF working-paper estimates, as of 2026-06

FAQ

Is this an economics essay in disguise?

It uses economic facts, but a GP answer is about judgement and national interest, not models. Use trade figures to show the strain, then argue what a state should do and why. Keep the focus on the political and social choice, not on the mechanics of trade theory.

Do I have to write about Singapore?

If the stem invites a national view, lead with Singapore, because the small-trade-dependent angle is your sharpest one. You can compare with a large economy that can afford some decoupling, but a globalisation essay from a Singaporean candidate that never mentions Singapore wastes its best material.

How do I avoid just listing pros and cons of globalisation?

Pick the real question: is this a retreat or a reordering, and what follows for a small state. A balanced list lands mid-band. A calibrated judgement, conceding the strongest opposing reading and answering it, is what climbs.