If we consider globalisation as a multifaceted phenomenon that implies important relations between the social, technological, economic, environmental and political (relations known as STEEP) between countries we identity new elements to explain integration and not just the purely economic analyses made in post war periods. To cite a case, the debate on 1974 about the alleged loss of economic power in the US consequence of the 1971 and 1973 international monetary crisis was spinning around the overvaluation of the dollar that occur from 1960 to 1971 (Paul Samuelson 1974).

In this context globalization was not yet understood as a phenomenon that could drastically change the power relationship between East and West, not only from the ideological spectrum; under this context the US continued to maintain the conditions to be called a hegemonic country (Hegemonic stability theory). Nevertheless even in this period we could also consider the evidence of the world integration on some aspects like finance, among others the influence of the US on international monetary system. One of the principal teachings of that crisis was the importance of improve competitiveness on international market, take care of the called "benign neglect", monetary and fiscal policies, among other topics.

But we could find a deeper integration from 1990 to 2015 period in which the liberalism, explained as a dominant force that converges toward a unification of ideas of cooperation, integration and free trade, generated the consolidation of International Organizations as the European Union (Maastricht Treaty 1992) the participation of transnational and transgovernmental actors. The question is if the US will led the globalisation on the present century or other nations will arise as China.


A new change in the world's economic leadership is a possibility, at least there is enough evidence in academia. The growth of the product and consolidation of China in global markets, the problems experienced in the integration of the European Union with key points in the crisis in Greece and the exit of the UK from this bloc, give us the measure of a partial redistribution of power. On the other hand, the current US government maintains a discourse with the tinge of protectionism "US first". In the redistribution of power we can find some explanations in history, in the advent and fall of nations that are explained in the theory of long cycles (Myers 2007). Although it is complex to establish a causal relationship that explains the changes in power in the world, even so, we cannot ignore the power exercised by a country that predominate on economic, military and at the same time is perceived by other nations in maintaining of human values.

A redistribution of effective power must also contemplate keeping public institutions and organizations of countries current and efficient. On the other hand a particular case is that both US and China are two countries that will inevitably dispute the leadership but the EU acts with a "sprit de corps", which despite the problems can be a long-term strength.


Globalization has deepened the vision of a more integrated world politically, economically, environmentally, socially and technologically and according to this vision many international institutions have laid the premises for a hoped balanced development. This vision, although it is shared by the EU, US and China, which is demonstrated in the participation of them in entities such as the World Trade Organization, this does not exclude a more accelerated development of some than of others; Although in terms of product China seems to have greater potential, a change of world leadership is still under analysis.


As a starting point it can be mentioned that the rise of so-called populism in the 21st century is a phenomenon that concerns both developing and developed countries non excluding emerging economies (Left and right populism in the US; course notes). It is so from the Academy have realized various analyzes about their causes and among others, cites the citizen perception that globalization has brought a greater integration but has not improved the quality of life of people which is reflected in low real wages, low average labor productivity, over-indebtedness and lack of adequate access to education, health and housing. This perception could be seen more clearly in the developing countries, but analyzing the income inequality in United States or the United Kingdom i. e., we can verify that discontent has been extended and is one of the reasons to people seek new forms of governance.

This discontent is evidenced in three particular events, the 2008 financial crisis, the election of Trump and the Brexit. In emerging countries like Brazil, the recent triumph of Jair Bolsonaro (waiting for the second round) displaces a left-wing political party with an anti-globalization and "class" discourse present in more than 10 years. But the discourse of Bolsonaro also has brought in tune popular discontent for the lack of employment, rise of organized crime and delegitimization of public institutions.

In this context, the business community has some challenges that must be addressed as the susceptibility of regulatory changes by governments that fall within the populist approach (Defining populism; course notes) and how these affect the entrepreneurial exercise. To this is added how to develop business strategies with a focus on Sustainability in the long term.


We can start by describing the generating sectors of wealth of a country summarized in trade, manufacturing, services and agriculture and then distinguish its productive engines whether national companies or Multinationals. In this context, each country has clear advantages and strengths in certain sectors and capacities and deficiencies to sustain its local market. This basic structure can be affected by several ways but let us mention some: 1. Changes in fiscal and monetary policy that affect the formation of prices on sectors with high impact on local economy. 2. Regulatory changes that present additional pressures on the production of goods or services and redistribution of the average income of citizens.

These factors are a real measure of how the economy is moving and based on these real changes is evident if a discourse framed in the populist approach is in fact radical. Many governments began a similar discourse but not in practice. The former president of Brazil, Henrique Cardoso, told to "Lula" da Silva years after Lula won the presidency that he (Cardoso) had been as liberal as Lula, socialist. In this context, the productive challenges are focused on those who do not have better skills in business management, technological and financial capabilities. Here comes the role of multinationals (The growing power of multinational corporations (MNCs); Naomi Klein) and how they have progressed in local market participation, production of goods and services and to managing certain export sectors and even in services.

In practice, the so-called populist governments have not made radical changes in relation to the internal or external market, with few exceptions, although in practice, there is evidence that investments in developing countries are held back by a lack of legal security. Nevertheless by the moment it is too early to say that populism is radically changing the rules of the game in business but the signs are visible mainly through the Trump and Brexit effect.