Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl, "Crusading for Globalization: US Multinationals and Their Opponents Since 1945" (U Pennsylvania Press, 2025)

Summary

---

Episode Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Alfred Marcus
Guest: Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl
Book Discussed: Crusading for Globalization: US Multinationals and Their Opponents Since 1945 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2025)
Date: September 11, 2025

---

Main Theme

This episode explores the history and politics behind the globalization movement after 1945, focusing on the deliberate strategies of US multinational corporations (MNCs) and the opposition they faced. Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl discusses her new book, which argues that globalization was not inevitable but was actively constructed by powerful corporate actors—primarily through the US Council for International Business (USCIB). The conversation addresses who these corporate globalizers were, the ideological and material motives behind their actions, the rise and failure of opposition (from both labor and the Global South), and the shifting political reactions to globalization up to the present day.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl’s Research Journey (02:50)

• Schaufelbuehl is a history professor at University of Lausanne, with a background in European reconstruction, Swiss slavery, and transatlantic economic relations.
• Her US archival research led her to the under-studied USCIB, revealing the covert but influential role of business associations in promoting globalization.

2. The Central Actors: Corporate Globalizers & the USCIB (06:13)

• The USCIB, established in 1945, mainly gathered executives from the largest US MNCs.
• Unlike the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and US Chamber of Commerce, which often represented protectionist interests, the USCIB consistently lobbied for free trade and pro-globalization policies.
• Schaufelbuehl argues that globalization post-1945 resulted from intentional collective action by these business leaders, not "natural forces."

Quote:

“The main argument I try to make in the book is to show that globalization was the outcome of a political process, not a purely economic one.”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (07:01)

• Power within companies was split; for instance, at GE, the CEO and President had diverging views on globalization vs. protectionism.

3. Motives: Ideology, Profit, or Both? (13:50)

• The pro-globalization agenda was driven by both belief in economic ideology (free markets as a path to peace post-WWII) and self-interested profit motives.
• Executives personally invested in globalizing ideals often guided the association.

Quote:

“There was clearly ideology … that free trade and free investment would also lead to world peace. But at the same time, there were material interests linked to this crusade.”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (14:21)

4. Shifts in Globalization and Corporate Positioning (17:33)

• Support for globalization shifted over time depending on industry and context; some sectors were protectionist in the ‘50s but became globalists once they established foreign subsidiaries by the ‘70s.

5. The USCIB’s Institutional Role and Influence (18:52)

• The USCIB was the main US business group consistently representing multinational interests in international forums (ILO, UN, OECD).
• Its elite board still comprises major US CEOs.

Quote:

“It is the U.S. council which until today represents all of American ... business in the International Labor Organization, in the UN, and ... the OECD.”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (19:22)

6. Navigating Political Opposition: Then and Now (21:03)

• The USCIB has a history of lying low during protectionist or “tariff” administrations (Reagan, Trump), while benefiting from other pro-business policies.
• Their approach has been consistent: defend globalization where feasible, but avoid public confrontation with hostile administrations.

7. Historical Legacy: The Corporate Globalizers and Multilateralism (23:40)

• USCIB elites helped craft postwar institutions (Marshall Plan, OECD, WTO), with “revolving doors” between business leadership and government policy-making.

Quote:

“It was definitely not only lobbying from the outside, but there were always corporate globalizers that were part of the different administrations.”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (26:00)

8. The First Wave of Opposition: Labor and the Global South (26:59)

• In the 1970s, organized labor and leaders in the Global South formed an alliance (with Eastern bloc support) pushing for binding international regulations on MNCs via the UN.
• The anti-globalization critique focused on employment, labor, environmental protection, and sovereignty.
• The movement faltered mainly due to powerful business lobbying.

Quote:

“It was clearly a missed opportunity to achieve fairer globalization ... and it was in large part because of business lobbying and organizing by these corporate globalizers.”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (29:41)

9. Nuances in Opposition: Labor, Development, and Outsourcing (30:42)

• US and European labor focused mainly on protecting domestic jobs, while Global South leaders aimed for regulatory control of MNCs in their countries.
• AFL-CIO actively pushed for legislation and wage studies in the ‘70s but lost momentum as “New Democrats” in the ‘90s adopted a pro-trade discourse.

Quote:

“The main aim was probably not to protect the populations in the Global south, but to protect the workers in the United States and in Western Europe…”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (31:07)

10. Divergent Interests in the Global South and China’s Strategy (35:48, 37:49)

• Approaches to MNCs varied by country; many in the Global South wanted enforceable obligations, while the US/Europe preferred voluntary codes.
• China, by the 1990s, actively embraced WTO rules and FDI to fuel its own growth.

11. The Second Wave: Grassroots and Rise of the Populist Right (39:35, 45:23)

• Post-1999 anti-globalization protests shifted from labor/Global South to grassroots advocacy, often left-leaning.
• After the 2008 crisis, anti-globalist sentiment surged on the right—framing globalization as a betrayal by domestic elites.
• Trump’s tariffs and right-wing protectionism represent a new form of backlash, aiming to prioritize national over global interests.

Quote:

“This opposition to globalization from the populist right … is not an opposition to globalization as a whole, but to certain aspects of globalization, [with] the will to make globalization more conform with certain national interests.”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (45:23)

12. USCIB’s Response to Changing Tide (47:37)

• The USCIB was the only major US business group to openly oppose Trump-era China tariffs, while others fell silent or acquiesced.
• In the Biden era, they continued opposition, but public advocacy dampened as trade skepticism grew in US politics.

13. Addressing Deindustrialization and Inequality (51:03)

• The corporate response to job loss and inequality has emphasized voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs, not major policy reforms or regulatory frameworks.
• Real reform to ensure fair globalization remains elusive.

14. The Debate on Globalization’s Impact: Progress or Inequality? (54:08, 60:16)

• Marcus prompts Schaufelbuehl to evaluate globalization’s legacy; she remains committed to a historian’s lens, emphasizing process and power, rather than direct normative judgment.
• She notes that globalization, as pursued, has led to “accumulating wealth in the hands of a minority ... which does not mean that there was no alternative route.”

Quote:

“The structures that were put into place led to greater inequality in the world today ...”
— Janick Marina Schaufelbuehl (56:31)

15. Looking Forward: Research Directions (63:39)

• Schaufelbuehl’s future research will examine the political project of neoliberalism, business think tanks, climate crisis in capitalism, and the right-wing shift of business conservatism in the US.

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps (MM:SS)

• “Globalization was the outcome of a political process, not of a purely economic one.” — Schaufelbuehl (07:01)
• “There was a real belief in what they were advocating for ... but at the same time, their own companies directly profited ...” — Schaufelbuehl (14:21)
• “It is the U.S. council which until today represents all American business in the International Labor Organization ... and the OECD.” — Schaufelbuehl (19:22)
• “These corporate globalizers were very much a part of ... establishing multilateral organizations ... [like] the Marshall Plan.” — Schaufelbuehl (23:40)
• “It was clearly a missed opportunity to achieve fairer globalization ... it was in large part because of business lobbying ...” — Schaufelbuehl (29:41)
• “For labor unions … the main aim was … to protect workers [in the US and Europe] who were losing jobs and were in competition … with workers in subsidiaries ...” — Schaufelbuehl (31:07)
• “The opposition to globalization from the populist right ... is not an opposition to globalization as a whole, but to certain aspects …” — Schaufelbuehl (45:23)
• “The answer of the corporate globalizers … is continue the dynamics of globalization and free trade ... but engage in these initiatives of social responsibility ... self regulation, self regulation again.” — Schaufelbuehl (51:03)
• “What is clear to me ... is that globalization ... has contributed to accumulating wealth in the hands of a minority ... which does not mean that there was no alternative route.” — Schaufelbuehl (60:58)

---

Timeline of Critical Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:50 | Schaufelbuehl’s research background and discovery of the USCIB | | 06:13 | The creation, membership, and agenda of the USCIB | | 13:50 | Ideological vs material motivations for globalization | | 18:52 | USCIB’s unique institutional role in global business policy | | 21:03 | Strategic responses to political pushback (Reagan, Trump) | | 23:40 | USCIB’s hand in building postwar multilateral institutions | | 26:59 | Emergence and failure of organized anti-globalization opposition | | 30:42 | Labor vs Global South opposition motives and effects of outsourcing | | 37:49 | China’s approach to globalization and the WTO | | 39:35 | The Seattle 1999 protests and shift in anti-globalization activism | | 45:23 | Populist right’s emergence as anti-globalist force in the US | | 47:37 | USCIB’s resistance against tariffs during Trump & Biden years | | 51:03 | How multinationals addressed backlashes: CSR and voluntary self-reg | | 54:08 | Motivation for, and impact of, globalization - progress vs inequality | | 63:39 | Schaufelbuehl’s upcoming research projects |

---

Tone and Language

Throughout, the conversation maintains a scholarly and reflective tone. Schaufelbuehl grounds her arguments in historical research and archival evidence, consistently emphasizing nuance and resisting simplistic binaries. Marcus presses for ethical and practical implications but respects the historian’s commitment to evidence and context.

---

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode offers a panoramic but nuanced view of the postwar history of globalization, showing it as a deliberate—and contested—project shaped by powerful business actors as well as persistent, though often defeated, opposition. Schaufelbuehl’s book and analysis challenge the myth of globalization as an inexorable force, raising essential questions about power, profit, ideology, and the possibilities of fairer global integration.

---

Transcript

[Alfred Marcus]

Lowes knows you've got a job to do and we help get it done with the Myloes Pro Rewards program, eligible members save more with volume discounts on qualifying orders through a quote of $2,000 or more. Join for free today. Lowes we help you save Offer can't be combined with any other discount contract and or special pricing exclusions. More terms and restrictions apply. Details@lowe's.com Terms subject to change.

[Commercial Announcer]

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless and if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Why you should 1. It's $15 a month.

[Alfred Marcus]

2.

[Commercial Announcer]

Seriously, it's $15 a month.

[Alfred Marcus]

3.

[Commercial Announcer]

No big contracts.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

4. I use it. 5.

[Commercial Announcer]

My mom uses it.

[Alfred Marcus]

Are you. Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try.

[Commercial Announcer]

@Mintmobile.Com Switch upfront payment of $45 per.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Three month plan $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Commercial Announcer]

See mintmobile.com if you thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't get more golden, think Golder because new sweet and smoky special edition Gold sauce is here made for your chicken favorites at participate at McDonald's.

[Alfred Marcus]

For a limited time welcome to the New Books Network. Hello, I'm Alfred Marcus, professor of Strategy at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. On this program I aim to examine the intersection of strategy and ethics. Globalization is often described as if it were a natural force, like the weather, inevitable and unstoppable. But Janek Marina Schofield's new book, Crusading for Globalization, U.S. multinationals and Their Opponents since 1945, shows it was the result of deliberate strategies by powerful executives who built organizations, lobbied governments, and shaped world trade to serve their interests. At the same time, they faced fierce opposition from labor protectionists and leaders in the global South. This is a history of power and values, and it forces us to ask who really makes globalization happen and who benefits from it? Janek welcome to the New Books Network. Could you tell us about your background and what drew you into researching globalization and multinational business? Did you set out to critique globalization or did the evidence bring you there?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Thank you so much for inviting me to this podcast. I am a history professor at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, and my research has evolved quite a bit since my PhD in which I studied the question of European reconstruction in the early post World War II years. Then I did some work with two colleagues on Swiss involvement in slavery and the transatlantic Slavery, slave trade since the 16th century. And after that I started a new project on transatlantic economic and political relations between the United States and Europe. And for this research I spent two years in the United States in Princeton first, and then later at Harvard and Columbia University. And I was during this time in the United States that the direction of my research changed the research that led to this book. It was when I was working in different historical archives that I came across a business association called the United States Council for International Business that played an extraordinarily important role over the entire second half of the 20th century. But it was not well known and it has not until now received any scholarly attention or much scholarly attention. And I believe this is because this association, the U.S. council, avoided exposure to fly under, under the radar of public attention. So there is hardly any literature on the. On the U.S. council. And in general, I feel there's still a lot more research to be done on US Business associations, even if there is some really great work of Ben Waterhouse, for instance, on the Business Roundtable, or Jennifer Delton on NAM on the national association for Manufacturers and many others. But I wanted to further dig into the historical role of US Business associations because business associations as such are very crucial political tools for business executives, which allow them to organize collectively and in that way to increase their sway on government and political processes or towards social movements, or of course, towards labor unions. So I decided to look at this business association, the US Council, and its role in driving forward globalization. And I also included research on two other big business associations that, that participated in this dynamic, which are the NAM and the US Chamber of Commerce.

[Alfred Marcus]

Very interesting. So it's the US Council for International Business, plus NAMM and the Chamber of Commerce. Who are the corporate globalizers in your book? These are the especially the U.S. council. And so can you especially describe the U.S. council for international Business? Who was it? Who were the people involved or the groups? And how did they differ from other business leaders at the time and even now?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes. So first let me say that the NAM and the US Chamber of Commerce were not actually the organizations of corporate globalizers. They were very attentive to the interests of smaller companies that were their member companies that were not as internationally interested. So they did not take a free to trade or pro globalization positions. That was the U.S. council that played this role. So the main argument I try to make in the book is to show that globalization was the outcome of a political process, not of a purely economic one. So what was this wave of economic globalization in the second half of the 20th century. Let me first say a few words about that, since this really is at the center, at the center of my, my book. This economic globalization that took place, it basically took off after the 1950s, was a huge increase in worldwide trade and investments. And the markers of this globalization were, on the one hand, the increase of the share that global trade represented in world GDP. So if we take two dates, the end of World War II and 1990, we can see that world trade expanded from 5 to 51% of world output. So huge increase in the exports and imports of products. But we also have to take into account foreign direct investments. Basically, foreign direct investments are the assets that are owned and controlled by multinational corporations in other countries, especially by establishing subsidiaries or factories abroad. So now if we look at the foreign direct investments, we can see that during the last three decades of the 20th century, they're part of the. Part of foreign direct investment. Outward flows made up in global GDP tripled. So these are two markers that show this extraordinary wave of globalization that took place. And what does that tell us? It tells us that the wealth and the power of multinational companies increased in a truly spectacular manner during this. During this period. So the question that guided my research was why is that? And how did this happen? How did this take place? And that is where the group of corporate globalizers that you mentioned in your question came into the picture. So who are these people that I call the corporate globalizers? They are extremely powerful business people, mainly men, until the 1970s, a few women participate in this group. So business people that had big multinational companies. And they got together in 1945 to create the US Council for International Business and consistently lobby for. For free market and pro globalization policies. And this is how they differed from other business leaders, because they considered that it was always right to lower barriers to trade and investment, including for foreign goods and capital coming into the US Market. Whereas other business leaders at times favored high tariffs to protect, protect the jobs in the United States.

[Alfred Marcus]

So there were other business leaders that opposed. There were business groups that opposed further globalization?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, definitely. There was economic nationalism that was promoted by certain business actors, especially during the 50s and then more recently again.

[Alfred Marcus]

So it wasn't uniform. But this group was particularly powerful in your view?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes. And it was their mission basically to protect the interests of multinational corporations. So the international interests of free trade, free investment, opening foreign markets to the business of these multinational companies, they enter.

[Alfred Marcus]

This organization as individuals or as representatives of their companies. And where did the companies support, support the organization or who's the money behind the organization?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

That's an excellent question. And it gets a little more complicated because the U.S. council cannot be considered the mouthpiece of the companies that were represented through certain of their senior managers who participated in the board of trustees of the U.S. council. It was much more an organization of individual business leaders who believed in this pro globalization agenda. So for instance, to give you an example, Philip Reid. He was probably the most influential corporate globalizer per se. He was the CEO of General Electric, a huge multinational company after World War II, and the President of General Electric, Ralph Cordiner, at the same time. He was the president as Reid was the CEO. And Cordiner advocated for a rigorously protectionist agenda. So the two men oversaw the operations of the same multinational company. Yet one, Reed, believed that globalization was the way to go, while the other one was convinced that US workers needed to be protected from globalization from foreign competition. So whether or not an executive decided to become a trustee of the U.S. council was a question of belief and ideology and not simply an act in the interests of his or her company. But when we look at the bigger picture, there is no doubt that these, the companies that these executives and the US Council headed profited from the policies that they promoted. Because it was thanks to this removal of obstacles to their international dealings that these companies became giant corporations during the second half of the 20th century.

[Alfred Marcus]

Was their aim to increase the profitability of their companies primarily, or were they guided by economic ideology? You know, if you take a course in economics, you almost always hear the praises of free trade. The old argument between Adam Smith and going back to the 18th century where he was arguing for free trade, was this, was this ideological or was it self interest motivated or some combination of the two hard to disentangle?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I think the two, the two were really linked and it's, it's impossible to separate the, the two because there was clearly ideology that played a role. There was a belief that it had been economic nationalism that had led to the Great Depression and to the rise of fascism in the 30s, and that free trade and free investment would also lead to world peace. So there was a real belief in what they were advocating for. But at the same time, of course, there were the material interests that were linked to this crusade because as I just mentioned, their own companies directly profited from the kind of policies that they were promoting.

[Alfred Marcus]

It was not so much economic ideology, but actually they were basing it on the past, the 1930s and the war that had occurred. And they believed that globalization would lead to peace that was at least part of their motivation.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

That was definitely part of their motivation when they started out. So they set up the US Council in 45 with this clear intent. And I think economic ideology played into this, their motivations as well.

[Alfred Marcus]

Do you think that in the corporate world at the time, the majority of large corporations were facing were favoring globalization, or was it more divided? Because historically, I think corporations politically take both sides of issues. It seems they contribute to both political candidates of the left and the right to protect themselves should either side be elected. So in this instance, was. Were they doing both or was it primarily, were they free traders?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

So I would say that the majority of big multinational companies, and we're really talking Fortune 100 companies that had subsidiaries all over the world, probably favored pro globalization free trade policies, although there were some exceptions. And if you look at the composition of the US Council, you can really see that it is these very large companies, or then consulting firms that worked with multinational companies or insurance companies that also had interests that were linked to multinational companies that were spending time and money in the U.S. in the U.S.

[Alfred Marcus]

Council, if you did an empirical study, you could probably say, based on the amount of foreign involvement that these companies previously had, you would find higher levels of support for globalization. They were both protecting their existing interests and trying to advance further their interests through globalization. Might want to say that.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, I think you could say that. But the situation also changed over time. So it's always important to keep in mind the historical context. Because the big multinational chemical companies, for instance, in the 50s were very protectionist because they were competing with imports from European companies, big multinational companies, and so they were in favor of higher tariffs. But then later in the 60s and 70s, these same companies became more free trade oriented because they had also increased their international reach. They had more indirect investments in Europe and other places in the world. And so they became more free trade and pro globalization at that time. Interesting.

[Alfred Marcus]

So was the use of Council for International Business, was it the central organization and was it the most prominent? Or were there other organizations involved at the time who also were promoting free trade as well as opposing free trade? In other words, why. Why focus on this organization particular? Was it the most prominent?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

It was definitely the most prominent. It was the only big business association that consistently represented the interests of multinational companies. So multinational companies also were members of the other big business associations, such as, or the, the U.S. chamber of Commerce, but their international interests were represented. Their globalization interests were represented by the U.S. council. And it is the U.S. council which until today represents all of American U.S. american business in the International Labor Organization in the UN and then through the International Chamber of Commerce in the oecd. So it's definitely the central and main business association for multinational corporations.

[Alfred Marcus]

So it still exists today and it's still active today.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

It's still very active today and it hasn't changed much, whether in policies nor and if you look at the at the Board of Trustees today, it's still made up of the CEOs and presidents of the main multinational corporations in the United States.

[Commercial Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states. @blinds.com it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. [e-mail] the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 45% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.

[Alfred Marcus]

How does it maneuver? Given the Trump administration's opposition to free trade and its pro tariff policies, are you continuing to follow it today? And.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, but of course I don't have access to the historical archives as for the prior period. But what they seem to be doing is very much what they did during the first Reagan administration. The first Reagan administration also adopted high tariff protectionist policies. Reagan wasn't the favorite candidate of the U.S. council members or the corporate globalizers, but they sort of stayed discreet during those years. They didn't make any big policy announcements or steps against the protectionist policies so they could deal with this administration. I think the same is probably happening today. And what you also have to keep in mind that other aspects of the Trump administration's policies very much benefit these same business leaders. For instance, tax cuts, corporate tax cuts are of course in favor of their their interests. So even if I'm pretty sure they're not happy about the high tariff policies, they probably still they're keeping a lower.

[Alfred Marcus]

Profile so that they don't they don't get bullied by this administration. And that is surprising. Actually that during the Reagan administration, despite the free market ideology that they had pro tariff policies. I wasn't aware of that. That's quite interesting. So how would you judge their legacy? Because there was this post war group of organizations that were created that did try to, you know, like the Marshall Plan, the gatt, the wto, they were moving away from them very rapidly in the world today. But they did act. There were positive things that they did. So how would you judge this overall? Were these people visionaries or they were just self interested elites? And what relationship is there in the immediate post war period to Cold War rhetoric? How did that play a role in what they were doing?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, so these corporate globalizers were very much a part of this whole process of establishing multilateral organization, a multilateral framework for trade in the immediate post war the years. First of all, the Marshall Plan U.S. council members really decisively helped establish the Marshall Plan, which was the biggest foreign aid package in history. And actually two founding members of the U.S. council, Averell Harriman and William Clayton, were part of the Truman administration. They were in charge of international economic policy. So from the inside of the Truman administration, they helped bring about the Marshall Plan and then help it pass congressional approval. And then another example which shows this direct participation of these businessmen in the international policies of the Truman administration is that once it's set up, the Marshall Plan, the administrator who is put in place at the top, at the head of the Marshall Plan administration is actually a founding member of the U.S. council as well. It's Paul Hoffman, a car maker. And then you have the OECD which comes out of the Marshall Plan. And again, this is of course in line with the objectives of the corporate globalizers. Always this idea to liberalize trade, to liberalize European markets. And until today, the US Council represents American business at the oecd to a large extent.

[Alfred Marcus]

They're elites in US society. And there's a kind of revolving door between this organization and policy making, rules, roles, so they could actually implement the policies that they were advocating for.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, it was definitely not only lobbying from the outside, but there were always corporate globalizers that were part of the different administrations, so had a direct influence from inside the government.

[Alfred Marcus]

Are there any of them today who voted?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Let me just. Sorry, let me add to different degrees during different administrations.

[Alfred Marcus]

Sure. In the current administration, I would imagine they're absent, but that's beyond the scope of your book. I understand. So what about the opposition? Did it start in the 1970s and did it include organized laborers and leaders from the global South? What was their motivation? Was it defense of fairness, democracy? Did they want to balance globalization and make it more equitable? What was their motivation? And how did the opposition arise?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes. So in the 1970s, organized laborers and actors in the Global south started to challenge these incredibly powerful players that multinational companies have become over the past, over the past two decades. So this was really an era of new anti globalization critique. In the book, I talk about this movement as the first anti globalization movement compared to the second one that starts in 1999 in Seattle. And so there were different international attempts to establish mandatory rules for multinationals, Be it on employment, on environmental protection, to keep them from interfering in the internal affairs of the host countries, or, for example, from collaborating with racist regimes in Southern Africa. And the most serious such attempt to set up rules for multinational corporations took place in the un, which set up the United Nations Commission on transnational corporations in 1975. So there was this alliance of interests happening between policymakers in the global South. They had support from eastern bloc countries because we are in a cold war setting, and organized labor. So organized labor in the 70s had begun questioning free trade, which was new. It had not done so in the 50s and the first half of the 60s. So they began criticizing the effects of free trade and of unlimited foreign direct investments. So they had become critical of the fact that multinationals were outsourcing jobs to lower income countries in Europe or in the. In the global South. So their aim was definitely to achieve better working conditions, fairer salaries, to protect populations in poorer countries from the power of these huge corporations. It was clearly a missed opportunity to achieve fairer globalization. What is important, and I try to discuss this in the book, is why these efforts ultimately failed. And it was in large part because of business lobbying and organizing by these corporate globalizers and by other groups of organized business. Because there is very much effort that is put into this campaign to weaken the efforts to achieve a binding code of conduct on multinationals within the United Nations.

[Alfred Marcus]

That's the main aim, to assure that workers, when the jobs were outsourced, that the workers were protected in these other countries, so that there would be greater equivalency between working conditions in more advanced countries and less advanced countries. Or what led to this recognition, actually. And who were the people who came upon it? Because they seem like they were getting at something that only now has become very prominent?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Basically, there were different motivations and different parts of this anti globalization movement. For labor unions in the United States or in Europe, the main aim was probably not to protect the populations in the Global south, but to protect the workers in the United States and in Western Europe, workers who were losing jobs and were in competition with the workers in the subsidiaries and in the factories that multinational companies were setting up.

[Alfred Marcus]

So it was outsourcing of jobs primarily.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

That they were mainly outsourcing of the jobs that motivated the labor unions. Whereas the Global south politicians, of course, had the problem of subsidiaries in their own countries, basically not being controlled by any political structure. So the aim was to be able to enforce certain regulations on these multinational companies in their own country.

[Alfred Marcus]

Did they actually? Were the reports written at the time that documented the exodus of jobs from the United States that it would be very interesting to look at those, I think, today in retrospect, that there was already a consciousness that this was occurring. Did you find such reports that documented it and who was writing it? How are they? Prince? I would assume also that the corporate leaders could draw much more on scholars and think tanks than the labor unions, and they wouldn't have the same kind of analytical capabilities to challenge what was going on. Or did they?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Actually, at the beginning of the 70s, the AFL CIO becomes very active on this issue and also tries to push legislation in the United States to promote legislation to regulate multinational corporations. And there are reports on, for instance, on differences in wages being paid in different industries in the United States and also in European countries. That's something that was surprising to me that in the 1970s, there's a real wage difference between certain countries in Europe, such as Italy and the United States.

[Alfred Marcus]

And so the AFL mostly was in touch with the Democratic Party. Forces within the Democratic Party, I assume. But the Democratic Party didn't fully adopt this agenda. If I think about the 1990s in particular, the Democratic Party became fairly pro trade. Is that correct? So do you have any insight into why the Democratic Party abandoned or did not fully support the AFL and the.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Labor unions in the 1990s? It's the new Democrats become very influential in the United States, amongst which Bill Clinton, of course, is a leading figure, and he starts to. And these New Democrats have a new discourse on free trade and on globalization, where they basically say globalization is a positive thing, is a good thing, but we need to protect the world population from certain negative effects of globalization. So in the 1990s, the situation has changed. The labor unions are less combative maybe in the 1990s than they were in the 1970s. But at the end of the 1990s, there's a second new anti globalization movement that arises critical of Outsourcing of jobs and in solidarity with people in the Global South. But it is not, you were right to say it's not the Democratic Party United States, it's less the labor unions and it's more grassroots movements, NGOs that play an important role in this and this wave of anti globalization.

[Alfred Marcus]

And like, it's surprising that countries in the Global south would oppose it because it, on the one, you know, it does bring jobs to and creates economic stimulus for countries in the Global South. But were they opposed to it or were they. I guess it depends. How did that work itself out?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, you really have to look at each country individually because there was no such thing as the Global south speaking with one voice, of course. So it depended on the different national contexts. For instance, Allende in Chile was very critical of the actions of multinationals and tribes to also establish alliances with labor in Europe and in North America. So within the UN as such, the whole third world movement in the 1970s was behind this agenda of establishing a binding code of conduct. So the big difference was that they wanted regulations that could actually be enforced. And so multinational companies, on the other hand, supported, mainly supported by European governments. And the U.S. government said, okay, we can have a code of conduct, but it shouldn't be binding. It should be. Basically multinationals should be able to self regulate, establish their own oversight. That was the main division between the two agendas.

[Alfred Marcus]

Yeah, I mean, this notion of the difference between self regulation and mandatory requirements is something I've written about in a paper that we did, but with regard to environmental regulation, mostly. But what about China, was it opposed? China actually benefited mentally from the outsourcing. So was it, what stance was it taking? I'm sure it changed over time. When China opened up, did they insist on any standards that should exist or how did China approach this?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Well, China in the 1990s was very actively pursuing free trade policy and wanted to join the wto, which it did, I think if, if I remember correctly, in, in 95. So China become part of this multilateral trade framework. And that's also the time when direct investments in China start to increase very dramatically. So multinational companies in the US or in Europe start to set up subsidiaries in China during this time.

[Alfred Marcus]

Yeah, it's amazing. There's another book that came out recently about Apple and how Apple played a huge role in training the Chinese and providing them with a lot of the intellectual capital that allowed the Chinese factories to begin because they understood how important they would be ultimately. In any case, it seems like there was some blockage or preventing of the progress of globalization. Because the NAFTA and the WTO were triumph. But later efforts like the tpp, the Trans Pacific Partnership, which was a Pacific Rim trade deal, and the TTIP proposed US EU trade pact failed. So so were the forces against globalization then able to mobilize and have an impact? And there were shifting values that kind of blocked further business driven globalization. When did that occur and how did that take place?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

So since the turn of the century 95, there was this big triumph of establishing the WTO which was really can be considered as a globalization agency with enhanced power. So that was a very important moment for the corporate globalizers. They wanted to go on to continue in this same direction. They had further projects for globalization, for instance, to better protect their investments, their direct investments abroad. Protect these investments against nationalizations or against environmental regulation was one of their aims. But these projects did not really move on as they would have hoped, in part because of this second anti globalization movement. I think it's always very important to take into account the role that historical actors played in these contexts. And then there was the financial crisis of 2008, 2009, which also made things worse from the perspective of corporate globalizers. So there was this pushback at the turn of the century against WTO type of globalization with this movement that took off in Seattle in 1999, which with huge protests against what was called neoliberal globalization. There are also protests in Davos, in Switzerland, against the World Economic Forum meetings that took place after 99. And these different historical actors, these movements were challenging the fairness or were questioning the fairness of globalization and pointed to the rising inequalities that it brought with it. And they also challenged the free trade agreements that you mentioned. So there was a certain setback of the projects of the agenda of the corporate mobilizers to go even further in freeing the circulation of capital, metals and goods worldwide. But I think it has to be like it shouldn't be exaggerated, this setback, because if you look at the current foreign direct investment figures of multinational companies, of US multinational companies, since the turn of the century until today, they have increased almost threefold in real value. So inflation taken into account, they are now worth $6.83 trillion. That's US foreign directed investments. So that's definitely not a real standstill of the process of economic expansion of these multinationals.

[Commercial Announcer]

Every minute your finance team spends wrestling with data is a minute lost. Insight Software's AI powered insights instantly move you from complexity to clarity. Automated analysis, real time reporting Strategic recommendations all at your fingertips. Transform how your finance team works and watch your business grow. Stop wasting time, start making smarter decisions. Learn [e-mail] AI.

[Alfred Marcus]

Isn't the US also a beneficiary of FDI? I mean, there's a lot of foreign direct investment in the US as well, especially today. It's beginning to recede. But the Chinese and the Japanese, the Middle Eastern countries, they've made huge FDI investments in the US So it's going both ways, right?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, absolutely. And that was also something which historically corporate globalizers always welcomed and fought for. That foreign directive, investment from a abroad should be able to come into the United States without any hurdles, whereas other economic actors in the United States wanted to block foreign direct investments in the United States. What's interesting is that this economic integration, so foreign direct investments happening from the US Towards Europe or towards the outside world and from the outside world and to the United States is essentially still happening between North America and Western Europe. So I can't give you the percentages now, but it is in great majority. These foreign direct investments are taking place in the transatlantic sphere, which is interesting, Andrew.

[Alfred Marcus]

Makes a lot of sense actually. And it also seems from your depiction and is that in 1998 the opposition was coming mostly from the left or progressive elements in U.S. society. And there was a rift, I guess, within the Democratic Party itself. But today it's coming from nationalist elements that are on the right. When did they join the anti globalist campaigns? Is that, do you have any comments about that?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes. Basically this opposition to globalization from the populist right, I would call it, which is not an opposition to globalization as a whole, but to certain aspects of globalization, that there's the will that to make globalization more conform with certain national interests. I would say so in the United States. This started with Ross Perot and Pat BUCHANAN in the 1990s. At first it was focused on NAFTA, opposition to NAFTA. So again to a multilateral free trade agreement. And this new opposition from the popular right, populist right, sorry, held globalization responsible for the loss of blue collar jobs in the Rust Belt. That was in the 1990s. And then after the 2007, 2008 financial crisis and the beginning of the Tea Party movement, the framing of this negative assessment of globalization changed somewhat. It was no longer multinational companies that were held responsible for the negative effects of globalization, but it was democratic elites, corrupt politicians that were blamed for this globalization. And the MAGA movement. And Donald Trump took up this discourse on the Negative effects of globalization and also a criticism of these, of the multinational trade framework. So especially of the wto, the World Trade Organization.

[Alfred Marcus]

So how did the US Council for International Business respond to the growing opposition, especially on the right? I would say did they just kind of hide from it or did they directly confront the opposition to trade? What was there?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

The US Council for International Business was the only main big business association in the United States that actively fought the China terrorists. For example, the tariffs that the first Trump administration had established, they fought against them. China fought against them. Yes. So they set up different business alliances and they participate in hearings and they wanted the government to get rid of these high tariffs, whereas the other big business associations, such as the NAM or the US Chamber of Commerce, did not play this same role.

[Alfred Marcus]

It's interesting.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Sorry.

[Alfred Marcus]

Do they continue to fight against the tariffs that are of today's tariffs? I mean, when you listen to the business media, which I do a lot, and it seems to me that major economists today almost uniformly think that Trump's tariffs and the way he's going about that are incredibly foolish, let's say at a minimum, and destructive. So have they continued this opposition today? Are they still very active against the. Or they. Are they being bullied and afraid to push their agenda?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

They certainly continued during the Biden administration because Biden did not get rid of tariffs as they would have hoped.

[Alfred Marcus]

Right. He didn't pull back. Right, right.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

And since Trump's return to power, I haven't seen much public manifestations of the US Council. So again, I can make this parallel with the Reagan administration in the early 80s. I imagine they are still, of course, opposed to this agenda because it's in opposition to what they have been promoting since 1945, lowering tariffs, fighting economic nationalism. So I imagine, I mean, I'm convinced that they are still, they still have the same, the same political agenda, but that they're sort of keeping quiet right.

[Alfred Marcus]

Now, get on the wrong side of Trump. And in fact, Peter Navarro, who, when I was in graduate school, he had an office nearby, Mike, my little cubbyhole, and I actually at that time did not think he would become such a toxic figure, but that's a whole other story. But how do they deal the US Council and the pro globalization forces within the queer community, what's their approach to de industrialization of the Rust Belt and the loss of U.S. jobs? Do they have any kind of competency mechanisms or do they advocate for anything to deal with both backlash, political backlash, and even the financial hardship that it has caused many people in Many regions in the United States.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I think the main reaction of the corporate globalizers to this problem of deindustrialization and the loss of manufacturing jobs is the promotion of the discourse on corporate social responsibility, the corporate social responsibility to promote sustainable development. For instance, United Nations Global Compact Initiatives Initiative 2000, which included multinational corporations. Again, the US Council played an important role alongside NGOs and labor unions and civil society groups with this idea that they could promote corporate sustainability on a purely voluntary basis. So we have this idea, self regulation, self regulation again. So I'd say that the answer of the corporate globalizers to these problems is continue the dynamics of globalization and free trade and free investments, but engage in these initiatives of social responsibility then would.

[Alfred Marcus]

Be kind of uniform throughout the world and there would be common standards. So country could not gain competitive advantage from the labor perspective by having lower standards. I guess that's their rationale or the kind of argumentation that they would be making. Uh huh, very interesting. So the motivation behind this, I'm sure it's hard to pull out, but I think the motivation for globalization and as a teacher of strategy in business schools, but also somebody who's been very involved in promoting corporate social responsibility. But I think that in business schools in general, we are pro globalization, I think in the way we teach. But there are many motivations. It's to expand markets, it's to provide access to raw materials, it's supply chains, to provide access to supply chains, and it's also to provide access to cheap labor. I mean, is this all part of the motivation or are there elements of it that have greater emphasis and priority, at least in your research that you did on the U.S. council? Do you understand my question? It's a little bit. It's not. Is it, is it what are the real. Is it everything then? Or are there specific elements with it that are really the higher priorities among the corporate elites that have been pro globalization?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

So basically, if you look at the minutes of the meetings when the executive committee of the US Council gets together and you know, as a historian I work with these, with these archival sources, so I see the discussions that took place between these business leaders, their focus is clearly on promoting this free trade agenda. That's what matters to them. And they discuss how best to do it and how to fight protectionist policies, different protectionist policies, how to intervene on the international scale and different international organizations to always to promote the same idea of opening markets. So I think, I don't really focus on the question whether the actions of these business Leaders were ethical. I think it's more important to think about what kind of a framework, framework of political structures could be put into place to steer globalization into a direction of greater social and economic equality, into a direction that would take into account the interests of a majority of the world population or that would help protect the environment. So if you see what I mean, I think that's the more important. I don't think even the anti globalization movement that started in Seattle did not like the label anti globalization. They said we are for globalization, but it has to be a globalization that is fair, that takes questions of equality into account, et cetera.

[Alfred Marcus]

So from a policy perspective, that's what you would probably yourself advocate for. You would advocate you're not anti globalization, but you're for fair globalization. And that's would have to happen.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I would say I look at it as a historian and as a historian what I. The structures that were put into place led to greater inequality in the world today than. So they are clearly not.

[Alfred Marcus]

If we were to evaluate this net net. You know, and I think this is, this is. It's going to be an ongoing debate and there will be a great. In terms of global welfare overall, there are definitely victims, but they're also like the global GDP has risen substantially and there are many, many people in the world who probably have benefited from globalization. Outside the US A lot of the victims are in the United States. I don't expect you to have a full answer to this, but it seems to be almost even an ethical conundrum that people in this country are suffering because of globalization, while people globally. There may have been advances made had it not been for globalization for the welfare of people throughout the world. Do you disagree with my, the argument I'm making?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Maybe I can mention the work of piketty on global inequality, which I find very, very interesting and which maybe provides part of the answer to that question. So growing global inequality.

[Alfred Marcus]

Okay, so you think the growing global in economy inequality is much greater than the positive benefits that may have accrued from globalization from free trade overall? That would be the. I know this isn't a conclusion in your book. We're going beyond it. I don't want to force you, but at least you would point that out. You at least qualify its benefits.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Yes, I think it always depends for whom was it beneficial, for which groups and for whom did it bring in equality. So of course if you look at it from a perspective of the multinational companies and of the business leaders of the multinational companies, I'd say the question is very quickly answered it was globalization was beneficial.

[Alfred Marcus]

Like the average Chinese person today, haven't they benefited from globalization? Of course. I mean, China has always imposed unfair tariffs against other countries, but still, I think the average, the average person in the world today is probably somewhat better off because of globalization. That's my. I don't, I couldn't make this argument, you know, empirically. It's just my impression that I think that the world. There has been advancements that occurred because of globalization. Like, if we think back in the 1930s, a lot of the reason why we. The depression persisted and even got worse was because of putting up walls against globalization. And people in the U.S. council were partially reacting to that. And so globalization has brought benefits globally, although there have been many, many victims. That's the way I see it. So you may disagree. What would be your conclusion? How would you view it?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I think it's not really the question I'm looking at because as a historian, what, how did it happen? Who made it happen? How did it work? Why was there this gigantic wave of globalization, et cetera. So I suppose that's.

[Alfred Marcus]

I can't get you to say, sum up the lesson. Should we see globalization as progress, exploitation, or something more complicated? Complicated? You're documenting what happened rather than evaluating it. I don't want to force you to evaluate it, by the way, because documenting it is very important.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I analyzed empirical evidence that I found in the historical archives. I would say that what is clear, and maybe that answers your question somewhat. What is clear to me after having done this research and written this book, is that globalization, the way it took shape during the last decades of the 20th century, has contributed to accumulating wealth in the hands of a minority of companies, big multinational companies and business leaders. Which does not mean that there was no alternative route that globalization could have taken.

[Alfred Marcus]

So maybe the alternative route is what we miss. There was a missed opportunity with the alternative route. It isn't globalization per se that is negative, but it's the way it was pursued without standards, without safeguards, if I'm putting words in your mouth, because today it's been taken over by this populist right, and the tariff movement is just so incredibly poisonous at this moment. That's my point of view. So that I think it's almost important to fight for globalization at this moment rather than to be opposed to it.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the populist rights does not challenge this multilateral trade framework in order to achieve greater equality or better protection for the environment. But Their aim is to make it more beneficial to certain parts of the national economy, basically. So since that is the aim that the agenda that is behind this, this attack on this multilateral globalization framework, it is very clear to me that the outcome cannot be a correction of the downsides of this process of globalization, but that.

[Alfred Marcus]

Every country retreated and became protectionist. I think everybody in the world would be worse off. That's my view. And we're seeing that happen to a certain extent. But anyhow. So what are you working on right now?

[Janek Marina Schofield]

I am working on several different projects which all involve the role of organized business. For one, I am studying how the political project of neoliberalism has advanced since the 1980s, especially in relation to business groups and think tanks. Business think tanks. Then I'm also, I've also been looking into environmental regulation and the climate crisis in the history of capitalism. And finally, a new area of research I have taken up is that of business conservatism in the United states after the 1980s. So leading up to the Tea Party.

[Alfred Marcus]

And Trump, excellent choices of things to look at at this moment. Very, very important. And neoliberalism is being attacked and climate crisis is being ignored. And so these are very, very important things to look at. I really appreciate your work that you've done and we probably should bring this to an end. And it's been a great conversation. Thank you for joining me today. Janek, your book reminds us that globalization was not an unstoppable force of nature, but the product of choices. Choices that were made by powerful actors that still shape our economy and society. At the heart of this history lies a question that continues to challenge us, concluding globalization truly serve the many or would always remain the project of a few. You've been listening to the New Books Network. I'm Alfred Marcus and today we've been discussing Crusading for Globalization. It's a really fascinating book, very well researched, very important for us to understand the history of this phenomenon. Thank you for joining us, Janek. And until next time, keep reflecting on how strategy and ethics shape the world we live in.

[Janek Marina Schofield]

Thank you very much.

[Commercial Announcer]

Mike and Alyssa are always trying to outdo each other. When Alyssa got a small water bottle, Mike showed up with a 4 liter jug. When Mike started gardening, Alyssa started beekeeping.

[Alfred Marcus]

Come.

[Commercial Announcer]

They called a truce for their holiday and used Expedia trip planner to collaborate on all the details of their trip. Once there, Mike still did more laps around the pool. Whatever you were made to outdo your holidays. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel.