The Global Rightward Shift: Consequences for Economic Growth and Social Integration

The political arena of Europe and a large part of the world is in a state of considerable metamorphosis. For many nations for decades, liberalism and socially progressive concepts were at the helm of most of the countries’ governance and order in society with respect to the socio economy which was based on economic integration, multilateralism and social market economy. This era from the post world war 2 towards the end century when the idea of entities such as the European Union came into being is quite shaped by the world war aftermath and the mutual wish never to let such cataclysm happen once again. Such attempt enhanced collaboration, increased growth, and brought the ideology of change through trade, especially in dealing with the countries that were coming out of the authoritarian regimes.

Even during the years of David Cameron’s Britain and George Bush’s America and Kohl’s, and Merkel’s Germany and Chirac’s France, there existed conservative governments, but these were governed within a moderate framework between free trade and social welfare. Such regimes although deep seated in positivist political economy and ideology, ensured liberal democracy was maintained whilst placing emphasis on ensured stability and cooperation within the global landscape. However, the generative forces of this retrospective approach have weakened. The last few years have experienced a clear turn towards the right and in some cases to the extreme right in populism which raises pertinent questions about the meaning of this trend for the world economy, national economies, business and individuals.

A Reaction to Liberal Overreach?

Examining the Neo-Conservative Phenomenon, one cannot ignore that excesses on the left and center may have fueled this reaction. As a rule, societies with a strong leftist ideology sought to set historical wrongs and inequalities, only to be often met with sweeping criticism, and while well intentioned, such measures do overreach what is considered to be socially and culturally acceptable due to a good means justifying bad means approach.

Consider the case of ‘woke-ism,’ which has garnered considerable social media attention, let alone bring further division within already furious polarisation. Despite a good being done or even proposed, some of the measures have been seen as censorship, alienation, or further dilution of already diluted values. Or overregulations in the environmental, financial or even labor space which are mostly prompted by the leftist ideologies, such cases tend to invoke an obstruction or new heightened set of barriers to cross which in turn only suffocates creativity not promotes it. All these slack policies resonate well with populist narratives and ideologies which make people believe in the over exaggerations that are often un reasonable and seeps to undermine their fundamental beliefs, this further promotes the surge of right-wing populism during socio-economic crises.

The Economics of Nationalism

To the supporters of economic nationalism, domestic industries should be favored over international ones, the local jobs market should be safeguarded, and the dependence on foreign trade should be minimized. The side effects on the economy might be harsh though. International trade comes with its own set of goals that many working-class people hope to strive towards, but the end results of that are exaggerating. Trade tariffs and anti-globalist policies are very similar in both economic labels and in the right-wing camp. Their near-sightedness may help a specific market in the short run, but they cause much greater economic disarray.

During first Trump’s presidency, retaliatory tariffs on a number of industrial goods and agricultural products pushed China and the EU away, which resulted in inflated consumer goods prices and volatility in the markets. Economic nationalism can be self-defeating, especially when businesses put up with economic nationalistic policies because of the trade barriers and political unpredictability.

The Changing Global Trade Landscape

The rise of right-wing politics challenges the post-war order of global economic cooperation. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the EU, built on principles of free trade and multilateralism, now face resistance from member states pursuing nationalist agendas. Brexit serves as a prominent example, where nationalist rhetoric advocating sovereignty and border control triumphed over economic arguments for remaining within the EU.

Such shifts risk fragmenting the global economy, particularly if other nations follow suit. Fragmentation can erode the economies of scale achieved through integrated markets, leading to inefficiencies and reduced competitiveness. In the long term, this could slow global economic growth, widen income disparities, and undermine collective responses to shared challenges such as climate change.

Impacts on Businesses and Workers

What’s more, nationalism is on the rise, undermining the fragile post-war global consensus on economic cooperation. The same goes for the EU which has been a proponent of free trade and multilateralism, joined with the World Trade Organization. The Brexit, which has been hailed as nationalism at its best, is one of many instances where calls for self-governance and limiting immigration policies, drowned economic cases for remaining in the EU, which all hinged on free trade.

Such shifts have the potential to break up the global market economy, particularly if other countries decide to follow through with it. Fragmentation often leads to the destruction of the economies of scale that have been produced by integrated markets and since such markets lead to reduced competition, there is bound to be a loss of competitiveness too. In the longer perspective, such changes may lower the rate of worldwide economic advancement, increase income differences and negatively affect global cooperation in responding to global threats, including climate change.

Social Cohesion and Political Polarization

The socio-political impacts of the rightward shift extend beyond economics. Nationalist ideologies, while fostering a sense of identity and pride, often deepen divisions within societies. Anti-immigration rhetoric, for instance, can marginalize minority communities, fueling social unrest and eroding trust in institutions. These dynamics threaten the inclusivity and social harmony that underpin economic stability and growth.

In parallel, the growing influence of identity politics on both ends of the spectrum has polarized societies, complicating governance and policymaking. As ideological battles intensify, the focus on pragmatic solutions to economic and social challenges risks being overshadowed by partisan agendas.

The Perils of Extremes and the Need for Balance

Extremes, whether on the left or the right, seldom offer sustainable solutions to the complex challenges of modern society. While both ends of the spectrum arise in response to genuine frustrations and real issues, their ideologies often spiral into dogma, undermining the nuanced, pragmatic approaches necessary to govern effectively in an interconnected and diverse world.

Both extremes, left and right, fail because they disregard the messy, multifaceted nature of human societies. The real world resists absolutes. It requires a constant negotiation of priorities, perspectives, and values. True progress is not achieved through rigid ideologies but through adaptability, humility, and the willingness to find common ground. History repeatedly shows us that extremism breeds division, not unity; chaos, not stability.

The question is not whether one side is wholly right or wrong but whether we have the courage to reject extremes altogether. The answer lies not at the edges of the spectrum but in the shared space where reason, empathy, and cooperation thrive. It is here, in this middle ground, that we will find the solutions to our most pressing challenges and the vision to build a world worth inheriting.

In other words, echoing a timeless slogan that shaped my perspective and remains as relevant today as ever: “Nie wieder!”