First era of globalisation (pre-1914) never ended

We live in an era of globalisation now, but the first era of globalisation took place prior to 1914 (ended by the First World War).

The first era of globalisation was arguably freer than it is today will more mobility of capital and many nations did not require foreign nationals to have passports in order to enter.

What if the first era of globalisation never ended? I've placed this thread in the Before 1900 section as it would definitely need a POD in the late 19th century rather than the early 20th century I think.

The United Kingdom abolished most trade barriers in the mid-19th century OTL. However, my POD is that sometime in the late 19th century continental European nations start to at least moderately reduce trade barriers as well. What other PODs are possible?

You would definitely need a less severe WW1, as war tends to make nations want to become autarkic in regards to their economy. On the other hand it might be said that a more economically integrated Europe pre-1914 would reduce the likelihood of a war (the original reason for today's EU was the notion that France and Germany would never go to war if their economies were inextricably linked).

If globalisation had continued fairly much unstopped until today in this ATL what would the world be like?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I don't think it would require a pre-1900 POD. Just avert the First World War, or have it end rapidly and with comparatively little damage.
 
I think the trend would be for the continental powers to begin to unify economically so as to compete with the preeminent power, the British Empire and emerging powers such as Russia and the USA. A roadblock to this cooperation is French revanchism. How to resolve this?
 
IMO this is borderline ASB. Even without WW1, protectonism would have continued it rise, and immigration restrictions would have come into play in America. You need a fundamental POD that changes it, and I can't see it.
 
IMO this is borderline ASB. Even without WW1, protectonism would have continued it rise, and immigration restrictions would have come into play in America. You need a fundamental POD that changes it, and I can't see it.

I agree that probably with immigration being made easier as the century wore on, immigration restrictions were likely to be put in place.

However I see no real reason why trade protetionism was needed. By 1900 most of the major European nations were at least semi-industrialised, so there is no real no need for them to fully protect themselves against British goods.

Also in the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a lot of internationalist feeling (this being before 1914). If WW1 is avoided, perhaps nations feel no need to remain self-sufficient and instead wasnt to specialise, vis-a-vis comparative advantage.
 
Guys

Ironically possibly as well as butterflying WWI the other key requirement would be to remove free trade as an item of faith from Britain. As long as the British government insisted that come what may Britain and its empire, the largest market in the world, would be committed to free trade there was little incentive to other powers to cut their own protective tariffs.

If instead Britain had introduced a moderate level of tariffs and made clear it was willing to negotiate for the mutual lowering of tariffs with various powers that would have given some incentive for them to lower their own. The more hard line protectionists, say France after 1870 and the US until 1945, would be unlikely to make an agreement but others might find it in their interests to do so. Then, as this large low trade area expands, it creates a vested interest for other powers to lower their own tariffs to get a share of the bigger cake.

Britain on its own probably might not have had the influence to trigger this on their own post 1900 but it would probably be the biggest single factor possible to maintain and deepen the widespread international trade other than removing WWI and its aftermath.

Steve
 
Guys

Ironically possibly as well as butterflying WWI the other key requirement would be to remove free trade as an item of faith from Britain. As long as the British government insisted that come what may Britain and its empire, the largest market in the world, would be committed to free trade there was little incentive to other powers to cut their own protective tariffs.

If instead Britain had introduced a moderate level of tariffs and made clear it was willing to negotiate for the mutual lowering of tariffs with various powers that would have given some incentive for them to lower their own. The more hard line protectionists, say France after 1870 and the US until 1945, would be unlikely to make an agreement but others might find it in their interests to do so. Then, as this large low trade area expands, it creates a vested interest for other powers to lower their own tariffs to get a share of the bigger cake.

Britain on its own probably might not have had the influence to trigger this on their own post 1900 but it would probably be the biggest single factor possible to maintain and deepen the widespread international trade other than removing WWI and its aftermath.

Steve

An interesting point which I hadn't previously thought about. I totally agree that if Britain had had negotiable moderate protectionism it might have been easier to get other nations to agree to it.

I suppose this is sort of the theory of the current EU, whilst maintaining some forms of protectionism, it has through the decades liberalised both the internal and external trade. Also look at the WTO and its predecessor GATT.
 
Top