Former WTO Chief Economist Robert Koopman: Globalization Is Not Yet Over; Countries Need to Find New Ways to Collaborate | Chief Strategy

Currently, the global economy is entering a critical restructuring phase of re-globalization. At the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2026, Robert Koopman, former Chief Economist of the World Trade Organization, voiced his opinions on the current state of the global economy and trade patterns, breaking the pessimistic rhetoric of “de-globalization” and pointing out a new direction for global economic development.

Regarding the changes in the current global trade pattern, Koopman stated that global supply chains are not retreating but rather being restructured. The transfer of production and technology centers, along with deep regional cooperation, has become an important feature of re-globalization. Asia, leveraging its integrated trade advantages, has become a core hub in the process of re-globalization. He also warned that economic fragmentation and policy uncertainty will hinder global economic development; only by maintaining honest dialogue and strengthening multilateral and regional cooperation, relying on technological innovation and economic growth momentum, can the benefits of re-globalization reach the world and help the global economy emerge from volatility and achieve robust recovery.

The situation in the Middle East remains unstable, and the continuous rise in oil prices will have what impact on global trade and economic growth? How does the concept of “re-globalization” differ from previous globalization? What is the current state of the WTO and the multilateral trading system? What is the biggest obstacle to WTO reform? For emerging markets, is the reshaping of the global trade pattern a greater challenge or more opportunities? What new framework do the US and China need to establish to maintain the global trading system?

Caixin’s “Chief Strategy” has interviewed Robert Koopman, former Chief Economist of the World Trade Organization and Professor at American University, at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2026.

Robert Koopman’s main points:

Global economic growth will be impacted by the situation in the Middle East

Central banks are caught in a dilemma

The trend of “re-globalization” will not disappear

Many companies are seeking more resilient sources of production

Countries need to find new ways to cooperate

The “decoupling and disconnection” of key supply chains stems from national security concerns

Emerging markets have tremendous opportunities for economic resilience and diversified development

Unilateral actions by the US raise concerns among trade participants regarding the stability of rules

The US and China need to reach a consensus on maintaining the principles of the global trading system

It is incorrect for the US to blame domestic issues on China and international trade

The US and China need to coordinate and cooperate on artificial intelligence governance

In the process of shifting to a “global demand center,” China needs to increase the share of consumption

It is necessary to reduce consumption concerns through improvements in education, healthcare, pensions, and housing security

Global economic growth will be impacted by the situation in the Middle East

Central banks are caught in a dilemma

Caixin: Good afternoon, Professor, thank you for accepting our interview. Let’s start with the current hot topic, the still unstable situation in the Middle East and the continuous rise in oil prices. What impact will this have on global trade and economic growth?

Koopman: I believe that from an economic impact perspective, the longer this situation persists, the more significant its effects will be. I think global economic growth will be negatively impacted, and the degree of this negative impact depends on how long this situation lasts. However, some countries are currently facing more severe negative effects due to energy supply disruptions, with energy prices rising faster. This will have short-term, direct effects on production costs and household expenditures for these costs. But I want to emphasize again that if the conflict continues, then the impact will grow larger, accumulate, and increase exponentially.

So for central banks, this is indeed a dilemma. Because this is a supply shock, and energy costs are rising. Many developed economies have already reduced their dependence on energy in production. This includes a shift from manufacturing to services, forming a service-oriented economic model. Therefore, for certain countries, this impact is not significant, while for others, it is quite the opposite.

Even though it is not directly used for energy expenditures, cost pressures still exist; oil will be integrated into many other products, such as plastics and metals. It is used in many different products in various ways, such as fertilizers. I think this is a very important part for agriculture. So the longer this situation lasts, the more severe the cost increases will be, and the greater the impact on inflation. Central banks will need to pause interest rate cuts, or even raise rates, to curb inflation.

The trend of “re-globalization” will not disappear

Many companies are seeking more resilient sources of production

Countries need to find new ways to cooperate

Caixin: You have previously discussed the concept of “re-globalization.” How is it different from previous globalization, especially given the current escalation of geopolitical tensions?

Robert Koopman: Re-globalization is essentially a reorganization of globalization; globalization has not gone far. The latest report I wrote on the development of global value chains for 2025 clearly states that global value chains and the trade flows around these value chains have continued to exist. It is just that they have been reorganized due to geopolitical tensions and uncertainties following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many companies are seeking more resilient sources of production; they are diversifying, in some cases nearshoring, and in a few cases, seeking assurances. This has not led to a decline in global trade but rather its reorganization. So I see this as a positive signal, indicating that the global economy can be resilient.

However, I worry that this may not be the most effective way to achieve resilience. I think many countries not only want their businesses to be resilient (to ensure economic production) but also want to be resilient for national security reasons. I believe it is important for countries to find ways to cooperate to build more resilience in the global economy, but to do so in a relatively efficient and cost-effective manner.

Countries are dissatisfied with the slow progress of WTO reforms

There is a need to find ways to address old issues and deal with new ones

Caixin: How do you view the current state of the WTO and the multilateral trading system? What is the biggest obstacle to the reform process?

Robert Koopman: I think the biggest obstacle to WTO reform is the frustration of countries over the lack of progress in reforms. Countries have made progress in regional trade agreements and bilateral trade agreements. However, since the WTO operates on a consensus basis, any country can block the new issues that a large number of member countries may want to discuss and attempt to resolve through negotiations. Because of the consensus mechanism, any country can block this discussion if it wishes. What we see is that due to unresolved legacy issues from the past and those that emerged when the WTO was established in 1995, countries are blocking discussions on new issues. The global economy is indeed evolving, and thus, a method needs to be found to help address old issues while also dealing with new ones.

The “decoupling and disconnection” of key supply chains stems from national security concerns

Caixin: In fields such as new energy, semiconductors, and others, will key supply chains experience partial decoupling or complete separation?

Robert Koopman: I believe this primarily stems from national security concerns. Countries want reliable supply channels and do not want to be affected by potential political pressures from other countries. In the field of international relations, there is a term called “weaponization” and “interdependence.” As the world becomes more globalized, countries find themselves in key positions within certain supply chains, while other countries rely on these supply chains. They may try to leverage these pressure points to obtain the concessions they want.

The US was one of the first countries to use these tactics in areas like the financial system, and it has taken relevant measures along with Asia and the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). If these products have multiple sources and the supply channels are efficient and diverse, then this resilience becomes particularly important. However, currently, I believe the state of the world we are in is adapting to the rise of new powers, shifting from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. How do we find a way to establish this unified vision moving forward, and coordinate and cooperate? From an economic perspective, this is the most effective way, but politics is not driven solely by economics, nor is it entirely determined by it.

Emerging markets have tremendous opportunities for economic resilience and diversified development

Unilateral actions by the US raise concerns among trade participants regarding the stability of rules

Caixin: For emerging markets, is the reshaping of the global trade pattern a greater challenge or more opportunities?

Robert Koopman: I think this is a great opportunity for emerging markets in Africa, Latin America, and South America. I believe that in the pursuit of economic resilience and seeking diversified development, these countries have tremendous opportunities to find their place in the global economy, and what they need are fairly transparent and stable rules.

In the process of participating in the reshaping of supply chains, I think the recent performance of the US in this regard has not been proactive, as various unilateral trade actions have emerged, and the second term of the Trump administration was filled with uncertainties. I think this has made many businesses and governments concerned about what rule changes will happen tomorrow. Governments and businesses, as well as the trade they engage in, do not like changes in rules.

The US and China need to reach a consensus on maintaining the principles of the global trading system

It is incorrect for the US to blame domestic issues on China and international trade

The US and China need to coordinate and cooperate on artificial intelligence governance

Caixin: Setting aside political rhetoric, what kind of new framework do the US and China need to establish to maintain the global trading system?

Robert Koopman: Both sides need to reach some sort of compromise and consensus on the fundamental principles of the global trading system, and they must both acknowledge the benefits it brings.

I believe the Chinese government is well aware of the significant benefits it derives from the global trading system. This involves the rebalancing issue discussed in the “14th Five-Year Plan,” and actually, this topic has also been mentioned in the “12th,” “13th,” and “14th Five-Year Plans.” China needs to effectively promote this rebalancing and ensure that the Chinese public can genuinely feel the benefits from it.

A major challenge facing the US is that it has been affected by globalization, technological changes, demographic shifts, and changes in consumer preferences. However, American politicians tend to blame trade, especially trade with China, for these problems. I believe it is wrong to shift the blame onto China and to trade. Trade has indeed had some negative effects on the US economy, but what the US economy really needs—which I think China should also focus on—is a series of domestic policies to help society adjust to the demands of various shocks. Whether they are trade shocks, technological shocks, or the impacts brought by artificial intelligence.

People invest a lot of time and cost into learning specific skills; when a new technology emerges that disrupts how they rely on these skills to make a living, transitioning will be exceptionally difficult for them. How can we help them? How can we support this transition? How can we ensure that artificial intelligence truly benefits everyone, rather than just allowing a few tech-savvy individuals to profit while the rest bear the negative impacts? I believe this is the real challenge that the governments of both the US and China must think about together. Ideally, both sides should seek coordination and cooperation to jointly create a set of rules that genuinely serve society and the public.

In the process of shifting to a “global demand center,” China needs to increase the share of consumption

It is necessary to reduce consumption concerns through improvements in education, healthcare, pensions, and housing security

Caixin: China is transitioning from the “world’s factory” to a global demand center. What kind of institutional reforms does this entail?

Robert Koopman: It requires increasing the share of household consumption in GDP. Households need to be assured that they can spend more on consumption. Many Chinese households have such concerns; they worry about expenses related to education, healthcare, pensions, and the potential value of housing they might purchase, which makes them less willing to consume in large amounts.

So for the Chinese government, there is a challenge here to ensure households can confidently believe they can afford education, healthcare, pensions, and housing costs, while also increasing consumption in services, vacations, dining out, and purchasing imported goods.

Caixin: Based on your experience, what key policy recommendations do you have for China in achieving maximum openness and maintaining stability for foreign investment?

Robert Koopman: Stable policies are becoming increasingly open and competitive. Therefore, allowing foreign companies to enter the market and compete on fair terms with domestic companies is the best way for China to achieve openness.

Duty Editor: Yulin