Globotization stage of internationalization of the economy from the Polish perspective

Many economists are troubled by the question motivating research on the evolution of economic globalization. Rather, the prevailing belief is that there is a constant evolution in this area. However, this means that explanations of the logic governing the world economy are constantly depreciating. Successive proposals to modify theories of trade and international competitiveness both at the level of companies and entire countries evidence this. Noteworthy, these are intellectual ventures and, above all, very practical directives on the desired economic policy tools.

Taking the above point of view, we attempted to systematize the relationship between the evolution of the global economic system and the major theories that scholars currently develop in economic science. By economic sciences, we mean the knowledge of economics, finance and management sciences. As a result of the conducted reasoning, the final part of the study will outline the desired directions of economic policy related to the Polish economic system in particular.

The study is conceptual and rigorous. We will reference the world economic literature, exposing the concepts of some selected authors, choosing authors who most often refer to the issues of globalization and whom the literature cites relatively often.

The term globotics is a portmanteau of two words: globalization and robotization. Richard Baldwin introduced it to the economic literature in 2019. In his view, globalization is an economic activity that crosses the borders of individual countries and even continents ^[1]. Meanwhile, robotization is the process of replacing human labor with automated machines. We define the term globotics as economic globalization mixed with robotization using artificial intelligence (AI), information and communication technology (ICT) and blockchain technology (BT), which together enable outsourcing and offshoring due to the ease of remote work. Therefore, we may call the process of emergence and spread of this phenomenon globotization.

According to Baldwin, understanding the globotization process helps uncover the rules governing the progress of economic globalization and the migration of international competitiveness. Historically speaking, throughout the centuries, the “first unbundling” of the world economic system resulting from the decline in the cost of transportation has slowly and gradually matured (Baldwin, 2006). As long as this cost was high, long-distance trade was not economically viable. The result was the economic autarky of relatively small geographic regions. It was only after the invention of the steam boiler and the construction of means of transportation and its subsequent upgrade that moving goods over long distances became increasingly cheaper. This separated production and consumption centers. There were incentives for the development of international trade. Using the available resources and discounting the cost effects of production scale, individual geographic regions (national economies) began to specialize in selected economic activities. By force of nature, regions exported surpluses of manufactured goods and income from this activity could finance imports from regions that specialized in other economic activities. Of course, the growing international trade in goods is economically viable. Therefore, it did not relate only to consumer goods but also to international inter-industry trade-in, which we often refer to today as the B2B (business to business) area. Gradually, international supply chains took shape, i.e. directly or indirectly cooperating companies or international value chains ^[2], i.e. sets of companies cooperating with each other to increase the product’s utility value. This had the character of a vertical organization of production activities.

At the end of the 20th century, another breakthrough occurred thanks to dynamic advances in information technology. Namely, the cost of transmitting information decreased by leaps and bounds. This was the driving factor behind the “second unbundling” (international separation of factories) of the global economic system (Banaszyk, 2022). Following the staff of one consulting firm, we can assess that international supply chains (international value chains) transformed into “extended enterprises,” i.e. groups of enterprises working closely together, with each of them being a leader (cost, utility, innovation, etc.) in its field (Mirecki, 2024). When describing the “second breakup,” Baldwin uses terms such as fragmentation, offshoring, vertical specialization, or slicing up the value-added chain (Baldwin, 2006, p. 7) In other words, people began to manage international supply chains (international value chains) in an integrated manner. Previously, this was impossible because of the relatively high transaction costs associated with agreeing and securing civil law contracts that set the rules for economic cooperation between autonomous companies.

Noteworthy, the focus on transaction costs helps solve the dilemma of whether to enter into cooperation with external partners (buy or make). The drive to minimize transaction costs indicates a potential preference for administrative control of undertaken business activities. For this reason, entrepreneurs may gain an advantage by keeping these activities within the company’s boundaries and integrating them internally. For all organizationally external activities, one seeks to minimize the importance of information asymmetry because this promotes long-term cooperation with business partners. For this reason, external integration is also present (Chen, Daugherty, & Landry, 2009, p. 33). Customer orientation changes the logic of reasoning and conduct. In this variant, all attention should focus on buyers’ requirements and the dynamics of market trends. The focus on reducing business costs no longer suffices. This approach requires information about buyer’s plans and investments and also about buyers’ buyers etc. Customer orientation implies cooperation along the entire supply chain (value chain), so its mirror image is supplier focus. This implies a preference for external cooperation, which does not preclude disciplining the cost of operations internally (Chen et al., 2009, pp. 33–34). Thus, the process of supply chain (value chain) integration is always internal and external at the same time. However, depending on the management objectives, the priorities distribution differs. We locate these issues within the so-called supply chain management.

Graham Stevens pioneered the issue of supply chain (value chain) integration in 1989. He distinguished four integration stages (Stevens, 1989, pp. 4–5):

1. Initial (baseline) stage without integration,

2. The functional integration stage involving the centralization of decisions in the areas of materials management, production and distribution,

3. A stage of internal integration involving overcoming the siloed isolation of the three areas identified above and a cross-functional approach,

4. The stage of external integration involving cooperation between suppliers, the manufacturer and customers.

Scholars now recognize a need to supplement this evolution with further stages that have emerged as modern business conditions have changed.

The fifth stage of this evolution is the goal-oriented networked supply chain (value chain). The change involves supplementing the perception of supply chain (value chain) management with information flows accompanying material goods’ movement. The supply chain (value chain) (Stevens & Johnson, 2016, pp. 18–20) is becoming a network of relationships between business partners rather than a sequence of transactions between them.

The sixth stage of evolution is a decentralized and cooperative cluster-based supply chain (value chain). Such a network has a modular form, i.e. it consists of many sub-networks, each with a lead company, all cooperating because of a community of goals (Stevens & Johnson, 2016, pp. 20–22).

As you can figure out, according to Stevens, supply chain (value chain) integration progresses as you move to its next stages. This is an evolutionary process. Some researchers have argued that this evolution results in increasingly efficient and effective supply chain (value chain) operations. Nathalie Fabbe–Costes and Marianne Jahre have conducted a detailed analysis and critical assessment of this issue. Their research shows that the relationship between the progressive integration of the supply chain (value chain) and the increase in its effectiveness and efficiency is not at all undisputed. However, the majority of researchers advocate such a relationship. Many of them confirm this hypothesis with the results of their research and a smaller group supposes that this is the case, although they cannot prove it convincingly (Fabbe-Costes & Jahre, 2008). This general belief leads to directive proposals known as supply chain (value chain) maturity models.

According to Anna Baraniecka, although these models are numerous in the literature, the most representative proposals are (Rutkowski, 2016):

1. Compass’ five-level integration model,

2. Ch. Poirier’s supply chain maturity model,

3. A.T. Kaerney’s supply chain development model,

4. Levels of supply chain integration by D. Kempny,

5. D. Kisperska-Moroń’s five gradable forms of business interaction in the supply chain,

6. Supply chain management excellence model by A. Baraniecka and B. Rodawski,

7. PRTM/PMG supply chain evolution model.

These models characterize the successive stages of supply chain (value chain) maturity growth characterized by an increasing number of cooperating entities and greater adherence to management principles. The principles focus mainly on synchronizing and coordinating the cooperation of chain enterprises and aim at satisfying end customers. Some of them also present the conditions to meet in each stage. Generally, these stages consist first of internal integration of the chain, followed by external integration.

Let us now return to Baldwin. He argues that the combined low cost of transportation and low-cost transmission of information enabling synchronization and harmonization of geographically distant economic agents have significantly transformed international trade. According to him, this transformation no longer consisted only in separating production centers from consumption centers (under international trade in final products) and centers of production from each other (under international intra-industry or intra-industry trade) but also in carving out international trade in tasks. This trade allows for a significant deepening of the division of production tasks among many manufacturing plants, even though it requires very close coordination of their activities in a management mode (Trautwein, 2022).

According to Baldwin, the two breakdowns of the global economic system described above are now history. Today, the global community is facing its consequences. The modern world economy took its current shape because of supply chains (value chains) that hold a large share of international trade, create a serious portion of global GDP and employ a sizable number of people worldwide. About one-third of global trade occurs inside geographically fragmented transnational corporations. Much of this trade happens between formally autonomous companies but is incorporated into global supply chains (value chains) (Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, 2011, pp. 2–3).

Such a supply chain (value chain) is managed, i.e. the so-called leading company organizes its activities to achieve a functional division of labor, resulting in a specific allocation of resources and distribution of profits among the chain’s enterprises, as well as defining the terms of participation in the chain (Bolwig, Ponte, du Toit, Riisgaard, & Halberg, 2010, pp. 175–176). The leading company is most often a large transnational corporation that has the potential to manage a global supply chain (value chain). This is because such corporations initiate the fragmentation and geographic relocation of production by occupying a strategic position in the emerging chain. Its sources are monopoly, proximity to the target market, knowledge, technology, resources and the ability to generate innovation (Campling & Selwyn, 2018, p. 418). Leading companies set their sights on appropriating the lion’s share of the value (profit) generated in the chain and expanding their dominant position (Campling & Selwyn, 2018, p. 419). Leading companies drive the activity and development of global supply chains (value chains).

The global economic system shaped during the “second rebundling” is imperfect. Joseph Stiglitz is one of the scholars convinced of this. He emphasizes that the globalization process also has an institutional aspect leading to the launch of “global management without global government.” Meanwhile, the success of economic globalization requires management by national governments that respect the specific features of a given country (Stiglitz, 2017). Simply put, the efficiency of rigorous global management requires meeting many necessary conditions, listed, for example, by Kołodko (2003, pp. 53–54).

According to Baldwin, we are now witnessing a “third rebundling” of the global economic system resulting from the declining cost of labor service contracts. This means that people can perform a variety of labor, not necessarily in the labor establishment’s location. Therefore, labor services can become internationally traded. This is both possible and desirable because of the significant differences in the geography of labor costs. This creates a new category of workers, i.e. telemigrants (Baldwin & Forslid, 2023, p. 307). There are already a lot of them and there will be even more because digital translators are lowering the language barrier, online job placement platforms are removing the constraints of geographic distance and augmented reality technology allows for remote collaboration with, e.g. cobots and holographic telepresence technology create the impression of co-presence of real-life distant individuals (Baldwin & Forslid, 2023, pp. 311–312).

Thus, explanations of the sources of international competitiveness appropriate in times of international commodity trade arguably lose their exploratory and predictive power during the dominance of international supply chains (value chains). This competitiveness requires an even different explanation in times of globotization (international trade in remote labor services).

The competitiveness issue has been the subject of consideration and research undertaken in many scientific centers. Researchers have conducted these considerations at the macro, meso and microeconomic levels. For example, we may refer to the view of respected competitiveness researcher Michael Porter:

Competitiveness can be represented at several levels: the country’s resources, the middle layer, which is represented by macroeconomic competitiveness and the microeconomic layer as a combination of the environment that surrounds the company itself and clusters of companies or the concentration of companies in a particular field, where there is sufficient critical mass to create supporting institutions (Porter, 2011).

Economic globalization has caused companies to operate from an international perspective using the potential of individual countries. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that modern international competition is simultaneously micro and macroeconomic.

However, let us recall Paul Krugman’s opinion that transferring the concept of enterprise competitiveness to national competitiveness is completely illegitimate. His important argument is that an enterprise losing competitiveness cannot maintain its market share and consequently goes bankrupt, i.e., ends its existence. Krugman stresses that in the case of states, there is no such terminal limit to existence, even if economic performance is unsatisfactory (Krugman, 1994, p. 31). Of course, such an unequivocally formulated thesis faces polemics that illuminate the issue of international competitiveness differently. Scholars held one of the most recent discussions in March 2021 at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies. The discussion resulted in three main conclusions, i.e. productivity is a key competitiveness driver at the firm, industry and country level; constraints to competitiveness and growth may lie outside the usually-studied areas, such as intra-country inequalities, including inequalities of opportunity, can reduce sustainable growth, i.e. broader social and institutional characteristics in general remain a key determinant of competitiveness; the “rediscovery” of industrial policy as a tool to foster competitiveness and growth allows for the combination of three pillars of competitiveness – resources, innovation and regulation – with company, sector and framework policies, thus encompassing the entire potentially vast field of industrial and competitiveness policy. Furthermore, all countries are advised to take advantage of promising new approaches to industrial policy and may wish to experiment with smart specialization strategies or define industrial missions to promote structural change and accelerate growth Stöllinger (2011).

However, we should make a key distinction that we often forget when discussing the essence of competitiveness. For this purpose, we can distinguish a narrow and broad understanding of competitiveness. A narrow understanding of competitiveness means the ability to compete with competitors in domestic or international markets. Thus understood, competitiveness boils down to the creation of a supply that has a competitive advantage over its competitors, allowing it to maintain or, preferably, increase its market share. According to Porter’s classical views, this advantage can be cost or quality (Porter, 1985). In this sense, competitiveness can apply to companies, industries, products, services, etc., from locations that we do not consider competitive in the broad sense. Competitiveness means here the attractiveness of a location as a place for its residents to live, described by such terms as prosperity, well-being, standard of living, etc. Indeed, we often attribute competitiveness in the narrow sense to those manufacturing regions, which, in the sense of competitiveness understood more broadly, are not at all attractive locations for residents. Moreover, competitiveness in the narrow sense may even imply negative consequences concerning competitiveness in the broad sense. For example, pursuing cost advantages may entail low environmental standards or labor market standards. A bridge between these signaled understandings of competitiveness is Porter’s diamond. It emphasizes that the underlying and unnoticed causes of competitive advantage often stem from intense competition with the internal market in a given industry, sophisticated internal demand for the products of a given industry, necessary factors of production and related and supporting industries, all of which support the competitive advantage (Figure 1). Thus, Porter exposed and conceptually analytically dissected the foundations of the economic prosperity of companies or nations. In his view, the search for these foundations required me to answer the following questions:

1. Why has a country become the base of successful international competitors in a particular industry?

2. Why are companies embedded in a particular country able to create and maintain a competitive advantage over the most formidable global rivals in a particular field?

3. Why is one country often home to many world leaders from a given industry?

Scholars consider the competitiveness issue one of the main determinants of nations’ prosperity and wealth. Its rank is even becoming paramount in the functioning and competition of open national economies in the world market. Thus, competitiveness becomes a fundamental variable in the ongoing globalization analyses (Gorynia, 2019).

Although the cited concept focuses on the basic analysis unit, i.e., the industry – in Baldwin’s approach, it loses its importance in favor of tasks – it seems that some aspects of Porter’s diamond are still relevant for forming international competitiveness.

Considering Porter’s cited concept, we note that the views promoted by the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies align with Karl Aiginger’s idea. He postulates that international competitiveness is defined consequentially as a country’s ability to create wealth for a nation or its people’s standard of living. Both hard and soft factors shape this ability. The former are labor, capital and technical progress. Soft factors are competence, institutions’ quality, trust, political stability and the rule of law (Aiginger, 2006, p. 163). Noteworthy, Krugman’s main argument about the impossibility of bankrupting a country becomes significantly weaker here as a declining level of prosperity or living standards of the population can become the cause of either a change of power as a result of democratic elections or political upheaval due to unrest. This is a break in the continuity of the country’s socio-political system.

As established above, Baldwin divided the evolution of economic globalization into three stages. Globalization of commodity exchange, globalization of the separation of production tasks and globalization of labor provision. For the article’s purpose, we assumed that each stage requires a description and explanation that differs in terms of international competitiveness as an important factor in shaping national prosperity and people’s living standards.

In the simplest traditional terms, the stage of globalization of commodity exchange leads to the indicated intention under the condition of absolute or comparative advantage. In particular, the development of the concept of comparative advantage made it possible to prove that commodity exchange can be profitable between countries when one is weaker by absolute measures in any area. As is well known, the comparative cost principle applies here, i.e., the recommendation that countries specialize in the production and export of goods that provide the lowest opportunity cost (Begg, Fischer, & Dornbusch, 1992, pp. 387–388). The main determinants of the specializations’ directions have expanded over time, starting with natural conditions, the level of technology, states of resource abundance and mastered knowledge (Kocot, 2007, pp. 90–97). Noteworthy, the traditional theory of international trade has evolved to consider an increasing number of circumstances occurring in economic reality (Gorynia, 2021). Originally, the theory of international trade made assumptions that insulated the considerations based on the observations of economic life. Among other things, it assumed the universal availability of information about the production process and products, i.e. it abstracted from the cost of creating or acquiring technology. The adoption of the above assumption placed the problems of gaining technological advantage and technology transfer outside the field of observation. Traditional models of international exchange did not consider market imperfections. The classical theory of international trade also did not deal with the issue of intra-industry trade. Therefore, it did not allow for a situation in which a country simultaneously exports and imports the same product. Furthermore, the model of international trade assumes perfect competition abstracted from monopolization occurring in exchanges between countries.

Globalization of the distribution of production tasks constitutes the next stage of economic globalization. Its essence lies in shifting the search for competitiveness to value chain creation. Demand, economies of scale and transportation costs are key factors ensuring this competitiveness (Begg et al., 1992, pp. 395–397). Issues of the economics of locating production facilities in the form of foreign direct investment ^[3] are also gaining importance. These investments can become a factor in the country’s so-called socio-economic modernization. However, only if the economic policy of the state authorities becomes the stimulating factor. Petrobelli and Rabellotii define this modernization as innovation aimed at increasing the added value created by the producer (Petrobelli & Rabellotti, 2008, p. 4). In other words, modernization is the producer’s ability to move up the value chain (Bolwig et al., 2010, pp. 176–177). It allows for a smooth transition from the micro to the macro level, i.e. from companies seeking to improve their position to the individual states’ economic policies, which intend to support the companies’ aspirations. Modernization can occur in four ways (Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, 2011, pp. 12–13): (1) process modernization, i.e. striving for more efficient transformation of raw materials into final products, (2) product upgrade, i.e. increasing either product’s quality or its technological complexity, (3) functional modernization, i.e. the addition or abandonment of selected production operations, (4) chain or cross-sector modernization, i.e. a company’s transition to another industry. The modernization presented is economic. If implemented, it creates the possibility for social modernization to emerge. A company’s move up the value chain usually means an increase in employees’ skills and wages. The latter results from higher revenue and, consequently, profits.

From a theoretical point of view, modern international trade theories explain the formation of international competitive advantage. The modern theory of international exchange is synonymous with the modern international trade theory. Originally, scholars identified it with the new theory of international trade (new trade theory). However, it seems that after the emergence of the new new international trade theory, we may understand the contemporary international trade theory together as the new international trade theory (new trade theory) and the new new international trade theory (new new trade theory) (Cieslik, 2000; Mińska-Struzik, 2006; Mińska-Struzik, 2014; Dzikowska, 2017).

The abrogation of the assumption of the homogeneity and immutability of production techniques in all countries was of great importance in the modern theory of international trade. This shed new light on the role of technical progress. It received new treatment reflected in neotechnological theories. Vernon also significantly contributed to international trade theory with the product life cycle concept (Vernon, 1966). Furthermore, an important achievement of the modern international exchange theory was the consideration of the economies of scale of operations. Moreover, modern international exchange theory attempted to make the traditional trade model more realistic by simultaneously considering product differentiation, economies of scale, monopolistic competition and oligopolistic competition. Another problem that modern international exchange theory addresses is the phenomenon of intra-industry trade. Meanwhile, the unified demand structure theory and the representative demand hypothesis were important in explaining the commodity and trade’s geographic structure. The development and evolution of the new international trade theory also resulted in the development of models that integrate elements of the theory of international production with the theory of international trade. Finally, we should mention the “new” new theory of international trade, which takes a microeconomic research perspective as its starting point but also allowed me to determine the macroeconomic consequences of the behavior of individual heterogeneous enterprises engaging in trade. Finally, we needed to consider labor globalization, where one can export and import labor services over any spatial distance (third unbundling). The question remains whether the concepts explaining the international exchange of goods are appropriate for the international exchange of labor services over a distance. This is probably still terra incognita in economic science. A good starting point in the analysis may be examining whether countries have comparative advantages in providing different service categories.

A closer look at the problem suggests that the comparative advantage resulting from the greater abundance of human resources in a given category of services shapes the competitiveness of labor services from abroad. This is undoubtedly a reference to the Heckscher-Ohlin theory (Rynarzewski & Zielińska-Głębocka, 2006, pp. 97–120). A company using a foreign remote labor service can simultaneously increase the productivity level and the operation’s scale or scope. Hiring foreign workers allows for either increasing the number of skilled workers or replacing native and more expensive workers with equally qualified labor. In the first case, this additionally increases the scale of operations. If the demand barrier prevents upscaling, businesses can expand the commercial offer by using freed native workers to discount the effect of scope in areas of higher productivity, justifying the employment of more expensive labor. In the second case, the reduction of labor costs is an obvious factor in productivity expansion. However, a technological and legal infrastructure constitutes a prerequisite to open access to any local labor market for employment by foreign companies. Moreover, this allows for the incorporation of Mike Posner’s technology gap theory into explanations of the sources of international competitiveness (Rynarzewski & Zielińska-Głębocka, 2006, p. 127). Countries that build the infrastructure automatically gain an advantage over those that lag in this area.

Recalling Yoshinori Shiozawa’s view, we can assume that modern international intra-industry competition assumes that the production technologies used and the cost of sourcing materials and raw materials obtained on the global market are similar regardless of the plant’s geographic location (recognizing that the cost of transportation is irrelevant if measured it by unit cost; recognizing in the strong version that the cost of transport is insignificant when measured by unit cost, or in the weaker version that its relative importance in the total cost tends to decrease). What differentiates competitiveness is the level of labor organization and productivity (Fujimoto & Shiozawa, 2011). Fixed technologies, material supply costs and the political climate encourage the reshoring of manufacturing plants. The ability to obtain remote labor services is now proving to be a key factor in international competitiveness.

However, at this stage, economic globalization consists of all three components, i.e. commodity exchange, production task exchange and labor service provision exchange. We can describe and explain a country’s competitiveness resulting from a relative cost or quality advantage by what we would call a unified and universal theory of country competitiveness. We can assume that the attractiveness of some national labor markets results from workers’ knowledge level and qualifications and the authorities’ economic policy that allows for the openness of the economic system with particular regard for employment.

A summary of this section of the study is provided in Table 1.

We made the following assumptions. First, the potential for international exchange depends on the current competitive position of the national economy in the global economic system. Second, the more globally competitive a country’s national economy, the better the prospect of dynamic growth of gross national product (GDP). Third, the structure of international exchange will evolve toward an increasing share of intermediate services, especially labor services. Fourth and finally, the general political conditions in the world have a moderating influence on the possibilities of international exchange (Gorynia, 2023; Gorynia, Nowak, Trąpczyński, & Wolniak, 2022). Thus, the key question is how to shape economic policy in Poland to create opportunities for the growth of international competitiveness.

Starting with diagnosing the political conditions affecting the global economy, we should emphasize the importance of changing the current global political order. This involves reorientating the political, economic and social paradigm pushed by the US government, its key allies and international economic institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.). Essentially, this change involves the abandonment of the Washington Consensus and the preference for a new policy promulgated in the US from 2023 (we may call it the New Washington Consensus) (Banaszyk & Gorynia, 2024). This new policy aims to create incentives for the reshoring of production facilities to the territory of highly developed countries and those characterized by a democratic system and the rule of law. It recognizes the greater importance of resilience and flexibility of national economies, ensuring that they do not succumb to the destructive impact of so-called “black swans” and that these economies can quickly rebuild their condition if such a destructive impact occurs. Such a policy is calculated for the long term, as it requires the reconstruction of global supply chains, i.e. overcoming the “sunk costs” of foreign direct investments from the previous period. Let us note the importance of the government’s activity, which, by offering economic incentives can influence the profitability of these reshoring ventures ^[4].

In the past, scholars emphasized that companies in a specific geographic region or country faced barriers to knowledge transfer from their reservoirs in other locations (Kafouros, Buckley, & Clegg, 2012, p. 850). As indicated above, developing technology enabling telework helped overcome this limitation. Thus, we can assume that the competitiveness of the national economy will depend both on the comparative advantage resulting from a rationally implemented industrial policy aimed at the development of industries allowing to achieve relatively lower production costs and on the achievements of the local education system that allows for shaping attractive skills offered in the global telework market ^[5]. We may also postulate that successes in the latter area create financial opportunities for investment in production within the former area.

Małgorzata Fronczek (2018) provides interesting information in her research. In line with the real comparative advantage, almost all services should be important for Poland regarding the export industry. This means that a rational economic policy should sustain the international attractiveness of services in particular labor and create the conditions for obtaining a similar advantage concerning preferred manufacturing industries.

Another issue is the sustainability of competitive advantages associated with specific types of skills. Baldwin’s research shows that some occupations are simultaneously highly capable of providing remote work and, at the same time, very difficult to automate, i.e. not easily replaceable by robots. Baldwin includes religious workers, civil engineers, architects and teachers in this category (Baldwin, 2022). This indicates the preferred specialization of the national education system.

We can subordinate the identification and prioritization of economic policy under globalization to Aiginger’s determinants of competitiveness. As mentioned, Aiginger distinguishes between hard (labor, capital and technical progress) and soft (competence, quality of institutions, trust, political stability and rule of law) factors. The above classification of competitiveness factors is quite general, arbitrary, and, at the same time, flexible. Moreover, we can modify it according to the needs of a particular country, where authorities construct economic policy instruments aiming to increase competitiveness. The economic prosperity of a country under globotization conditions has three simultaneous bases, i.e. trade in goods, tasks and labor services. Thus, international competition occurs simultaneously in these three planes, while each plane involves exchange, i.e. selling and buying (exports, imports). Openness and favorable exchange allow for raising the prosperity level relative to that which would be possible in the absence of exchange (autarky). Assuming that the global political situation is conducive to the application of such solutions, authorities can then set the main task of economic policy. It should aim to build a favorable market and non-market environment for conducting economic activity simultaneously regarding trade in goods, tasks and labor services (provision of labor). The goals of such a policy should accentuate in the right proportion both arguments for efficiency as well as security, resilience and flexibility.

According to Baldwin, it is difficult to forecast which tasks, activities, or jobs we will offshore in the future (Baldwin, 2006, p. 40). One of the barriers to such forecasts is the lack of precise statistical data relating to the cost distribution of performing various activities internationally. In most countries, the traditional reports on foreign exchange statistics have focused on individual commodities, companies and industries, while statistics on individual activities have been absent. We do not fully understand why there were links between individual tasks within companies, making it necessary for them to occur within a single company. Therefore, it remains difficult to produce any prognosis. According to Baldwin, when it is difficult to forecast the supply and demand for labor in various activities (occupations), the primary task of economic policy is to promote flexibility and the ability to make continuous adjustments. This provides opportunities to use domestic resources in the international market through the reallocation of those resources to other uses. Such a stance leads to the conclusion that occupations with strong, legally guaranteed protection of labor rights will be particularly vulnerable to offshoring. Baldwin’s reasoning also leads to the conclusion that given the unpredictability of the international environment, it will become increasingly difficult for economic policymakers to possibly identify preferred industries, companies, or tasks (picking the winners). Thus, economic policymakers should not use tools to encourage people to acquire certain competencies since it is difficult to predict what will happen in the market for these competencies internationally due to globalization processes.

Noteworthy, the comments in the above paragraph are de facto predictive and anticipatory of possible processes. They do not depreciate the importance of competition between industries and companies while at the same time indicating that competition at the task level (activities, works) will gain importance.

As for the implications for economic policy arising from the processes described, let us mention Baldwin’s opinion that we may question the European Union’s collective response of promoting an “information society” and supporting education and competence upgrades (Baldwin, 2006, p. 42). We can even assume that some of the costs incurred in this regard are sunk costs. Concerning economic policy, the conclusion is to shape the education system in such a way as to teach how to learn rather than to teach specific skills. The education system should prepare for lifelong employability rather than lifelong employment. It seems that despite the passage of time, Baldwin’s warning has lost no relevance and it will continue to apply in the future.

In the article, we outlined the essence of the world economic transformation, which Richard Baldwin defines as three disintegrations (unbundlings). The disintegrations resulted in the complexity of competitive processes in the modern world economy. Indeed, the current struggle in the competitiveness of states and nations is a superimposition of the consequences of the three disintegrations mentioned above. Among them, the most important consequence is the gradual shift of the basic analysis unit from holistic industries/sectors and companies to individual tasks, activities and work performed by employees.

We expect the role of the latter component to grow due to the increasing ease of information and payment flow, etc. which will thus condition more and more contracts internationally for the performance of tasks, activities or work. On the one hand, this provides opportunities to improve efficiency through better allocation of labor resources internationally. On the other hand, it poses a threat to uncompetitive labor market participants. It follows that adjustments to the challenges created by international competition should occur at the employees’ level rather than entire companies or industries/sectors. This leads to the most important conclusion of this study. The economic policy should recognize the complexity of modern competition processes and select instruments accordingly. Noteworthy, the consequences of the three break-ups do not apply directly to the entire economy. Above all, they apply to the fragments of the economy that consist of either replaceable or exchangeable products and activities (tradeables). However, indirect effects relate to the economies as a whole.

Scholars predict that the next iterations of globalization will focus on the increased importance of exchanging tasks, works, services and activities. Progress in this area will depend on statistical, record-keeping and analytical capabilities. As widely believed, AI will foster this process.