Read the abstract below   Unpacking the possibilities of deglobalisationBy Finbarr LiveseyAbstractThe interpretation of the global economy has been framed as an inevitable journey towards ever greater integration—astory of hyper-globalisation. This article discusses the nature of manufacturing to understand whether this interpretationholds and to investigate the possibility of deglobalisation at the level of physical goods trade in the coming decades, andwhat that may imply for other non-physical elements of globalisation.IntroductionThe framing we use for our research and commentary on contemporary affairs affects the questions we ask and theassumptions we bring to providing analysis and advice to government. The current framing of globalisation, trappedbetween the rough economic nationalism of President Trump and the zeal of those who believe globalisation is almost amoral imperative, is obfuscating the changes that are happening in the global economy. Specifically, the heat and lightgenerated in these arguments hides the fact that we are seeing some elements of globalisation go into reverse.This article discusses the broad definition of globalisation to look in detail at the changes that are occurring in theproduction of physical products. Broadly using the emergence of global value chains (GVCs) (Gerrefi, 2014) as the startingpoint for many decisions on the location and span of company activities, this article argues that we are seeing early signs ofdeglobalisation for the making and supplying of physical products across a number of industries.The process of physical deglobalisation has the potential to change the expressed pattern of trade, that is the aggregate setof decisions between consumers and producers that come together to form the flow of goods in the global economy. Ascompanies face different economic conditions, either in terms of costs or in terms of the feasible scales of activity, they willchange the footprint of their activities. This primarily could lead to a deepening of the regionalisation of trade and in thelonger term a possible fall in the relative volume of trade when compared to global economic activity.If there is a process of physical deglobalisation, this has implications for other elements of globalisation, specifically for theflow of capital in the global economy. Depending on how countries decide to treat the profits of subsidiaries of multinationalsas the footprint of production and consumption come closer together, this may create pools of capital, exacerbating formultinationals issues of offshore profits and the inability to reshore these funds to their home territory. Rather than beingisolated, physical deglobalisation has links through to other aspects of globalisation and brings into question the narrative ofthe inevitability of hyper-globalisation.Article is available on: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx0301.2.1 Some quarters in the society have argued that globalization is a secular trend towards ever-greaterinterpenetration and interdependence of the world's economies. Using clear examples from the abstract,examine the inevitability of globalisation.