The new world order: Returning to the ‘tribe grouping’ approach

Looking at the world development in broad terms has always been of interest from economic, political and demographic points of view; and such mappings of the world order has always been largely based on different country groupings. For example, the last quarter of the 20^th century developed the terms of ‘Eastern world’ and ‘Western world’; since the 1993 Maastricht Treaty the majority of European countries can be classified as European Union as opposed to the Americas, Russia and the Asia-Pacific region; for a few decades we have already been speaking about developed and developing countries; and more recently, attention has also been paid to the so-called BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Contrary to such conventional views of the world order, a recently published report by The Legatum Institute termed ‘The New World Order’ attempts to present the emerging world order from the so-called tribal grouping perspective. Although all the conventional groupings were and are formed based on some uniting criteria, they consist of different countries with different economies, cultures and political systems. Joel Kotkin and his co-authors argue that these groupings have ‘no common “tribal” link, as expressed by a shared history, language, or culture uniting these countries and peoples’ (p. 4).  In contrast, the tribal grouping perspective follows a notion originating from Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, that ethnic and cultural ties are fundamental to any powerful and long-lasting power grouping. Thus, ‘The New World Order’ report proposes to view the world, its present and future perspectives, based on the three main spheres of influence: the Indian sphere, the Sinosphere and the Anglosphere.

The first part of the report is named ‘India Conquers’, which refers to the authors’ view of India as a rising sphere mainly due to the worldwide phenomenon of growing and spreading Indian diaspora. The stats brought up in the report indicate that currently the exile Indian population numbers around 40 million people, with the top-5 countries to which Indian population has spread being the United States, Malaysia, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Moreover, drawing from different sources the authors predict that with the rapid development of the country’s economy, substantial demographic growth and wide-spread use of the English language, by 2025 India will outstrip Japan and become the world’s third-largest economy; by the late 2020s India will have a bigger population than the current world leader, China; and by 2020 India will surpass the United States to become the world’s largest contingent of English speakers. However, the report notes that the rise of the Indian sphere is mostly due to its émigrés, the large diaspora which remains a very important source of India’s foreign capital. Coming back to the ‘tribe grouping’ term, the authors emphasise the familial links that rule Indian diaspora’s way of living and doing business. They conclude that building family businesses across countries and continents is the driving force behind the expansion of the Indian Subcontinent.

Another sphere that is united by deep-rooted commonalities like language, food and culture is the Sinosphere. The report indicates that there are more than 40 million overseas Chinese, with significant populations located in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the United States and Singapore. The overseas Chinese diaspora is still closely tied to their home country, as they remain the largest source of inbound investments to China. Apart from being merely a recipient of inbound investment, China’s economy has grown due to becoming a major exporter. The authors state that ‘China’s outbound investment is growing much faster, rising 21% in just the past year; its overseas investment overall has grown from $53.3 billion in 2005 to $224.4 billion in 2009’ (p. 17). Looking at the future of the Sinosphere, the report proposes that it will be still largely funded by the Chinese and their diaspora; that it will change the focus of trade from the West to developing countries, as their generally faster growing populations seem to be future markets for Chinese exporters; and that apart from manufacturing, the Sinosphere is likely to focus more on new markets, such as real estate, finance and high-technology exports.

Finally, turning to the last great global grouping, the Anglosphere, the authors’ idea is emphasised in the following headline: ‘The Anglosphere: we are not dead yet’.  Although the English speaking world is at the centre of the global financial crisis and is experiencing tough times, the authors claim that its prospects are much stronger than many expect. The report highlights that the Anglosphere is still the world’s leader in economic influence, as it accounts for more than $18 trillion or one quarter of the world’s GDP. In addition, the Anglosphere is still strongly united by language, culture and shared values, which help retaining close ties among its population of roughly 400 million. Labelling the sphere ‘Linguistic Empire’, the authors note that the English language is an especially powerful means of this grouping. Further, they use the term ‘Cultural Empire’ to refer to the Anglosphere’s influence in the cultural domain, mainly highlighting the media. For example, Hollywood remains the world’s number one film industry. Lastly, the Anglosphere is also termed ‘Scientific Empire’ to acknowledge its technological influence. Thus, despite losing its claim to global hegemony, the Anglosphere remains influential among the world’s ethnic networks in terms of language, culture and technology. The Anglosphere is therefore seen as well-positioned for the 21^st Century.

This prediction resonates with the authors’ concluding thought: ‘And if, or maybe even when, the Sinosphere or India rise to the technological and material wealth of the Anglos, they still are likely to be using a language and economic and legal conventions developed by the English-speaking countries’ (p. 37).