Globalization without mobility: why the world is open for capital but closed to people

Globalization without mobility: why the world is open for capital but closed to people | Photo: José Martín Ramírez

By Patrick Lumumba

Researcher and policy analyst

The great global paradox

In the contemporary global order, money moves faster than ever before. Every day, trillions of dollars circulate through global financial markets, supply chains stretch across continents, and multinational corporations operate seamlessly across jurisdictions. Yet, for millions of people, crossing those same borders remains an almost insurmountable challenge.

According to the World Bank, global foreign direct investment flows reached over $1.3 trillion in recent years, while the total number of international migrants worldwide stands at about 280 million—just 3.6% of the global population. This imbalance reveals a central paradox of modern globalization: capital is global, people are not.

The liberalization of capital

Over the past four decades, globalization has been shaped by policies favoring the free movement of capital. International financial institutions have encouraged deregulation, open markets, and investor-friendly environments, particularly in developing economies.

Today, over 90% of countries actively compete for foreign investment through tax incentives and relaxed regulatory frameworks. Capital can enter, exit, and relocate with remarkable ease, often without long-term obligations to local communities.

This system rewards flexibility and speed—qualities capital possesses in abundance. Human beings, by contrast, are constrained by borders, documentation, and political approval.

The restriction of human mobility

While capital mobility has expanded, migration policies have grown increasingly restrictive. Data from the United Nations shows that nearly 75% of the world’s migrants live in just 20% of countries, underscoring how mobility opportunities are concentrated in a few destinations.

At the same time, visa regimes have become more complex. Citizens of high-income countries can access over 75% of the world visa-free, while many Global South passport holders face extensive restrictions, long processing times, and high rejection rates.

Ironically, this occurs despite demographic and labor shortages in many advanced economies. The OECD estimates that by 2030, high-income countries will face significant gaps in healthcare, construction, and caregiving sectors—roles often filled by migrants.

A hierarchy of passports

Mobility in the global system follows a clear hierarchy. Passport strength correlates closely with national income, geopolitical influence, and historical power.

This hierarchy is not accidental. It reflects centuries of unequal global integration, where colonial and post-colonial structures shaped who could move freely and who could not. Globalization, rather than dismantling these inequalities, has in many ways reinforced them.

The human cost of selective globalization

Restrictive mobility does not stop migration,it only makes it more dangerous. The International Organization for Migration reports that thousands of migrants die each year attempting irregular crossings across deserts, seas, and militarized borders.

Meanwhile, remittances,money sent home by migrants—tell another story. In 2023, global remittances to low- and middle-income countries exceeded $650 billion, surpassing both foreign aid and, in some cases, foreign direct investment. Migrants are not a burden; they are a pillar of global economic stability.

Yet they remain among the least protected participants in the global economy.

Global governance and the missing people

Unlike trade and finance, migration lacks a binding global governance framework. There is no enforceable international system that guarantees mobility rights, mutual recognition of skills, or fair treatment of migrant workers.

Most global migration agreements remain voluntary, leaving states free to prioritize national politics over shared responsibility. As a result, globalization advances economically while stagnating socially.

Rethinking globalization

A more balanced globalization would recognize mobility as a development tool, not a threat. Expanding legal migration pathways, harmonizing skills recognition, and protecting migrant rights would enhance—not undermine—global economic resilience.

Evidence consistently shows that migrants contribute more in taxes and productivity than they receive in public benefits, especially over the long term. The challenge is not migration itself, but the failure to govern it cooperatively.

Globalization without mobility is incomplete and unstable. A system that allows capital to move freely while confining people to unequal geographies risks deepening inequality and political backlash.

If globalization is to serve global society, it must evolve beyond markets alone. A truly global order is one where opportunity is not determined by birthplace, and where people are treated not as obstacles to globalization, but as its most essential participants.