Northern Rock has been nationalized. Obama and Hillary oppose NAFTA. The US Congress opposes new free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea. Europe is addressing the electoral success of regional forces such as the Northern League. India has banned the export of non-basmati rice. Only 28% of Americans agree that Globalization is a good thing. The Wall Street Journal writes that "The world isn’t as flat as it used to be". Is Globalization experiencing a crisis?

No, certainly not. Whenever there is an economic slowdown in a major economy, there is always some controversy about the role of trade. That has happened many times in the past. Northern rock is irrelevant to the question of Globalisation. Obama and Hillary Clinton have been criticising Nafta, but only mildly, and Obama’s own staff made clear that he was doing it only as a campaign tactic. Congress opposes new trade accords, but that means simply that further progress in liberalising trade is likely to be postponed for several years. It does not pose any threat to the progress that has been made so far.

Do you still believe that the advantages of Globalization are greater than its disadvantages? And is there an effective way of explaining to people that Globalization is a good thing?

I don’t know of any country in history that has prospered without being fairly open to trade, buying and selling on international markets. So yes, the advantages hugely outweigh the disadvantages. I think that the best way to make the argument is to point out the rising prosperity in so many countries. The problem is that, whether a country is open or closed, not everyone prospers equally or at the same time. Those who criticise Globalisation are usually really angry about some other grievance that is preventing them from prospering. But it is more convenient to blame foreigners for your troubles than to seek reasons closer to home.

Prices are rising in the Western world. Is Globalization to blame?

From 1995 until 2005, Globalisation was causing falling prices, as so many cheap manufactured goods were available. Now, thanks to a glut of money in the emerging markets, we have inflation led by rising food and energy prices. So yes, Globalisation is part of the reason why we have shared first the falling prices in the past and now the rising prices.

Could applying duty on Chinese products be a solution?

Duty on Chinese products would raise their prices and therefore would add to inflation. It would also be illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation, which we as Europeans helped to set up.

Was it a mistake to accept China’s WTO membership in 2001, as argued by the new Italian Minister for Economy and Finance, Giulio Tremonti?

I see no evidence that it was a mistake. China has lowered its own trade barriers more than any other developing country. It has a large trade surplus, but that has been caused by its cheap currency and its high savings rate, neither of which would be governed by the WTO.

Immigration seems to frighten Europeans, probably more than Americans (right-wing John McCain is pro-immigration). Why? And is there such a thing as Globalization without immigration?

America has always been a country of immigrants. That is how it was founded. European countries tend to change their minds about it more often, depending on how economically strong or weak they feel. But european countries have had a lot of immigration, and have benefited from it. Even president Nicolas Sarkozy of France is the son of an immigrant.

Is the Chinese situation evidence that Globalization doesn’t necessarily bring democracy?

I didn’t know that anyone had ever argued that globalisation brings democracy. What is clear is that so far, all the world’s rich countries have eventually switched from dictatorships to democracy as their citizens became more affluent and demanded more rights. They did so, however, at times when their citizens were a lot more affluent than the Chinese are now. So although this does not make it inevitable that China will adopt democracy as its citizens get richer, it does mean that we should not be surprised or alarmed at the fact that they have not demanded democracy yet.

Is Obama a protectionist? Who between Obama and McCain is more likely to be friendlier as president to the cause of multilateral free trade?

McCain is clearly a true believer in free trade. The signs are that Obama is basically a free trader too, but he is likely to be more cautious about it. The real influence over this, however, will be Congress not the president.

In Italy the conservatives want Alitalia to remain Italian (even though it is on the verge of bankruptcy) and the Northern League is strongly opposed to immigration. The most important Italian conservative thinker, Minister Tremonti, has just written a book that is critical of Globalization. Is this just an Italian phenomenon, or is the Western Right becoming increasingly anti-globalization?

Alitalia is a typical case of nationalism, mixed with the regional pressure from the Northern League about Malpensa. Conservatives are often anti-immigration. I don’t think anti-globalisation trends are special to the right wing. There are left wingers who oppose it too.

In your book you write that Asia is experiencing its "deepest and most extensive integration", that we are witnessing "the very creation of Asia". Could this be an opportunity for the Western world, or is it just a threat?

Of course it is an opportunity. Whenever other regions of the world have developed in the past (such as America in 1850-1950) Europe has benefited from the increased trade that prosperity brings. The same can and should be true of Asia. Today, the main beneficiaries from Asian growth are German exporters.