Here I reflect on the main themes of Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. On these themes, where are we 30 years later? I sidestep the fine print of the 1990 conversations and share notes in brief format on where I have come to in the decades that have passed. I round off with notes on the 2020 conjuncture.

This second response to comments on my article 'What is Global studies?' (Globalizations 10, 4, 2013) notes that the comments feature research agendas. These provide scaffolding for global studies but not of course a complete building. Among themes that need further attention are political economy and finance, the dimension of time and history, and the dynamics of twenty-first century globalization and the role of emerging economies. © 2014 © 2014 Taylor & Francis.

Abstract Should a discussion of populism be concerned with populism—along with revulsion of its various extremisms (perhaps along with hints of social and psychopathology and hence, implicit endorsement of ‘moderate’ positions)? Or should it rather be concerned with the failure of institutions and the misbehavior of elites in a world in which 8 billionaires own as much as half the world population? Option a) will yield a totally different and probably somewhat more predictable discussion than option b), which may include ‘from bad to worse’. According to option c) different types of populism—including ‘pluto-populism’—should generate different treatments. This discussion follows options b) and c).

All developing countries have been "looking East" since the rise of the Asian tigers, especially South Korea and Taiwan. The designation of the Southeast Asian economies as "tiger cubs" implies the question: can would-be tigers become tigers? Against the background of both oriental globalisation and China's effect on the region, this article compares trends in Northeast and Southeast Asia in agriculture, industry and services. State and political institutions are part of the comparison. As the conclusion notes, the new imperative for sustainable and inclusive growth excludes simply retracing the tigers development path: political change, in both national and regional institutions, is needed for the reforms in land, fiscal and industrial policy that will permit Southeast Asia to escape the middle-income trap.

Covid data show that wealth is not health. What then are the major variables that affect public health in the Covid–19 pandemic? Based on onsite research in 26 countries across the world this paper singles out three variables – knowledge, state capability and social cooperation. If one of these is dysfunctional or absent Covid–19 performance suffers. The variables work best in combination. Under consideration are three phases of Covid–19 – virus control, vaccines, and the race with variants. Which types of society best combine these variables? Comparing varieties of market economies – liberal, coordinated and state-led market economies (with four variants), Covid–19 data indicate that coordinated and developmental state-led market economies tend to generate the best combination of variables and public health outcomes, and liberal market economies and rightwing populist countries produce the worst combination. Comparative Covid–19 research points to the limitations of macro theories and methodological nationalism, the importance of the unit of analysis and the database, and how variables interact. At a time when multiple crises interact it leads to reflection on glaring limitations of global governance.