Globalization Poverty And Income Inequality

Globalization, Poverty, and Income Inequality examines the relationship between globalization and trade liberalization, and poverty and income inequality, using Indonesia as a case study. Contributors examine how advances in coffee certification, treatments for visual disabilities, and property rights, among other factors, have had both meritorious and deleterious effects on the local population. Ultimately, they describe an ambiguous relationship between trade liberalization and inequality, both of which can increase or decrease in proportion to one another depending on region and sector. This empirically driven work provides a nuanced view of the trade-poverty relationship, contributing balanced testimony to policy debates being held internationally.

Over the past two decades, the percentage of the world’s population living on less than a dollar a day has been cut in half. How much of that improvement is because of—or in spite of—globalization? While anti-globalization activists mount loud critiques and the media report breathlessly on globalization’s perils and promises, economists have largely remained silent, in part because of an entrenched institutional divide between those who study poverty and those who study trade and finance. Globalization and Poverty bridges that gap, bringing together experts on both international trade and poverty to provide a detailed view of the effects of globalization on the poor in developing nations, answering such questions as: Do lower import tariffs improve the lives of the poor? Has increased financial integration led to more or less poverty? How have the poor fared during various currency crises? Does food aid hurt or help the poor? Poverty, the contributors show here, has been used as a popular and convenient catchphrase by parties on both sides of the globalization debate to further their respective arguments. Globalization and Poverty provides the more nuanced understanding necessary to move that debate beyond the slogans.

This publication sets out an empirical analysis of the impact of economic liberalisation and globalisation on inequality, poverty and development, including recent trends in economic growth, income distribution and global inequalities, and the comparative experiences of countries that have pursued different economic policies.

Bachelor Thesis from the year 2016 in the subject Politics - Topic: Globalization, Political Economics, grade: 1,7, University of Mannheim, language: English, abstract: In this paper, we will try to determine if any of the theoretical camps are “right” and if so, which one. We will first review current literature to clarify which arguments frame the respective pro and con attitudes towards globalization. This will include theoretical approaches as well as previous studies done in the field. We will then empirically analyze the issue ourselves with the newest available data. To do so, we will first need to establish practicable definitions of globalization, poverty and inequality, and then try to find relation-ships between these factors. Lastly, we will interpret our results. To conclude, we will summarize our findings and discuss any limitations of our research.

Globalization is characterised by persistent poverty and growing inequality. Conventional wisdom has it that this global poverty is residual – as globalization deepens, the poor will be lifted out of destitution. The policies of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO echo this belief and push developing countries ever deeper into the global economy. Globalization, Poverty and Inequality provides an alternative viewpoint. It argues that for many – particularly for those living in Latin America, Asia and Central Europe – poverty and globalization are relational. It is the very workings of the global system which condemn many to poverty. In particular the mobility of investment, and the large pool of increasingly skilled workers in China and other parts of Asia, are driving down global wages. This poses challenges for policy makers in firms and countries throughout the world. It also challenges the very sustainability of globalisation itself. Are we about to witness the implosion of globalisation, as occurred between 1913 and 1950? Using a variety of theoretical frameworks and drawing on a vast amount of original research, this book will be an invaluable resource for all students of globalization and its effects.

Essay from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Topic: Globalization, Political Economics, grade: 1,7, King`s College London, language: English, abstract: The period from the end of the World War II to the mid-1970s saw world-wide sustained and high economic growth. Within a generation Western European society was transformed from predominantly agrarian to post-industrial. Latin America, Asia and Africa also were heading towards higher growth rates. During the 1980s, a new period of integration of national economies led to the intensification of international economic interconnectedness and developing economies were expected to overcome the between-country income gap through openness-growth link. This was seen as the manifestation of neoliberalism as new forms of international economic relations emerged such as industrialisation and the new international division of labour. However, as recent studies point towards increasing world poverty and inequality, scholars have re-examined the validity of the neoliberal argument. After years of implementing prescribed reforms, some developing countries and regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, have not experienced the expected growth. Chapter 2 summarizes the implications of the policy-paradigm inspired by the Washington Consensus. Chapter 3 identifies current trends in global poverty and inequality with attention to the different measures used to interpret world economic well-being. The next chapter analyses the openness-growth-inequality-poverty nexus. The final chapter seeks to recognize causes of poverty and inequality transmitted by the globalization process. The factors of poverty and inequality path dependence are grouped in four categories: economic openness and technological progress; macroeconomic policies; financialisation of the economy; and international financial institutions.

Within-country income inequality has risen since the early 1980s in most of the OECD, all transitional, and many developing countries. More recently, inequality has risen also in India and nations affected by the Asian crisis. Altogether, over the last twenty years, inequality worsened in 70 per cent of the 73 countries analysed in this volume, with the Gini index rising by over five points in half of them. In several cases, the Gini index follows a U-shaped pattern, with theturn-around point located between the late 1970s and early 1990s. Where the shift towards liberalization and globalization was concluded, the right arm of the U stabilized at the 'steady state level of inequality' typical of the new policy regime, as observed in the UK after 1990.Mainstream theory focusing on rises in wage differentials by skill caused by either North-South trade, migration, or technological change poorly explains the recent rise in income inequality. Likewise, while the traditional causes of income polarization-high land concentration, unequal access to education, the urban bias, the 'curse of natural resources'-still account for much of cross-country variation in income inequality, they cannot explain its recent rise.This volume suggests that the recent rise in income inequality was caused to a considerable extent by a policy-driven worsening in factorial income distribution, wage spread and spatial inequality. In this regard, the volume discusses the distributive impact of reforms in trade and financial liberalization, taxation, public expenditure, safety nets, and labour markets. The volume thus represents one of the first attempts to analyse systematically the relation between policy changes inspired byliberalization and globalization and income inequality. It suggests that capital account liberalization appears to have had-on average-the strongest disequalizing effect, followed by domestic financial liberalization, labour market deregulation, and tax reform. Trade liberalization had uncleareffects, while public expenditure reform often had positive effects.

"Members of the anti-globalization movement will find the explanations given in this book insightful, as will employees of international organizations due to the important policy messages. The theoretical interest within the book will appeal to development economists and evolutionary economists, and policymakers and politicians will find the explanations of the present failure of many small nations in the periphery invaluable."--BOOK JACKET.