Incensed About Inequality & Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality?

Incensed About Inequality by Martin Wolf

In this article, Wolf argues that "Globalization has not increased inequality" and in doing so argues that globalization has had positive impacts on equality. He discusses various examples of how levels of inequality has fallen, mainly through international integration. Beginning with an overview of the improvements in India and China, Wolf states that these improvements are part of why such a large proportion of the world's population has enjoyed such a large rise in their standards of living. is interpretation of global equality is based on the broad view of current conditions in the world, and discourages the importance of inequality on a local scale. He says "Moreover, it is also perfectly possible for inequality to have risen in every single country in the world while global inequality has fallen." He argues that inequality among individuals across the world has fallen mainly because of the growth of the "Asian giants". He also notes that those countries who are still transitioning from communism, as well as Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, have not enjoyed rapid growth. Wolf states that extreme poverty is now the affliction of less than a quarter of the human population, and has been falling in the last twenty years. Other positive impacts of globalization that he discussed include lower infant mortality rates, more investment in education, reduction in fertility rates, growth in food production, and the decrease of child labor.

Upon reading this, I question where the World Bank got its data, as well as what their studies were based on. If surveys only take into account the growths in Asia and developing countries, it would appear that things are improving. I, however, would argue that inequality has increased and wealth is concentrated in few countries while encouraging the repression of less economically stable or less developed countries. His argument implies that the current system is decreasing inequalities and we should continue on this path of globalization and put value on the growth of developing markets. But what about the argument for humanity? The impacts of major market growth have been ignored, and the less developed countries are "left with the bag".



Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality? by Robert Hunter Wade

Wade, in contrast with Wolf, questions the arguments of the World Bank about inequality. He states that although conditions of extreme poverty have probably fallen in the last twenty years, it is not an immediate indication of the decrease in inequality. He states that the statistics reported by World Bank are stated in a way and based on information that creates the illusion that conditions have improved. However, he notes that if you take China out of the picture, inequality has been increasing and absolute income gaps are widening and will continue to do so.

I think Wade verbalizes a more realistic argument, and in asking the reader to question the statistics is implying that perhaps globalization has not had a positive impact on equality worldwide। He would probably be an anti-neoliberalist and argue that the increasing gap between the rich and poor, as well as Global North and South must be addressed. Overall view of how economic "growth" needs to be questioned, and reminds of the book Deep Economy in which the continual growth of economies as experienced in America must have upper limitations and we should shift from the constant, now unconscious, pursuit of growth and consciously replace it with concepts of sustainable development. If we are to create a world in which humanity can flourish, we must understand the implications of our world markets to the full extent and consciously recognize the disparities that are created.

Various arguments are posed to support views of globalization that will increase support for growth of markets and neoliberal economics. As we have read in The Short Introduction to Globalization, there are many varying arguments based on sometimes shallow understandings and inaccurate data that are promoted in order to maintain public support.

पास
Mandy Simmons