Spreading the Wealth

Abstract

ONE OF THE MAIN CLAIMS of the antiglobalization movement is that is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It benefits the rich and does little for the poor, perhaps even making their lot harder. As union leader Jay Mazur put it in these pages, globalization has dramatically increased inequality between and within nations (Labor's New Internationalism, January/February 2000). The problem with this new conventional wisdom is that the best evidence available shows the exact oppo site to be true. So far, the current wave of globalization, which started around 1980, has actually promoted economic equality and reduced poverty. Global economic integration has complex effects on income, culture, society, and the environment. But in the debate over globalization's merits, its impact on poverty is particularly important. If international trade and investment primarily benefit the rich, many people will feel that restricting trade to protect jobs, culture, or the environment is worth the costs. But if restricting trade imposes further hardship on poor people in the developing world, many of the same people will think otherwise. Three facts bear on this question. First, a long-term global trend toward greater inequality prevailed for at least 200 years; it peaked around 1975. But since then, it has stabilized and possibly even reversed. The chief reason for the change has been the accelerated growth of two large and initially poor countries: China and India.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 224 citations exist upstream.