Globalization is a positive force that uniformly bolsters the economic prospects of countries and societies around the globe. Do you agree or disagree?

Résumé du document

"Another world is possible". This sentence, popularized for the first time during the demonstrations in the Doha Round, aims at denouncing the rising inequalities within countries, and considers the kind of globalization currently implemented being responsible for the prevailing situation. According to the IMF, globalization refers to the "increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows". The progress of technology and communication in the 1970s made the world smaller and the borders easier to cross. Indeed, it seems quite paradoxical: although globalization is accused of raising inequalities, more and more countries try to be involved in it. So can globalization be considered as a positive force that uniformly bolsters the economic prospects of countries and societies around the globe? In this essay, we will see that although, the rise of globalization has been parallel to the rise of inequalities within countries, these inequalities do not come from globalization in itself but from the lack of integration of countries in globalization.

Extraits

[...] So can globalization be considered as a positive force that uniformly bolsters the economic prospects of countries and societies around the globe? In this essay, we will see that although, the rise of globalization has been parallel to the rise of inequalities within countries, these inequalities does not come from globalization in itself but from the lack of integration of countries in globalization. First and foremost some may argue that globalization has been very efficient in increasing the global welfare: indeed, during the 20th century, the global average per capita income has been more than multiplied by five[2]. [...]

[...] We need to underline that it is true that even the poorest quarter of the world population saw its income increase during the 20th century, but it has increase less than three-fold during the century, while the richest quarter experienced a six-fold increase.[3] So, a global increase in the world welfare does not mean by far a reduction of inequalities between countries. On the contrary, some statistics show that the ratio between the GDP per capita of the 20 richest countries and 20 poorest countries has rocketed from 17 in 1960 to 37 in 1996[4]. [...]

[...] Furthermore, there are also evidences that globalization may not increase the inequalities within a country: in some new-globalized countries, the inequalities have remained stable (Mexico, Vietnam), while in other countries, such as Malaysia, the inequalities have even been reduced. In a word, globalization may provide growth opportunities for countries whose government can control progressively the opening of the market (protecting weak sectors for instance is often mandatory), keep the control of their economy and implements suitable social policies[12]. But globalization does not provide opportunities for every single country to join the globalization. [...]

[...] http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200to.htm#II chart 1b. [...]

[...] That's true that globalization might have been detrimental for the economies of some countries, for instance the quick opening to mobile capital flows can lead to instability and at some points to crisis such as the one experienced by South-East Asia in 1997[7]. But other causes of these bad results might be found for instance in intellectual properties agreements which prevent developing countries to have access to some technologies or to medicaments, or to agricultural subventions such as the Common Agricultural Policy implemented by the European Union which jeopardized the agricultural competitiveness of developing countries and these causes can only be considered as particular conditions of this globalization and might be changed.[8] As far as agricultural subventions are concerned, we may even talk about protectionism and consider that it does not go with the concept of globalization and that it is even a lack of globalization. [...]