Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Per capita GDP growth in the post-1980 globalizers accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s (Chart 1). This acceleration in growth is even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the nonglobalizing developing countries did much worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.
Although the growth benefits of trade are increasingly recognized, many analysts are legitimately concerned about the effects of trade liberalization on income distribution. In our research, however, we document that the growth benefits of increased trade are, on average, widely sharedwe have found no evidence of a systematic tendency for inequality to increase when international trade increases. Chart 2 illustrates this point by plotting changes in a measure of inequality (the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher coefficient indicating greater inequality) on the vertical axis, and changes in trade volumes on the horizontal axis. This figure reflects the experiences of more than 100 developed and developing countries, with changes in trade and changes in inequality measured over periods of at least five years in order to capture the medium-to-long-run relationship between trade and inequality. Chart 2 exhibits a striking absence of any simple correlation between changes in trade and changes in inequality.
The combination of increases in growth and little systematic change in inequality in the globalizers has considerably boosted efforts to reduce poverty. In Malaysia, for example, the average income of the poorest fifth of the population grew at a robust 5.4 percent annually. Even in China, where inequality did increase sharply and the income growth rate of the poorest fifth lagged behind average income growth, incomes of the poorest fifth still grew at 3.8 percent annually. The fraction of the population of these countries living below the $1 a day poverty threshold fell sharply between the 1980s and the 1990s: from 43 percent to 36 percent in Bangladesh, from 20 percent to 15 percent in China, and from 13 percent to 10 percent in Costa Rica, to name a few.
Gap between rich and poor has narrowed
We have already seen that income inequality within countries is as likely to decrease as increase with increased trade. But is globalization leaving poor countries behind and widening the gap between the richest and poorest countries? Our evidence on the growth performance of the globalizers relative to the rich countries and the nonglobalizing developing countries suggests otherwise. The rapid growth of the globalizers relative to the rich countries means that the globalizers are narrowing the per capita income gap. Moreover, because most of the globalizersespecially China, India, and Bangladeshwere among the poorest countries in the world twenty years ago, their growth has been a force for narrowing worldwide inequality.
the top panel of Chart 3 first divides worldwide inequality into inequality between countries and inequality within countries. Consistent with the findings of other studies, most worldwide interpersonal income inequality can be attributed to the large differences in average incomes between countries, rather than to inequities in the distribution of income within countries. And since many of the globalizers were initially poor, their rapid growth over the past twenty years has contributed to reducing income inequality between countries. This can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 3, which takes the between-country component of inequality and further subdivides it into the globalizers, the rich countries, and the rest of the world. Much of the decline in the between-country component of inequality can be seen to be due to the rapid growth of the globalizers, most notably China and India, whose economies' vast size has given them substantial weight in these calculations.
Karl Marx explained that capitalism would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If someone was to gain, someone else had to lose in the free market. The middle class would become proletarians, and the proletarians would starve. What an unlucky time to make such a prediction. The industrial revolution gave freedom to innovate, produce and trade, and created wealth on an enormous scale. It reached the working class, since technology made them more productive, and more valuable to employers. Their incomes shot through the roof.
What happened was that the proletarians became middle class, and the middle class began to live like the upper class. And the most liberal country, England , led the way. According to the trends of mankind until then, it would take 2 000 years to double the average income. In the mid-19th century, the British did it in 30 years. When Marx died in 1883, the average Englishman was three times richer than he was when Marx was born in 1818.
The poor in Western societies today live longer lives, with better access to goods and technologies, and with bigger opportunities than the kings in Marx days.
Ok, said Marxs evil apprentice Lenin. We might have been wrong about that. But the working class in the West could only become richer because they are bribed by the capitalists. Someone else would have to pay the price for that bribe the poor countries. Lenin meant that imperialism was the next natural step of capitalism, whereby poor countries had to give up their work and resources to feed the West.
The problem with this argument is that all continents became wealthier, albeit at different speeds. Sure, the average Western European or American is 19 times richer than in 1820, but a Latin American is 9 times richer, an Asian 6 times richer, and an African about 3 times richer. So from whom was the wealth stolen? The only way to save this zero-sum theory would be to find the wreckage of some incredibly advanced spacecraft that we emptied 200 years ago. But not even that would save the theory. Because we would still have to explain from whom the aliens had stolen their resources.
It is correct that colonialism often was a crime, and in some instances led to horrible acts. But globalisation in the last decades shows that the existence of wealthy, capitalist countries facilitates development for poor countries if they participate in a free and voluntary exchange of ideas and goods. Globalisation means that technologies that it took wealthy nations billions of dollars and generations to develop can be used straight away in poorer countries. They can sell to wealthier markets and borrow capital for investments. If you work for an American company in a low-income country, you receive about 8 times the average income in that country. Not because multinational companies are more generous, but because they are globalised, and bring machines and management that raise the productivity of the workers, and consequently also their wages.
Therefore, opportunities for a poor country with open, market-friendly institutions increase as the rest of the world becomes more developed. It took England 60 years to double its income from 1780. 100 years later, Sweden did the same in just 40 years. Another 100 years later, countries like Taiwan , South Korea , China and Vietnam did it in no more than 10 years.
During the 1990s, poor countries with about 3 billion inhabitants have integrated into the global economy, and they have also seen their annual growth rates increase to almost 5 percent per capita. It means that average income doubles in less than 15 years. Compare this to the much slower growth in rich countries, and the negative growth in developing countries where 1 billion people live. These countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa , are the least liberal, the least capitalist and the least globalised. It seems Lenin had it upside down poor countries that are connected with the capitalist countries with trade and investment grow faster than those countries, those that dont become poorer. ...
Lets have a short look at the statistics to see the greatest untold story ever. The proportion in absolute poverty in developing countries has been reduced from 40 to 21 percent since 1981. Almost 400 million people have left poverty the biggest poverty reduction in mankinds history. In the last 30 years chronic hunger has been halved, and so has the extent of child labour. Since 1950 illiteracy has been reduced from 70 to 23 percent and infant mortality has been reduced by two-thirds. ...
Just 200 years ago ... By our standards even the richest countries were extremely poor. The average chance of surviving your first year was less than the chance of surviving to retirement today.
Summary: The authors provide estimates of the impact that removing all merchandise trade distortions (including agricultural subsidies) would have on food and agricultural production, trade, and incomes. Using the latest versions of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database and the World Bank's LINKAGE model of the global economy (projected to 2015), their results suggest farm employment, the real value of agricultural output and exports, the real returns to farm land and unskilled labor, and real net farm incomes would all rise substantially in developing country regions with a move to free merchandise trade, thereby alleviating rural poverty-despite the decline in international terms of trade for developing countries that are net food importers or are enjoying preferential access to agricultural markets of high-income countries.
The next step is to measure the prospective effects of removing all agricultural subsidies plus those tariffs summarized in Table 2 over the 2005-2010 period. ... Our LINKAGE models answer to that question is that it would lead to global gains by 2015 of $287 billion per year. The distribution across regions of that economic welfare (or equivalent variation in income) gain, reported in Table 3, suggests two-thirds would accrue to high-income countries. However, as a share of national income, developing countries would gain more, with an average increase of 0.8 percent compared with 0.6 percent for high-income countries. The results vary widely across developing countries, ranging from little impact in the case of Bangladesh and Mexico to 4 or 5 percent increases in parts of East Asia.
The impact of full trade reform on agricultural and food output and trade is shown for each country/region in Table 6, where it is clear that exports are enhanced much more than output. As a consequence, the global share of agricultural and food production exported rises, from 9.5 to 13.2 percent (or from 6.6 to 11.6 percent when intra-EU trade is excluded). The increase in exports of those goods from developing countries would be a huge $191 billion per year more.
Would freeing global merchandise trade lead to more trade gain for developing countries than for high-income countries, given the latters high protection rates in agriculture and textiles? This question is pertinent for trade negotiators, who often think more in terms of the boost to the value of trade than to changes in economic welfare. Table 8 suggests any imbalance of that sort is not likely to be a major problem, even with complete trade liberalization. Certainly in those 13
two protected sectors exports would increase more for developing than for high-income countries, but for other manufactures the trade growth for the two regions would have the opposite bias. Also, much of the developing countries trade growth is with other developing countries. Hence for merchandise trade as a whole, developing countries would sell an extra $318 billion to high-income countries under free trade whereas high-income countries would sell an extra $290 billion to developing countries. A small amount of services trade liberalization by developing countries would be sufficient to close that gap, if full reciprocity were sought.
Lessons, implications and areas for further research
The following are the key messages that emerge from our analysis:
The potential gains from global trade reform are large, including for developing countries and especially when they participate in the reform, despite its adverse terms of tradeimpact on many developing countries;
Agriculture is where the greatest gains from liberalization would occur;
Liberalization would cause farm output and farm employment to be greater in developing countries relative to the baseline, except in South Asia;
It is the poorest people that appear to be most likely to gain from global trade liberalization, namely farmers and unskilled laborers in developing countries; and, inparticular,
Net farm income would be enhanced in all developing country regions other than South Asia (where job growth would be greater in non-farm activities).
Fuck globalization. What a retarded thread, even for 14 years ago.
Yes you are.I'm sorry ........ Little American.
...
It’s destroying what made America great which is culture and similarities.Globalization and free trade have increased incomes in the developing countries.
Per capita GDP growth in the post-1980 globalizers accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s (Chart 1). This acceleration in growth is even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the nonglobalizing developing countries did much worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.
Although the growth benefits of trade are increasingly recognized, many analysts are legitimately concerned about the effects of trade liberalization on income distribution. In our research, however, we document that the growth benefits of increased trade are, on average, widely sharedwe have found no evidence of a systematic tendency for inequality to increase when international trade increases. Chart 2 illustrates this point by plotting changes in a measure of inequality (the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher coefficient indicating greater inequality) on the vertical axis, and changes in trade volumes on the horizontal axis. This figure reflects the experiences of more than 100 developed and developing countries, with changes in trade and changes in inequality measured over periods of at least five years in order to capture the medium-to-long-run relationship between trade and inequality. Chart 2 exhibits a striking absence of any simple correlation between changes in trade and changes in inequality.
Poverty has declined
The combination of increases in growth and little systematic change in inequality in the globalizers has considerably boosted efforts to reduce poverty. In Malaysia, for example, the average income of the poorest fifth of the population grew at a robust 5.4 percent annually. Even in China, where inequality did increase sharply and the income growth rate of the poorest fifth lagged behind average income growth, incomes of the poorest fifth still grew at 3.8 percent annually. The fraction of the population of these countries living below the $1 a day poverty threshold fell sharply between the 1980s and the 1990s: from 43 percent to 36 percent in Bangladesh, from 20 percent to 15 percent in China, and from 13 percent to 10 percent in Costa Rica, to name a few.
Gap between rich and poor has narrowed
We have already seen that income inequality within countries is as likely to decrease as increase with increased trade. But is globalization leaving poor countries behind and widening the gap between the richest and poorest countries? Our evidence on the growth performance of the globalizers relative to the rich countries and the nonglobalizing developing countries suggests otherwise. The rapid growth of the globalizers relative to the rich countries means that the globalizers are narrowing the per capita income gap. Moreover, because most of the globalizersespecially China, India, and Bangladeshwere among the poorest countries in the world twenty years ago, their growth has been a force for narrowing worldwide inequality.
the top panel of Chart 3 first divides worldwide inequality into inequality between countries and inequality within countries. Consistent with the findings of other studies, most worldwide interpersonal income inequality can be attributed to the large differences in average incomes between countries, rather than to inequities in the distribution of income within countries. And since many of the globalizers were initially poor, their rapid growth over the past twenty years has contributed to reducing income inequality between countries. This can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 3, which takes the between-country component of inequality and further subdivides it into the globalizers, the rich countries, and the rest of the world. Much of the decline in the between-country component of inequality can be seen to be due to the rapid growth of the globalizers, most notably China and India, whose economies' vast size has given them substantial weight in these calculations.
Finance and Development
We're a stepping stone for the global cabal.It’s destroying what made America great which is culture and similarities.Globalization and free trade have increased incomes in the developing countries.
Per capita GDP growth in the post-1980 globalizers accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s (Chart 1). This acceleration in growth is even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the nonglobalizing developing countries did much worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.
Although the growth benefits of trade are increasingly recognized, many analysts are legitimately concerned about the effects of trade liberalization on income distribution. In our research, however, we document that the growth benefits of increased trade are, on average, widely sharedwe have found no evidence of a systematic tendency for inequality to increase when international trade increases. Chart 2 illustrates this point by plotting changes in a measure of inequality (the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher coefficient indicating greater inequality) on the vertical axis, and changes in trade volumes on the horizontal axis. This figure reflects the experiences of more than 100 developed and developing countries, with changes in trade and changes in inequality measured over periods of at least five years in order to capture the medium-to-long-run relationship between trade and inequality. Chart 2 exhibits a striking absence of any simple correlation between changes in trade and changes in inequality.
Poverty has declined
The combination of increases in growth and little systematic change in inequality in the globalizers has considerably boosted efforts to reduce poverty. In Malaysia, for example, the average income of the poorest fifth of the population grew at a robust 5.4 percent annually. Even in China, where inequality did increase sharply and the income growth rate of the poorest fifth lagged behind average income growth, incomes of the poorest fifth still grew at 3.8 percent annually. The fraction of the population of these countries living below the $1 a day poverty threshold fell sharply between the 1980s and the 1990s: from 43 percent to 36 percent in Bangladesh, from 20 percent to 15 percent in China, and from 13 percent to 10 percent in Costa Rica, to name a few.
Gap between rich and poor has narrowed
We have already seen that income inequality within countries is as likely to decrease as increase with increased trade. But is globalization leaving poor countries behind and widening the gap between the richest and poorest countries? Our evidence on the growth performance of the globalizers relative to the rich countries and the nonglobalizing developing countries suggests otherwise. The rapid growth of the globalizers relative to the rich countries means that the globalizers are narrowing the per capita income gap. Moreover, because most of the globalizersespecially China, India, and Bangladeshwere among the poorest countries in the world twenty years ago, their growth has been a force for narrowing worldwide inequality.
the top panel of Chart 3 first divides worldwide inequality into inequality between countries and inequality within countries. Consistent with the findings of other studies, most worldwide interpersonal income inequality can be attributed to the large differences in average incomes between countries, rather than to inequities in the distribution of income within countries. And since many of the globalizers were initially poor, their rapid growth over the past twenty years has contributed to reducing income inequality between countries. This can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 3, which takes the between-country component of inequality and further subdivides it into the globalizers, the rich countries, and the rest of the world. Much of the decline in the between-country component of inequality can be seen to be due to the rapid growth of the globalizers, most notably China and India, whose economies' vast size has given them substantial weight in these calculations.
Finance and Development
Globalization and free trade have increased incomes in the developing countries.
Per capita GDP growth in the post-1980 globalizers accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s (Chart 1). This acceleration in growth is even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the nonglobalizing developing countries did much worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.
Although the growth benefits of trade are increasingly recognized, many analysts are legitimately concerned about the effects of trade liberalization on income distribution. In our research, however, we document that the growth benefits of increased trade are, on average, widely sharedwe have found no evidence of a systematic tendency for inequality to increase when international trade increases. Chart 2 illustrates this point by plotting changes in a measure of inequality (the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher coefficient indicating greater inequality) on the vertical axis, and changes in trade volumes on the horizontal axis. This figure reflects the experiences of more than 100 developed and developing countries, with changes in trade and changes in inequality measured over periods of at least five years in order to capture the medium-to-long-run relationship between trade and inequality. Chart 2 exhibits a striking absence of any simple correlation between changes in trade and changes in inequality.
Poverty has declined
The combination of increases in growth and little systematic change in inequality in the globalizers has considerably boosted efforts to reduce poverty. In Malaysia, for example, the average income of the poorest fifth of the population grew at a robust 5.4 percent annually. Even in China, where inequality did increase sharply and the income growth rate of the poorest fifth lagged behind average income growth, incomes of the poorest fifth still grew at 3.8 percent annually. The fraction of the population of these countries living below the $1 a day poverty threshold fell sharply between the 1980s and the 1990s: from 43 percent to 36 percent in Bangladesh, from 20 percent to 15 percent in China, and from 13 percent to 10 percent in Costa Rica, to name a few.
Gap between rich and poor has narrowed
We have already seen that income inequality within countries is as likely to decrease as increase with increased trade. But is globalization leaving poor countries behind and widening the gap between the richest and poorest countries? Our evidence on the growth performance of the globalizers relative to the rich countries and the nonglobalizing developing countries suggests otherwise. The rapid growth of the globalizers relative to the rich countries means that the globalizers are narrowing the per capita income gap. Moreover, because most of the globalizersespecially China, India, and Bangladeshwere among the poorest countries in the world twenty years ago, their growth has been a force for narrowing worldwide inequality.
the top panel of Chart 3 first divides worldwide inequality into inequality between countries and inequality within countries. Consistent with the findings of other studies, most worldwide interpersonal income inequality can be attributed to the large differences in average incomes between countries, rather than to inequities in the distribution of income within countries. And since many of the globalizers were initially poor, their rapid growth over the past twenty years has contributed to reducing income inequality between countries. This can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 3, which takes the between-country component of inequality and further subdivides it into the globalizers, the rich countries, and the rest of the world. Much of the decline in the between-country component of inequality can be seen to be due to the rapid growth of the globalizers, most notably China and India, whose economies' vast size has given them substantial weight in these calculations.
Finance and Development
Fuck globalization. What a retarded thread, even for 14 years ago.
Go back to Canada.
I'm sorry that you're such a loser, Little American.
Anti-globalists think that Americans can't compete on the world stage.
They need government protection because ...
Fuck spreading our wealth!!!
nobody is saying that, retard
Fuck globalization. What a retarded thread, even for 14 years ago.
Go back to Canada.
I'm sorry that you're such a loser, Little American.
Anti-globalists think that Americans can't compete on the world stage.
They need government protection because ...
Nooooooo,we just have an aversion to our wealth being transferred to other nations with no reciprocity.
Why should we prop up 3rd world shitholes?
That sounds a lot like nation building with sugar coating.
Fuck spreading our wealth!!!
nobody is saying that, retard
What exactly do you think globullization is?
Not what you think it is, trumptard
Why do you need Big Gubmint to protect you?
