Book · January 012 citation reads 15,521 2

the last decades of the XX century, starting with the year 1989, when significant progresses had place in exploiting the cosmic space, telecommunications, IT, different form was appearing in regional integration against unprecedented

deepness of the international division of work.
19

Therefore, starting with the year 1989 we are in a new age of globalization, talking more and more about the renouncement of the territorial limits, unlimited ascension of technology, free circulation of information and goods, free circulation of capital and human being, economy unification and, finally about the politic alignment regarding global government (Robertson 1992 in Lupan, Prelipcean, 2009).
Many people in rich countries believe that globalization has been bad for the poor in developing countries and has worsened inequality. The answer to this question consists essentially of two parts: first, that neither the theory nor the empirical evidence on globalization and poverty is unarguably positive; second, and more important that people’s interpretation of the available evidence is strongly influenced by their values and their beliefs about the process of globalization.
Aisbett (2007) summarizes two different approaches to globalization criticism in the table 1.1
Table 1.1 Summary of Remaining Disagreements

Strong Globalizers	Cautious Globalizers
– Globalization is good for the poor.	– Globalization is bad for the poor.
– Inequality should not be a concern as long as poverty is decreasing. Relative inequality is the appro- of priate measure of inequality.	– Absolute inequality should be aconcern in its own right, regardless poverty outcomes.
– The proportion of the population living in poverty is the appropriate measure of poverty outcomes.	– The absolute number of people living in poverty matters more than the proportion.
– Current income-based measures are sufficient for answering most questions regarding the benefits of globalization.	– Poverty measures should include empowerment and vulnerability.
– More liberal trade is always better.	– Total trade liberalization may not be the best means of promoting trade in the longer term, and even if it is, it may come at too great a cost in terms of social and environmental policies. Totally free trade is unlikely to be the optimal policy, and the optimal policy mix will be case specific.
– It is optimal for developing countries to unilaterally liberalize their economies.	– Developing countries should refuse to further liberalize their economies until the major economic powers genuinely improve access for developing-country exports.

20

– The way in which growth is achieved makes little difference to distributional outcomes; therefore governments should employ policies that focus on maximizing growth.	– Maximizing short-term growth is not necessarily the way to produce sustainable reductions in poverty.
– Governments should place minimal controls on FDI in order to attractas much as possible.	– Governments should place controls on FDI in order to maximize thewelfare gain to the host country.
– Policies that improve the profitability of large foreign corporations should be undertaken, because these corporations provide jobs for unskilled workers and bring in new technology.	– Policies that improve the profitability of large foreign corporations should not be undertaken, because the poor and the environment in evitably pay for the extra profits gained.
– Although the provision of safety nets is important, lack of safety nets should not be used as a reason for delaying liberalization.	– Liberalization should not proceed until adequate safety nets are in place.
– Government provision of essential services such as health, education,water, and power is inefficient and/or corrupt; therefore these activities should be privatized. This can be done without negative effects on the poor by provision of subsidies or vouchers.	– Government provision of essential services is the only means of ensuring that all the poor have access to them at a reasonable standard. Privatization will have severe negative consequences for the poor.
– Opening economies to foreign trade and investment improves competitiveness and eliminates inefficiencies caused by national monopoly power.	– Opening economies to foreign trade and investment eliminates smaller local firms and further extends the oligopolistic power of the transnational corporations.
– Large reductions in wages in previously protected sectors are merely evidence that these sectors were earning monopoly rents that they were sharing with their workers.	– Large reductions in wages in previ ously protected sectors send many previously middle- class people to ward poverty. It is evidence of the shift toward corporations in relative bargaining power that accompanies opening.
– Opening reduces the potential for capture of economic and political power by local elites.	– The evidence is that integration with world markets is associated with relative increases in the incomes of the very rich. This makes it difficult to believe that their economic and political power has shifted toward the lower income brackets. If anything, local elites must now share their power with international elites.
– Political reform is necessary in many developing countries; liberalization will provide a catalyst for reform.	– The effect on the political equilib rium will be case specific, and it is highly possible that liberalization will have detrimental effects.
– It is appropriate to have enforceable supernational trade and investment agreements. They will ultimately lead to an optimal outcome.	– Nation states should not relinquish power to international bodies,since democracy does not function at such a high level. Or Economically oriented international bodies such as the WTO need to be balanced by equally powerful international organizations whose primary concerns are social and environmental.

Sources: Aisbett (2007)

Michael J. Trebilcock (2005) who is criticising the reviewers of economic globalization says: “The full efficiency and equity potential of globalization will not be realized until we embrace the so-called ‘Fourth Freedom’ as strongly as we have embraced the first three freedoms (international movement of goods, services, and capital). The anti-globalists might more constructively re-direct their energies to this politically challenging objective.”