Global Inequality And Its Impact On The World 's Population

Globalization has, for better or worse, altered the economic arena for every country in the world. For many less developed countries, globalization has leveled the playing field so that their economies can compete with the larger, more developed ones such as the United States and other large western economies. For instance, technical engineers in India and China are now just as qualified as engineers in America, but at half the cost. The once large and prosperous service sector in the United States as well as telemarketing services have largely been sourced to India as a large exodus of American multinational corporations find cheaper workers who deliver comparable quality. This then seems to be the essence of globalization - businesses

There are some concerns about globalization and how it contributes to poverty and inequality in developed, and developing countries. First, let’s look at the ground rules set by the United Nation General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that equal and inalienable rights of all people of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

The article details arguments regarding the consequences of globalization – and largely find that there is little consensus among the literature. This is, primarily, since few scholars can agree on the best way to measure globalization. They note three major debates in the field – It’s relationship to inequality (international and domestic) as well as government spending. Regarding international inequality, it does seem that globalization increased the rate of per capita growth.

In theory, globalization should help contribute to the equality of the global economy. Yet this is not the case in reality. Globalization contributes to unsustainable prosperity for a very small percentage of the world’s population. For those in developing countries, it is especially unsustainable. The resources in these areas are consumed at an unstable rate and the environment given very little consideration. The workers are treated as if they are expendable. The smaller economies of these countries are vastly taken advantage of. For these reasons, globalization contributes to sustainable prosperity to a small extent.

In the view of a supporter, globalization means a taste of culture, access to goods, more choices to choose from, and boundless opportunities in cooperation. Towards opponents it is social injustices, exploitation, and terrible working conditions that causes people to go against. Over time income inequality has been growing a distance over the years. There are debates and arguments to this day about the income inequality. Within the nation, opponents are voicing that “freer trade and investment allows international companies to close the factories in high wage”. While the low waged/ developing nations are moved leading to the increase in wage in both blue collar and white collar. In between nations, there are claims of whether globalization

Since World War 2, income has risen and income distributions have been relatively equal in the United State. However, income growth has begun to level off and income inequality has dramatically increased over the last three decades (Moller et al, 2009; McGranahan, 1980). This phenomenon, referred to “Great U-Turn” of inequality, raises a question of why the inequality has increased and what the significant determinants affecting the uneven income distributions are (Nielsen, 1997). For the several decades, social scientists have begun to investigate the cause of rising income inequality with various perspectives (Mouw and Kalleberg, 2010; Peters, 2013; McLaughlin, 2002; Partridge and Rickman, 2007). Main perspectives (or explanations) on U.S. uneven income distribution include changes in economic structures, household characteristics, geography, history, and natural resources.

The second topic in the inequality debate is about inequality between nations. This argument discusses whether globalization is responsible for widening the average income gap between rich and poor nations. When inspecting the average incomes of rich and poor nations, the widening income gap does not occur everywhere. Overall, the debate of inequality between nations results show that developing nations working towards globalization and can possibly grow faster than developed nations. Nations that fail to make their way into the global market may become worse off.

During the last decade of the twentieth century, the word ‘globalization’ has become an increasingly prominent feature of political, social, and economic discussion in academic and policymaking circles, as well as in the media. The processes and outcomes of globalization drew attention and debates that had one thing in common. The research shows that nearly everyone agrees that globalization is a trend that is changing the face of the world, and as a result the world society lives in a more ‘globalized’ world. Nearly two and a half decades passed since 1990s, and studies have been conducted to examine the causes and consequences of globalization. Moreover, nearly every person experiences some type of globalization and can testify firsthand the effects it has on their life, society, and the state. The analysis of the effects that globalization dynamics have on the world society indicates that globalization has a significant positive impact via spreading opportunities and wealth across nations, stimulating innovation and productivity, enhancing the economic development of poorer countries, and helping to improve living standards.

Globalization affects everyone, whether intended, directly or otherwise; it has gradually increased its presence in our daily lives. In this essay, I will point out who are the ones benefited and the ones injured from it by breaking down the question in four broad aspects: economic, political, socio-cultural and environmental. Seemingly, I will analyse the causals for this particular outcomes and distributions that indicate that globalization is creating further divergence in our world increasingly fragmented and unequal. The globalization winners – predominantly developed countries, the top 1% wealthiest demographic segments, transnational companies (TNC’s), supranational

In “Introduction”, author Branko Milanovic looks at “both income inequality and political issues related to inequality from a global perspective” (1). He says it is time to look at income inequality as a global phenomenon instead of as a national one (Milanovic, 2). Reasons for this include: learning about the ways people outside this country live their lives can serve pragmatic purposes, such as learning better and more efficient ways to do things, we now have the ability to focus on global inequality with the data now available, and the most important reason is that the study of global inequality allows people to see how the world has changed (Milanovic, 2). Milanovic then goes on to consider global inequality as a whole (6). He argues that

A thorough interpretation of the assigned source is required before arguments to validate the position of the essay is offered. This source is linked to some of the concepts of globalization like transcendence. Considering that globalization was meant to keep the world connected and to help decrease things like poverty and the the digital divide. Globalization has only aided in helping the rich get wealthier and leaving the underprivileged to fend for themselves. The author of the source is heavily biased toward the vast poor, as a result the audience this source is targeting are the elite rich, world leaders, and economic powerhouses of the world.

Supporters of globalization argue that it has the potential to make this world a better place to live in and solve some of the deep-seated problems like unemployment and poverty. But the opponents general complaint about globalization is that it has made the rich richer while making the non-rich poorer. “It is wonderful for managers, owners and investors, but hell on workers and nature.”

In the article “Spiritual Perspectives on Globalization” written by Ira Rifkin and published by Skylight Paths Publishers in 2003, Rifkin defines globalization as a fusion of economic level, which encircles all the multinational companies that made possible the capital flows, cultural level, which encompass the homogenization of culture by the countries that undermine others and individual level, which features the consumerism and boost of consumer values (Rifkin). Still, globalization may reduce or increase inequality by many impacts. For many people, inequality is the process by which unfair disparity is shown to vulnerable and invulnerable groups. Specifically, globalization can impact inequality in some developing countries on the areas of regional inequality, gender wage gap and free trade.

Globalization is the proximate and multidimensional set of political, economic, social, and technological integration around the globe. The increasing interconnectedness among countries can be seen through the prism of globalization. Essentially, the lives of people living in distant cities like Bangalore and Silicon Valley are brought closer as a result of this phenomenon. Drivers of this adjacent include; the expansion of trade, technological exchange, labor movement and investments (Stearns 2017). The discourse of globalization encompasses several multidisciplinary themes. The paper, however, concentrates on the economic factors, “which, entails the closer economic integration of countries of the world through increased flow of goods, services, capital and even labor.” (Stiglitz 2007: 4). The paper focuses on economic globalization and elucidates whether the globalization has reduced poverty and inequality or had reproduced the reversed implications. Meanwhile, the paper reveals if the developing world has benefited from the set. This seems to be the central question that policymakers, development economists, and politicians have been grappling with for years. The paper is presented in three parts. Part one reflects on the historical context of the problem statement. The second part compiles literature and juxtaposes with cases to corroborate the globalization-poverty-inequality triangle. Finally, the conclusion represents the author’s viewpoint on the

Could globalization be desirable? Perhaps, as most critics argue that it is a re-run of earlier control by one power, with the US being the one overwhelming power and the internet being the instrument of choice. For many nations there is high costs to join world economy and as for local economies, they are torn by the changes of international markets. Globalization is an enemy of democracy, mostly in underdeveloped nations. No matter who the nation elects to power, they will always be helpless under the ruling principle of the international marketplace.