Global Issues. Kristen A. Hite
of the negative aspects of globalization. More emphasis on human governance appears to be needed. The United Nations Development Programme stated the need as follows: “When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably – concentrating power and wealth in a select group of people, nations, and corporations, marginalizing the others.” The UNDP believes that markets should continue to expand but that more governance is needed: “The challenge is to find the rules and institutions for stronger governance – local, national, regional and global – to preserve the advantages of global markets and competition, but also to provide enough space for human, community, and environmental resources to ensure that globalization works for people – not just for profits.”58
There are dangerous signs that all is not well. Economic growth is reducing poverty and the market approach has produced that reduction better than the state or blended approaches. The reduction of extreme poverty is universally praised, as it should be. No human being should have to live as the very poor live today. As the poor obtain new wealth, they tend to consume more goods and services. (The growing middle class in China is a good example of this with its desire for automobiles.) But rich nations historically have relied on fossil fuels to provide the energy needed to make their goods and provide their services. We now know how that kind of energy is placing a tremendous strain on our world; it is changing our planet in ways that will seriously hurt much of the life on the planet, both in rich and poor nations alike. This will be discussed more in our chapter on climate change.
The bottom line is that while achieving a certain level of economic wealth unquestionably affords critical opportunities to improve livelihoods, we cannot presume that economic wealth alone will lead to the development outcomes we desire. The classical use of the term “development” has defined progress by the increased growth of material goods by any means possible and this purely production‐based notion of “development” is increasingly seen as not viable. It is for that reason that we focus in this book on sustainable development pathways that direct our attention toward human well‐being, while considering both the costs and benefits of the growth of material goods and services.
Further Reading
1 Bardhan, Pranab, “Does Globalization Help or Hurt the World’s Poor?” Scientific American, 294 (April 2006), pp. 84–91. The answer according to this short article is that it does both. Bardhan discusses how to maximize the help and minimize the hurt.
2 Bhagwati, Jagdish, In Defense of Globalization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). The argument of this economics professor at Columbia University is that globalization has been overwhelmingly a good thing and its few downsides can be mitigated. His thesis that globalization leads to economic growth and economic growth leads to the reduction of poverty is the foundation for his belief that poor nations are not hurt by globalization but actually need more of it.
3 Chua, Amy, World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (New York: Anchor Books, 2003). A professor of law at Yale University, the author, who is a friend of globalization, argues that as the market and democracy have spread into the less developed nations, ethnic hatred and violence have increased, along with anti‐Americanism. Chua explains why and identifies the urgent need for a greater sharing of the economic wealth that globalization has brought to various minorities.
4 Collier, Paul, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Focusing mainly on Africa, where Collier states 70 percent of the world’s poor live, he focuses on what he sees as the four main causes of poverty: civil war, the curse of rich resources, a landlocked location, and bad government.
5 Collins, Daryl, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford, and Orlanda Ruthven, Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). The authors visited 100 households twice a month over a year in Bangladesh, India, and South Africa to record poor people’s income, much of it from the informal economy. The authors also examine many microcredit operations.
6 Farmer, Paul, Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights and the New War on the Poor (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). Farmer presents case studies to support his three main points: the poor are not responsible for their situation, but have been hurt by their circumstances; the poor can be successfully treated and cured of disease, even those in the most dire conditions; good health is a human right, for without it all other human rights are meaningless.
7 McKibben, Bill, “Reversal of Fortune,” Mother Jones (March/April 2007), pp. 33–43, 87–8. McKibben attacks the central concept of market economics: economic growth. Here, in his own words, is his justification for a position most people consider radical: “Growth no longer makes most people wealthier but instead generates inequality and insecurity. Growth is bumping up against physical limits so profound – like climate change and peak oil – that trying to expand the economy may be not just impossible but also dangerous.”
8 Sachs, Jeffrey D., The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (New York: Penguin Press, 2005). Sachs presents a plan to rid the world of extreme poverty by 2025. He does not dismiss the effectiveness of the market approach but believes that it is incomplete by itself. Poor countries that are weighed down by harmful geography, an inadequate healthcare system, and weak infrastructure (e.g., roads, ports, power, and communication facilities) cannot improve without significant, wisely given, foreign aid.
9 Singer, Peter, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002). Called one of the most provocative philosophers of our time, Singer writes, “How well we come through the era of globalization (perhaps whether we come through it at all) will depend on how we respond ethically to the idea that we live in one world.”
10 United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, and World Resources Institute, World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2005). An attractive, easy‐to‐read reference source giving environmental, social, and economic trends of about 150 nations. In this volume the focus is on how the natural world can be utilized in a sustainable manner to benefit the rural poor.
Notes
1 1 Brian Farrell contributed substantially to the research and updates reflected in this edition. Please reflect his contribution in any direct citation to this chapter.
2 1 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 1999 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 38. The 2010 number comparing the richest countries as a group with the poorest countries as a group is from the World Development Indicators database, World Bank, July 1, 2011, at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf (accessed July 2015).
3 2 UNDP, Human Development Report 1999, p. 38. The 2010 number comparing the richest countries as a group with the poorest countries as a group is from the World Development Indicators database, World Bank, July 1, 2011, at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf (accessed July 2015).
4 3 According to the World Bank, rich countries had about USD $51,500,000 million while low income countries had approximately USD $550,000 million. World Development Indicators database, December 17, 2018 revision, at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2017&start=2017