Well, here’s a shocker*: An EU study concludes that Globalization reduces poverty. From Reuters:
Far from creating poverty as critics claim, rapid globalization of the world economy has sliced the proportion of abject poor across the planet, according to a controversial new study released on Monday.
It says that freer commerce, epitomized by the cutting of tariffs and the lifting of trade barriers, has boosted economic growth and lifted the incomes of rich and poor alike.
‘The proportion of the world’s population in absolute poverty is now lower than it has ever been,’ the study, written by a group of respected economists for the London-based Center for Economic Policy Research, says.
While accepting that there are costs to globalization that require robust policy making, the study seeks to refute the claims of anti-globalization campaigners that Western-dominated capitalism has damaged the world’s poor in the name of profits for large, multinational and mainly U.S. companies.
It says that while there has been an increase in wealth inequality between the richest and poorest countries, this is primarily due to African economic stagnation, which may not be the result of globalization.
Here’s my favorite part, though — protestation from those who can’t believe the full drift of their own study’s findings:
The study has already brought a less-than-glowing response from the European Commission, the European Union’s executive body that commissioned the report.
In a foreward that broadly endorses the report’s conclusions, Commission president Romano Prodi distances the Commission from some parts of the report, saying it could not concur with all the study’s analysis.
‘In many respects, the findings will prove controversial, at least to those outside the circle of professional economists, contradicting as they do certain deeply held beliefs about the negative consequences of globalization,’ Prodi wrote.
Translation: “To those of us who no nothing about world global economics, world global economics makes very little sense. Therefore, we’re inclined to, y’know…just kinda make shit up.”
[via Joanne Jacobs]
[Related: A February 11 post on the National Bureau of Economic Research’s similar findings.]
*And by shocking, of course, I mean not that Globalization reduces poverty, but rather that the EU actually released a study saying so…
<blockquote><i>…certain deeply held beliefs…</i></blockquote>
Choice word is “belief.” Facts be damned to these people.
Aah! You told!
They sure got it right about Africa. The problems there are due to <i>lack</i> of globalization largely caused by the kleptocracies and thugocracies that “run” most of the country.
The problems in Africa are:
1. Political corruption
2. Clean water and sanitation
3. Access to capital
4. Tribal conflicts
The rest, including AIDS, is details.
I just posted the Reuters story to Indymedia. Time to watch the fun.
You sure do this the right way, Bill. Enjoy.
Yes, <i>do</i> keep us posted. (fiendish grin)
The EU president’s response to his own commission’s report on globalization is almost as funny as President Bush’s response to his own EPA’s report on global warming.
You mean the report that had originally been produced during the Clinton Administration as an advocacy document for Gore and forcibly withdrawn after a <a href=”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54676,00.html”>successful lawsuit</a> against it? That report that was then mysteriously re-released with the new title CAR 2002 apparently for no other reason than to embarass Bush? The report from the EPA famous for stunts like <a href=”http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html”> this</a> and <a href=”http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_09_sproteus_archive.html#85165013″>this</a>?
You mean THAT report?
Ah, I get the joke.
thanks for posting your story on the indymedia sight. and the ‘fun’ did begin, though not characterized as a fact-less flight from the obvious as you connote. rather, a thoughtful critique, which you should attempt to answer before continuing to hold your pro-globilization beliefs. please remember that economics is a science and requires patience, not capitulation of reports which favor a pre-determined support of capitalism in all its forms against the mushy-headed liberals.
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.drodrik.academic.ksg/Rodrik%20on%20Dollar-Kraay.PDF
Much of the Indymidiot response was as expected …
“Before the beneficent capitalist powers conquered the indigenous people of the Third World, I’m sure they lived such miserable lives as self-employed hunters, fishermen and farmers. They were brought the joys of the sweatshop, where they can now toil to make others rich, 12 to 16 hrs a day, seven days a week, for starvation wages performing the same repetitious tasks over and over again, breathing dust, lint and toxic chemicals all day, being beaten by the boss to work faster, and then getting up and doing it all over again. They must bless the sunrise every morning and skip off to work singing Zippidy Do Dah.”
Hyuk.
But one guy actually addressed the merits of the study, although a bit obliquely. He cited a couple of other studies with contradictory conclusions, such as <a href=”http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm”>this CEPR</a> study.
He seems to be trying to refute newer data with older (and much more vague—the CEPR data basically compares the 1960-1980 period with the 1980-2000 period) .
I’m no economist, but it also appears that the CEPR study’s emphasis on diminishing growth <i>rates</i> (which the Indymidiot interpreted as declines) is also specious, especially when you’re talking about life expectancy. It seems only natural to me that an increase in life expectancy from say, 45 to 55, would me much easier to attain than an increase from 65 to 75.
Does the law of diminishing returns apply here?
I’ll be looking into this further, and keep you posted. Hot damn, an actual intellectual engagement. I wasn’t expecting that.
This is ridiculous – why does anyone need to defend capitalism? I feel like a fool for pointing this out, but capitalism isn’t an “ism” like Marxism. It is, at heart, nothing more than economic freedom. Period. You can’t be against capitalism without being against personal freedom, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant (or wilfully stupid) or playing verbal shell games and hoping nobody notices.
Capitalism means I can own a car. Buy property. Build a house. Start a business, or work for one. Or stop working for one. Anyone wants to tell me that he’s in favor of me doing those things but is against capitalism is a liar or a fool.
Labor unions exist, at a very basic level, to protect the principles of capitalism – not to prevent it getting all over the exploited workers, but to ensure they get to participate in it.
The basic ideas of capitalism are enshrined in the Constitution. They just don’t have hyperlinks or footnotes making the connection.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You think that applies only to hunter gatherers, then get yourself butt naked into the African veldt and start hunting and gathering, laddybuck. Don’t tray to drag me out there too.
the report is older, but the data isn’t relevantly ‘old’ in that it covers much of the same period the EU study covers. my main point, not being an economist and trying to be a careful thinker, is that this isn’t an issue about which a ‘well, duh…’ approach is remotely plausible. there are deep thinkers on both sides. witness joseph stiglitz, 2001 nobel prize winner for economics, and former chief economist for the world bank, who transformed into the author of ‘globalization and its discontents’. a recent debate at http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_stiglitz.htm
was sponsered by the world bank in which leading economists differ. just be more careful, that’s all.
Do you avoid capital letters because you are against capitalism? Just wondering.
Nice one, Andrea, you made me snort tea all over the laptop.
You may be on the something, though. What does k.d.lang think of capitalism? e.e.cummings? archie the cockroach?
Hmmm… I think archie is for it. Don’t know about cummings. I didn’t know K.D. Lang had gone all lower case, but then I don’t follow her career… I do know she’s against meat-eating, so I’d say that’s a yes. bell hooks is also definitely no friend of the free market.