07b_Income_Inequality_among_Nations Income Inequality among Nations You can take notes in Word as you listen to the audio files. Be sure to save the page when you finish. Audio File (running time: 21:57) 1. 2. Play this mp3 file from your audio folder Play this streaming REAL audio file Use this link only if you've transferred audio files to your computer from a CD. You can listen to this lecture online with your media player. There are several ways of saving and accessing these downloads. 3. Download &amp; play this mp3 file Why In the West? Lecture part 1 Here, I'll add additional detail to a question that I posed in the textbook: &quot;Why are some countries so much better off than others?&quot; In the book, I write about three kinds of factors: (1) environmental factors, (2) institutional factors and (3) contemporary relations among countries. One way to approach this question is to pose it this way: &quot;What accounts for the spectacular rise of the West, relative to the other countries of the world, since about the year 1800?&quot; Peter F. Drucker's book Post-Capitalist Society (1993) provides insight into this subject. In the book, Drucker points out that every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation. In the 13th century, the European world, almost overnight CAME TO BE CENTERED IN CITIES.. Then came the Renaissance, peaking between 1470 and 1500. The next transformation began in about 1776--the American Revolution, Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations, and the <a href="/keyword/steam-engine/" >steam engine</a> which was developed by James Watt's perfected <a href="/keyword/steam-engine/" >steam engine</a> . Next came the transformation that characterizes our period: ENLIGHTENMENT. The transformation that began in 1776 may help to account for the enormous disparity among countries today. What happened? -The American Revolution was critical because IT INAUGURATED A NEW WAY OF GOVERNING. -Adam Smith's ideas in The Wealth of Nations transformed THE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS OF THE WEST. -The <a href="/keyword/steam-engine/" >steam engine</a> NEW ERA OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. But why did it happen in the West? One answer is given by <a href="/keyword/jared-diamond/" >jared diamond</a> (Guns, Germs and Steel) who writes about the impact of geography and the availability of plants and animals for domestication. There are also other explanations. A different perspective is offered by Daniel Chirot (Social Change in the Modern Era). For Chirot, what was the significance of the following factors? -Environment and climate RAIN IN EUROPE IS EVEN. MORE DOMESTICATION OF ANIMALS. -The confusing, fragmented political system (For example, how many countries were there in Europe in the year 1000 A.D.?) CITIES HAD A LOT OF FREEDOM, AS DID PEOPLE. NO COUNTRIES, JUST CITIES. -Why did inventions in China not have the same results with their inventions that were known in the West? USE OF INVENTIONS WAS TOO CONTROLLED. -The way science and knowledge developed in the West (Why were these developments different in the West from the pattern that was found in many other parts of the world?) MORE FREEDOM IN THE WEST Does Globalization Hurt the Poor? Lecture part 2 One of the most pronounced debates in the social sciences today concerns why there is so much inequality in the world, and why that inequality is increasing in many cases. Protesters have made their voices heard recently -- in Seattle, Washington, Prague, Genoa and other places -- as they have said that globalization is bad for poor people and poor countries. They have focused the attention of the world on what globalization is actually doing. What is globalization, actually? What changes does it entail? (I speak particularly about two major factors that bring about the changes that are central to globalization.) TRADE BETWEEN COUNTRIES HAS GONE UP A LOT. MORE COMPETITION BETWEEN COUNTRIES. LOWER TRANSPORT COSTS. The data in Figure 1 illustrates a key reason why protesters argue that globalization is bad for poor people (Mark Weisbrot, Robert Naiman and Joyce Kim, &quot;The Emperor Has No Growth: Declining Growth Rates in the Era of Globalization.&quot;). -Why is 1980 the pivotal year in this figure? GLOBALIZATION REALLY TOOK OFF, MORE INVESTMENT AROUND THE WORLD. -For most countries and regions, how was the period from 1980 until 1998 different from the previous 20-year period? SINCE 1980, GLOBALIZATION HAS BEEN FAR MORE PRONOUNCED. ONLY 14 COUNTRIES GOT BETTER SINCE GLOBALIZATION -This means to the authors that globalization has failed in its most basic promise, which is PROVIDING A BETTER LIFE FOR MOST PEOPLE.. There is another side to this argument. The other side is that the poor countries of the world, and the regions that haven't been faring very well recently, WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE OFF without their attempts to join the globalization process. People who argue that globalization holds out great promise for improving the economic situations in poor countries point to PLACES LIKE CHINA/TAIWAN/N OR S KOREA . What is the essence of the argument that involves comparisons of Taiwan and China, and North Korea and South Korea? ECONOMIC SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT. TAIWAN IS CAPITALIST, CHINA IS STILL COMMUNIST. TAIWAN'S PER CAPITA INCOME IS 14K, CHINA IS $700. NORTH KOREA IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. (8000 TO 400) For proponents of globalization, the question is not, &quot;Is globalization a good thing?&quot; but rather is HOW CAN MORE COUNTRIES BE BROUGHT INTO GLOBAL ECONOMY..