Brune_Garrett - Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2005. 8:399423 doi:

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2005. 8:399423 doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085727 Copyright c 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on Mar. 4, 2005 T HE G LOBALIZATION R ORSCHACH T EST : International Economic Integration, Inequality, and the Role of Government Nancy Brune 1 and Geoffrey Garrett 2 1 Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520; email: nbrune@isop.ucla.edu 2 Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations and Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095; email: ggarrett@international.ucla.edu Key Words globalization, inequality, economic growth, government spending, privatization Abstract In this review, we address three principal questions that have domi- nated the debate over the distributive effects of globalization. First, how has glob- alization affected inequality among countries? Second, how has globalization af- fected inequality within countries? Third, how has globalization affected the ability of national governments to redistribute wealth and risk within countries? We con- clude that despite the proliferation of research on the consequences of globaliza- tion, there is no solid consensus in the relevant literature on any of these questions, largely because scholars disagree about how to measure globalization and about how to draw causal inferences about its effects. We also suggest possible foci for future research. Weve seen the result [of globalization]. The spread of sweatshops. The resur- gence of child labor, prison and forced labor. Three hundred million more in extreme poverty than 10 years ago. Countries that have lost ground. A boom in busts in which a generation of progress is erased in a month of speculation. Workers everywhere trapped in a competitive race to the bottom. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney at the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions Convention, April 4, 2000 (see http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/ prsptm/sp04042000.cfm for text of this speech) [T]hose who protest free trade are no friends of the poor. Those who protest free trade seek to deny them their best hope for escaping poverty. President George W. Bush ( Los Angeles Times , 2001) 1094-2939/05/0615-0399$20.00 399 A n n u . R e v . P o l i t . S c i . 2 5 . 8 : 3 9 9- 4 2 3 . D o w n l o a d e d f r o m a r j o u r n a l s . a n n u a l r e v i e w s . o r g b y U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a- L o s A n g e l e s o n 1 / 5 / 7 . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y . 400 BRUNE GARRETT INTRODUCTION The polarized debate over the effects of economic globalizationthe interna- tional integration of markets for goods, services, and capitalresembles a giant Rorschach test: Analysts have access to the same information, but they draw com- pletely different conclusions. Supporters claim that globalization is good for inter- national business; they consider it the best way to enrich and empower poor people...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/06/2010 for the course GLOBAL STU global stu taught by Professor T during the Fall '07 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 28

Brune_Garrett - Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2005. 8:399423 doi:

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online