This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 3-1Note: The majority of this information came from Williamson and O’Rourke’s Chapter 9: p.167-183Main Points:1. Inequality rose in resource-rich, labor-scarce New World countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. 2. Inequality fell in resource-poor, labor-abundant agrarian countries around the Old World periphery like Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula, Ireland, and Scandinavia. Differences:1.Falling inequality was significant and pervasive in the poor, industrial latecomer sin the 19thcentury sample like Denmark and Norway, while this was not true in the 20thcentury of Latin America and East Asia2.Mass migration, not trade played drove globalization in the 19thcentury. Except for the US, this does not seem to be true of the late 20thcentury•First Wave of GlobalizationoInequality rose in rich countries and fell in poor countriesoImmigration implied rising inequality in the labor-scarce, resource-rich countriesoEmigration implied falling inequality in the labor-abundant, resource poor countriesoTwo types of evidence available to document late 19thcentury inequality trendsRatio of unskilled wage to farm rents per acre•Wage rental ratio plunged in the New world, increase in Old world countries that did not have protectionist policies•Evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that inequality rose in the rich, labor-scarce New World (land owners near the top), while inequality fell in the poor, labor-abundant Europe...
View Full Document
- Fall '10
- International Trade, Laborer, Human migration, Country classifications