Home

Syllabus

Required Texts

Assignments

Grading

According to Kevin Phillips, the American elite has become a globalized aristocracy. Members of this group no longer base their wealth on American business operations but build factories and outsource work to wherever labor is cheap. There are obvious benefits to such practices: profits have increased, American consumer have access to incredibly cheap products, and once poor economies are becoming wealthier. But Phillips stresses the negatives: he points out that the consequence at home is increasing inequality as America’s once great middle class becomes a thing of the past. And he actually mocks the idea that globalization is helping people in the developing world. He says, “Economists in the IMF, World Bank, and elsewhere who oppose the notion that globalization and technology are widening the gap between the world’s have- and have-not nations invariably acknowledge that India and China, with their huge populations totaling over 2 billion, are central to their case. Without China and India, the great bulk of the undeveloped world that is losing ground would dominate the outcome, but when the two giants are included, their considerable economic gains are enough to ease worldwide income inequality by at least a few yardsticks.” [p. 269]

Sala-i-Martin sees the glass as half full. He actually thinks it is important to recognize that rising wealth in India and China means that once poor people are becoming much better off. His analysis offers the intriguing possibility that increased inequality within countries may be a small price to pay in light of the decline in inequality at the global level.

What do you think? Is a more equal global distribution of income justification for less equality in individual countries?

Previous General Paper Requirements Apply