Neo-liberal and, on the contrary, globalization is, in

Neo-liberal economists argue that globalization does not
increase inequality and poverty in income distribution, that globalization does
not bring about opening the gap between the rich and the poor, and, on the
contrary, globalization is, in many respects, an equitable process. According
to them, the distribution of income among all the people in the world together
with globalization is more equal in the last two decades than the old one.

 According to neo-liberal economists, the state’s
withdrawal of the economy makes it possible to optimize the distribution and
utilization of resources by privatizing and outsourcing the ownership of
publicly owned businesses and by rationalizing the market economy. Thus,
economic efficiency increases and social welfare level increases. They also
state that the integration between economies will enable countries and regions
to specialize according to their comparative advantage, thus leading to more
efficient use of resources in the world. Neo-liberal economists who claim to
have more earnings in the globalization process argue that the costs of
transformation will be, but that the losses of the lost will be met by the
winners over time and eventually the global society will tend to fully develop
(Eddy, 1996).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 The main focal point for the neo-liberal perspective
on poverty is the experience of many successful East and South East Asian
countries such as South Korea and Taiwan in the 1960-1980 period, as well as
many other issues. It is argued that rapid growth in these countries for
industrial product exports has played an important role in reducing poverty by
bringing rapid increases in employment especially in the first stage of
labor-intensive areas and ensuring that income distribution develops more
equitably compared to other less developed countries (?enses, 2003: 283-284).
For example, according to R. E. Lucas, neo-liberal economists, international
income inequality, which marked the 20th century, will decrease in the 21st
century. According to the neoclassical model of Lucas, globalization will allow
all countries to reach the same technology, and in the market economy will flow
from the capital-rich countries to the poor countries as the result of the international
free movement of capital, and the process of convergence will emerge. This
process will result in an inversely proportional relationship between per
capita real income growth and initial income level (Lucas, 2000).

 

THE NEGAT?VE ASPECTS OF GLOBALIZATION

Along with being an entrepreneur who advocates globalization
with positive aspects, it is quite excessive in the economists who defend their
negative aspects. In general, these studies can be regarded as attempts by
developed countries to colonize other countries in order to protect and enhance
their own interests.

According to anti-globalization, globalization is the name
of neo-liberalism in the 21st century and capitalism, the economic order of the
West, wants to spread to the world. The aim here is to maximize the Western
market share in the world. However, along with globalization, the distribution
of income, impoverishment and environmental pollution are emerging. In
addition, political globalization does not bring democracy; Western countries
use this concept to interfere with the work of underdeveloped countries and to
weaken these countries and to better reach their aims. This pessimistic
prediction of globalization is a view expressed by Prebish-Singer as a thesis
and accepted by many economists. According to this view, trade prosperity is
constantly developing against the underdeveloped countries that produce primary
goods. It is doubtful that economies exporting primary goods in the direction
of comparative advantage can be profitable and generate added value as a result
of external reorganization (Crafts, 2004).

Opponents of globalization say that despite the long period
of time since neo-liberal policies have been widely implemented, inequities and
poverty in the world have increased in many places, contrary to expectations.
According to them, the distinction between the developed and the developing
countries seems to have gradually opened up in the last forty years, especially
in certain groups of countries, both in absolute and absolute terms. In a study
of 77 countries that accounted for 82% of the world’s population, it was found that
income inequalities between the 1950s and 1990s declined in 16 countries, did
not show a significant trend in 16 countries, and 45 countries, most of them
Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (?enses, 2003:
315-316).

Opponents of globalization think that globalization brings
along a series of structural negatives besides increasing poverty and
disturbing income distribution. According to them, globalization has weakened
the state’s weight in the economy as well as liberalization in the movements of
goods and capital. The pioneering role of the state was abandoned, with
privatization, deregulation, the reduction of the state’s role in health and
education, more passive monetary and fiscal policies and the gradual reduction
of public expenditure, leaving almost everything to the market mechanism. Thus,
the ending of the understanding of social state has created negative
consequences especially on low and middle income groups. For example, the
income of a middle-class family living in Paris exceeds a hundred times the
income of a family living in rural areas in South East Asia, and the hourly
income of a New York lawyer is equal to the two-year income of a Filipino
village (Chossudovsky, 1991: 2527 ; ?enses, 2006: 20).