February 2015 NSDA Public Forum Debate:Globalization vs. Poverty

Resolved: On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 2

Table of Contents

PRO........................................................................................................................3POVERTY DECREASING QUICKLY.................................................................................................................................3GLOBALIZATION GOOD: HAD BROUGHT BILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY.........................................................................4GLOBALIZATION GOOD: DECREASES INEQUALITY.....................................................................................................10GLOBALIZATION GOOD: FREE MARKETS REDUCE POVERTY......................................................................................11GLOBALIZATION GOOD: CONTINUED GROWTH REQUIRED TO REDUCE POVERTY....................................................16GLOBALIZATION GOOD: IMPROVES ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF THE VERY POOR...........................................................17GLOBALIZATION GOOD: AVOIDS CONFLICT AND WORLD ECONOMIC INSTABILITY..................................................18GLOBALIZATION GOOD: WORKERS BENEFIT FROM GLOBALIZATION........................................................................19GLOBALIZATION GOOD: MARKET INTEGRATION GOOD............................................................................................20GLOBALIZATION GOOD: ECONOMIC FREEDOM KEY TO DEVELOPMENT...................................................................21GLOBALIZATION GOOD: CRITICS OF GLOBALIZATION IGNORE HISTORY...................................................................22GLOBALIZATION GOOD: CRITICS ARE TRYING TO KEEP WEALTH FOR THEMSELVES.................................................23DEVELOPMENT TRUMPS AID.....................................................................................................................................24A/T: GLOBALIZATION = INEQUALITY..........................................................................................................................26A/T: POVERTY SIGNIFICANT.......................................................................................................................................27A/T: GLOBALIZATION = LOW SALARIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES........................................................................28A/T: RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................................29A/T: RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR LABOR STANDARDS...............................................................................................30A/T: GLOBALIZATION ONLY BENEFITS CORPORATE INTERESTS.................................................................................31

CON..................................................................................................................... 32POVERTY REMAINS SIGNIFICANT..............................................................................................................................32GLOBALIZATION BAD: PRIMARILY BENEFITS THE ALREADY RICH..............................................................................35GLOBALIZATION BAD: PRIMARILY HELPS WEALTHY NATIONS...................................................................................37GLOBALIZATION BAD: PRIMARILY BENEFITS CORPORATIONS...................................................................................40GLOBALIZATION BAD: NOTHING MORE THAN CANNED AMERICANISM...................................................................41GLOBALIZATION BAD: HAS SLOWED PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING WORLD.................................................................42GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS THE POOR...................................................................................................................43GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS POOR NATIONS..........................................................................................................45GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS MORE LONG-LASTING ECONOMIC REFORM IN POOR COUNTRIES............................47GLOBALIZATION BAD: EXPLOITS WORKERS...............................................................................................................48GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS FARMERS....................................................................................................................50GLOBALIZATION BAD: INCREASES INEQUALITY.........................................................................................................51GLOBALIZATION BAD: LEADS TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF VULNERABLE POPULATIONS........................................53GLOBALIZATION BAD: = COLONIALISM.....................................................................................................................54GLOBALIZATION BAD: = REVOLUTION.......................................................................................................................55GLOBALIZATION BAD: FORCES CONSUMERISM AND CONSUMPTION ON THE WORLD............................................56GLOBALIZATION BAD: ALIENATES THE POOR FROM THEIR CULTURE.......................................................................57A/T: GLOBALIZATION WILL INEVITABLY DECREASE POVERTY....................................................................................58A/T: GLOBALIZATION HAS DECREASED POVERTY......................................................................................................59A/T: GLOBALIZATION = POVERTY REDUCTION..........................................................................................................60

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 3

PROPOVERTY DECREASING QUICKLY

POVERTY IS FALLING IN ALL REGIONS AND MOST COUNTRIES-Chandy '11[Laurence; Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Program; With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty; YaleGLobal Online; 5 July 2011; http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

Not only is poverty falling rapidly, it’s falling across all regions and most countries. Unsurprisingly, the greatest reduction has occurred in Asia. But it’s not just the dynamic economies of East Asia, such as China, recording great feats in poverty reduction; South Asian giants including India and Bangladesh, and Central Asian economies such as Uzbekistan also make great strides. Even Sub-Saharan Africa is sharing in this progress. The region finally broke through the symbolic threshold of a 50 percent poverty rate in 2008 and its number of poor people has begun falling for the first time on record.

WE HAVE HAD A MASSIVE REDUCTION IN POVERTY DURING THE LAST THREE DECADES-Perry '13[Mark; Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan-Flint; Chart of the greatest and most remarkable achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about; AEI Blogs; 31 December 2013; http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-greatest-and-most-remarkable-achievement-in-human-history-and-one-you-probably-never-heard-about/; retrieved 6 January 2015]

Well, the chart above could perhaps qualify as the “chart of the century” because it illustrates one of the most remarkable achievements in human history: the 80% reduction in world poverty in only 36 years, from 26.8% of the world’s population living on $1 or less (in 1987 dollars) in 1970 to only 5.4% in 2006. (Source: The 2009 NBER working paper “Parametric Estimations of the World Distribution of Income,” by economists Maxim Pinkovskiy (MIT) and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (Columbia University).

THE WORLD IS MAKING EXTRAORDINARY PROGRESS AND LIFTING PEOPLE OUT OF EXTREME POVERTY-The Economist '13[The world’s next great leap forward: Towards the end of poverty; The Economist; 1 June 2013; http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim%20; retrieved 5 January 2015]

IN HIS inaugural address in 1949 Harry Truman said that “more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of those people.” It has taken much longer than Truman hoped, but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 4GLOBALIZATION GOOD: HAD BROUGHT BILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY

GLOBALIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THREE BILLION OUT OF POVERTY-Overholt and Griswold '11[William, Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Policy at the RAND Corporation, and Daniel, Director of the Center for Trade POlicy Studies at the Cato Institute; Globalization's Negative Impact on U.S. Unemployment Is Exaggerated; Gale Group]

Globalization has brought countries with about 3 billion people from subhuman conditions of life into modern standards of living with adequate food, basic shelter, modern clothing rather than rags, and life spans that are over 60 rather than under 45. (In the early 1950s, China's life expectancy was 41 years, in 2005 it was 72.7 years.) This is the greatest reduction of inequality that has happened in human history.In East Asia, this reduction of inequality has resulted from a wave of economic growth that has swept through Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and much of Indonesia. It is rapidly spreading across China, is well on the way in India and Vietnam and is coming to other countries around the world.

GLOBAL TRADE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFTING MILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY-Brean '04[Joseph; Global poverty in steep decline: Extreme cases fall from 40% to 21%, World Bank reports; National Post; 24 April 2004; page A1]

Global poverty was reduced by nearly half over the last two decades, the World Bank announced yesterday in its annual development report.The proportion of people living in extreme poverty -- defined as survival on less than US$1 a day -- fell from 40% to 21% of the world population between 1981 and 2002, the latest year for which data is available.South and East Asian countries alone pulled 500 million people out of extreme poverty in this period, largely as a result of reforms that opened their economies to global trade, the World Bank said in the report. But sub-Saharan Africa, held back by civil wars and the blight of AIDS, was shut out of the upward trend and saw its population in extreme poverty nearly double, from 164 million to 314 million people. Overall, the world's extremely poor population fell to 1.1 billion from 1.5 billion.

THE NEW INFORMATION ECONOMY IS LIFTING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY AT AN INCREDIBLE RATE-Amelio '08[William; CEO of Lenovo; Interconnected we prosper: Global 2.0; The International Herald Tribune; 26 June 2008; page 8]

At its heart, Global 2.0 means abandoning the notion of centralized control over the high-value aspects of production, adopting instead a worldsourcing network of innovation, where ideas can come from anywhere, as pools of talent emerge to meet market needs.The world's more forward-thinking businesses are adapting rapidly to this idea, and the new centers of innovation they are creating are fueling economic growth on an unprecedented scale around the world.The result is to lift millions of people out of poverty - creating enormous new markets for business, and giving rise to an increasingly sophisticated and educated, global middle class.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 5GLOBALIZATION IS ONE OF MANY FACTORS THAT HAVE DECREASED POVERTY WORLDWIDE-Chandy '11[Laurence; Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Program; With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty; YaleGLobal Online; 5 July 2011; http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

These factors are manifestations of a set of broader trends – the rise of globalization, the spread of capitalism and the improving quality of economic governance – which together have enabled the developing world to begin converging on advanced economy incomes after centuries of divergence. The poor countries that display the greatest success today are those that are engaging with the global economy, allowing market prices to balance supply and demand and to allocate scarce resources, and pursuing sensible and strategic economic policies to spur investment, trade and job creation. It’s this potent combination that sets the current period apart from a history of insipid growth and intractable poverty.

GLOBALIZATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR INCREDIBLE DECREASE IN THE WORLD'S POOR OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES-Amelio '08[William; CEO of Lenovo; Interconnected we prosper: Global 2.0; The International Herald Tribune; 26 June 2008; page 8]

The World Bank recently revisited its ''dollar a day'' global poverty yardstick and came to a startling conclusion: It was wrong when it said some 250 million people in China had escaped from severe poverty between 1990 and 2004.Instead, by its latest count, some 407 million Chinese citizens rose out of poverty during those 14 years - roughly one-third of the entire population of the most populous country on the planet! This upward shift is being repeated around the world with amazing implications for society. The Brookings Institution recently forecast that one billion people would join the ranks of this rising middle class by 2020.This is cause for global celebration: The world's riches are being opened to all of its citizens, who in turn are contributing new value and advances that will propel the world economy to greater heights of shared prosperity.Why, after centuries of human endeavor, is this amazing transformation happening now?Because we have moved decisively from what we called ''globalization'' into a new era of global inter-connectedness, where not just goods but information and ideas flow across borders constantly and (for the most part) freely as near universal access to Internet-enabled communications moves closer to reality.This is the world of ''Global 2.0,'' and it is transforming our economies, our businesses and how billions of people live. We are all part of this change that has the potential to win the war on global poverty and deprivation in our lifetimes.

GLOBALIZATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAMATICALLY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF ABJECT POOR AROUND THE WORLD-Cienski '02[Jan; Globalization cures poverty: study: Free markets credited with reducing misery - yet the gap between rich and poor widens; National Post; 9 July 2002; page A1]

Globalization is responsible for dramatically reducing the number of abjectly poor people around the world, according to a new study that contradicts the claims of skeptics who say it has worsened global poverty."On average economic growth is good for the poor, and trade is good for growth," said the study by the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research.The study, prepared for the European Commission by a group of respected economists who surveyed existing literature and studies on globalization, was unambiguous in saying that almost every criticism levelled by free trade's skeptics is wrong.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 6GLOBALIZATION HAS BROUGHT A RAPID DECREASE IN POVERTY-Chandy '11[Laurence; Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Program; With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty; YaleGLobal Online; 5 July 2011; http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

A major success in a poverty-reduction goal for the new millennium – halving the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 per day – largely went unnoticed. The World Bank estimates poverty levels, but the most recent data is from 2005. By combining the recent country survey data of household consumption with latest figures on private consumption growth, Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz generated poverty estimates to the present day. They conclude that the world – even stubborn Sub-Saharan Africa – is in the midst of rapid poverty reduction; they credit economic growth and widespread development brought by globalization. Poverty reduction was one part of a key UN Millennium Goal, and global observers may sit up and take notice after two other key parts are achieved: full and productive employment for all and halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

CAPITALISM AND FREE TRADE ARE MOST TO CREDIT FOR THE DECREASE IN GLOBAL POVERTY-The Economist '13[The world’s next great leap forward: Towards the end of poverty; The Economist; 1 June 2013; http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim%20; retrieved 5 January 2015]

The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original MDGs—such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

STUDIES SHOW SIGNIFICANT DECREASES IN POVERTY IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION-Howard-Hassmann '09[Rhoda; Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights; Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada; Globalization, Poverty Reduction, and Economic Rights; Global-E; 9 March 2009; http://global-ejournal.org/2009/03/09/globalization-poverty-reduction-and-economic-rights/; retrieved 11 January 2015]

Many students of global studies are interested in global human rights, especially economic rights, and they often oppose globalization because they believe that it has caused an increase in world poverty, especially as industrialization and capitalism spread.[1] Yet most studies show significant decreases in poverty over the period of industrialization, capitalism and globalization. The global poverty rate is estimated to have fallen from over 90 per cent of the world’s population in 1820 to 51.3 per cent in 1992. During approximately the same period, average life expectancy more than doubled, from 26 years in 1820 to 60 years by 2002.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 7GLOBALIZATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MASSIVELY REDUCING POVERTY-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

Globalization is responsible for dramatically reducing the number of abjectly poor people around the world, according to a new study that contradicts the claims of skeptics who say it has worsened global poverty."On average economic growth is good for the poor, and trade is good for growth," said the study by the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research.The study, prepared for the European Commission by a group of respected economists who surveyed existing literature and studies on globalization, was unambiguous in saying that almost every criticism levelled by free trade's skeptics is wrong.

GLOBALIZATION HAS DECREASED GLOBAL POVERTY-Ross '14[Ron; Columnist; INEQUALITY MYOPIA: There's more to it than Democrats care to know; The American Spectator; 2 February 2014; http://spectator.org/articles/57664/inequality-myopia; retrieved 12 January 2015]

A World Bank report issued last year concluded that “Extreme poverty in the world has decreased considerably in the past three decades. In 1981, more than half of the citizens in the developing world lived on less than $1.25 a day. This rate has dropped dramatically to 21 percent in 2010.… Extreme poverty headcount rates have fallen in every developing region in the last three decades. And both Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean seem to have turned a corner entering the new millennium.”Decreasing global poverty is at least partially the result of “globalization,” although you will rarely hear about any positive aspects of globalization from the left.

GLOBALIZATION LEADS TO POVERTY REDUCTION IN POOR COUNTRIES-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

A related World Bank study found that increased growth resulting from expanded trade "leads to proportionate increases in incomes of the poor" and that "globalization leads to faster growth and poverty reduction in poor countries."[23] Easterly concurs in his 2005 study, finding "support for democratic institutions and economic freedom as determinants of growth that explain the occasions under which poor countries grow more slowly than rich countries."[24]

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 8DESPITE THE MASSIVE DECREASE IN POVERTY AROUND THE WORLD, IT HAS GONE LARGELY UNNOTICED-Chandy '11[Laurence; Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Program; With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty; YaleGLobal Online; 5 July 2011; http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

It is customary to bemoan the intractability of global poverty and the lack of progress against the Millennium Development Goals. But the stunning fact is that, gone unnoticed, the goal to halve global poverty was probably reached three years ago.We are in the midst of the fastest period of poverty reduction the world has ever seen. The global poverty rate, which stood at 25 percent in 2005, is ticking downwards at one to two percentage points a year, lifting around 70 million people – the population of Turkey or Thailand – out of destitution annually. Advances in human progress on such a scale are unprecedented, yet remain almost universally unacknowledged.

POVERTY HAS DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS-Howard-Hassmann '09[Rhoda; Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights; Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada; Globalization, Poverty Reduction, and Economic Rights; Global-E; 9 March 2009; http://global-ejournal.org/2009/03/09/globalization-poverty-reduction-and-economic-rights/; retrieved 11 January 2015]

World Bank calculations show that using a poverty line of $US 1.25 per day, between 1981 and 2005 the percent of the world’s population living in poverty decreased from to 51.8 to 25.2. Using a poverty rate of $2.50 per day, the decrease was from 74.6 per cent of the world’s population to 56.6 per cent. Nevertheless, even if one uses the most optimistic figures, 322 million people lived below the WB $1 per day poverty line in 2000; 600 million lived below $2 per day and 1.2 billion below $3 per day. Using $2.50 per day as a benchmark, the majority of the world’s population, 56.6 per cent, was still poor in 2005.

GLOBALIZATION IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE EXPERIENCING A MASSIVE REDUCTION IN POVERTY-Perry '13[Mark; Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan-Flint; Chart of the greatest and most remarkable achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about; AEI Blogs; 31 December 2013; http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-greatest-and-most-remarkable-achievement-in-human-history-and-one-you-probably-never-heard-about/; retrieved 6 January 2015]

What accounts for this great achievement that you never hear about? AEI president Arthur Brooks explains in the video below, summarized here:It turns out that between 1970 and 2010 the worst poverty in the world – people who live on one dollar a day or less – that has decreased by 80 percent (see chart above). You never hear about that.It’s the greatest achievement in human history, and you never hear about it.80 percent of the world’s worst poverty has been eradicated in less than 40 years. That has never, ever happened before.So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world.I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 9GLOBAL POVERTY HAS DECLINES SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION-Sala-i-Martin '07[Xavier; Professor of Economics at Columbia University; Chapter 1: Global Inequality Fades as the Global Economy Grows; 2007; http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2007/index2007_chapter1.pdf; retrieved 10 January 2015]

First, global poverty rates, defined as the fraction of the WDI below a certain poverty line, declined significantly over the past three decades. We have documented this claim for the four most widely used poverty thresholds. Poverty rates were cut by a factor of almost three, according to all four poverty lines, and the total decline in poverty head counts was between 212 million and 428 million people. We have shown that this is also true for all conceivable poverty lines. (See Table 1.)

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 10GLOBALIZATION GOOD: DECREASES INEQUALITY

GLOBAL INEQUALITY HAS BEEN FALLING AT A MASSIVE RATE IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION-Sala-i-Martin '07[Xavier; Professor of Economics at Columbia University; Chapter 1: Global Inequality Fades as the Global Economy Grows; 2007; http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2007/index2007_chapter1.pdf; retrieved 10 January 2015]

Looking at the planet as a whole, never in history has poverty been eradicated so rapidly as it has been during our lifetimes. Moreover, individual income inequalities have been falling, and this is the first time they have fallen since the eve of the Industrial Revolution. The aggregate numbers have never looked better. Looking at the world distribution of income (WDI), the world is a better place. Poverty and inequality are, of course, difficult to measure because of the arduousness of collecting data, the ambiguity of the definition of poverty, and debate concerning the proper unit of measures of both poverty and inequality. However, the mounting empirical evidence points to significant improvements in these two dimensions over the past two to three decades.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 11GLOBALIZATION GOOD: FREE MARKETS REDUCE POVERTY

DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL MARKETS HAVE DECREASED POVERTY DRAMATICALLY AROUND THE WORLD-MacKenzie '14[D.W.; Assistant Professor at Carroll College; The Data Is Clear: Free Markets Reduce Poverty; Mises Daily; 16 June 2014; http://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

There have been significant improvements in living conditions around the world over the past thirty years. The largest improvements in the poorest nations took place during the wave of globalization that took place twenty years ago, after the fall of the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union opened the door to unprecedented globalization of industry. What does real data tell us about poverty during this period? Per Capita GDP rose dramatically:Thirty years ago half (50 percent) the people in the poorer nations of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2012, 21 percent of people in the poorer nations of the world live in extreme poverty. Development of global markets has greatly lessened poverty around the world. This is a very important fact. Movement from being in the lowest global income bracket, to lower middle income to middle income means moving from average life expectancy in the low forties to life expectancy of fifty or sixty, respectively. Cardinal Maradiaga is wrong: this economy does not kill; it has extended the lives of the poorest people in the world.

IN PRINCIPLE, GLOBALIZATION DECREASES POVERTY-Lerman '02[Robert; Professor of Economics at American University; Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty; Urban Institute; 5 November 2002; http://www.urban.org/publications/410612.html; retreived 10 January 2015]

In principle, allowing trade, investment and migration should reduce global poverty. Less clearly, it should also shrink the gap between rich and poor. Migration toward high wage areas makes labor scarcer in sending areas—thereby pushing wages up—and makes labor more abundant in receiving areas and lowering wages there. The net effect? Incomes of the poorest workers rise and wage differences shrink between areas. Similarly, investment should go toward areas with lower wages, all else equal. As firms move from high to low wage areas, the demand for workers should grow in low wage areas and decrease in high wage areas, again lowering inequality.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 12GLOBALIZATION WORKS TO DECREASE POVERTY-Samuelson '08[Robert J.; Columnist; Rx for Global Poverty; The Washington Post; 28 May 2008; page A13]

Since 1950, the panel found, 13 economies have grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent for at least 25 years. These were: Botswana, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Oman, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. Some gains are astonishing. From 1960 to 2005, per capita income in South Korea rose from $1,100 to $13,200. Other societies started from such low levels that even rapid economic growth, combined with larger populations, left sizable poverty. In 2005, Indonesia's per capita income averaged just $900, up from $200 in 1966.Still, all these economies had advanced substantially. The panel identified five common elements of success:· Openness to global trade and, usually, an eagerness to attract foreign investment.· Political stability and "capable" governments "committed" to economic growth, though not necessarily democracy (China, South Korea and Indonesia all grew with authoritarian regimes).· High rates of saving and investment, usually at least 25 percent of national income.· Economic stability, keeping government budgets and inflation under control and avoiding a broad collapse in production.· A willingness to "let markets allocate resources," meaning that governments didn't try to run industry.Of course, qualifications abound. Some countries succeeded with high inflation rates of 15 to 30 percent. Led by Japan, Asian countries pursued export-led growth with undervalued exchange rates that favored some industries over others. Good government is relative; some fast-growing societies tolerated much corruption. Still, broad lessons are clear.One is: Globalization works. Countries don't get rich by staying isolated. Those that embrace trade and foreign investment acquire know-how and technologies, can buy advanced products abroad, and are forced to improve their competitiveness. The transmission of new ideas and products is faster than ever. After its invention, the telegram took 90 years to spread to four-fifths of developing countries; for the cellphone, the comparable diffusion was 16 years.

THE BEST THING WE CAN TO DO DECREASE POVERTY IS TO ALLOW THE POOR TO GET RICH THROUGH FREE TRADE-The Economist '13[The world’s next great leap forward: Towards the end of poverty; The Economist; 1 June 2013; http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim%20; retrieved 5 January 2015]

That is a lot of ifs. But making those things happen is not as difficult as cynics profess. The world now knows how to reduce poverty. A lot of targeted policies—basic social safety nets and cash-transfer schemes, such as Brazil’s Bolsa Família—help. So does binning policies like fuel subsidies to Indonesia’s middle class and China’s hukou household-registration system (see article) that boost inequality. But the biggest poverty-reduction measure of all is liberalising markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between countries (Africa is still cruelly punished by tariffs) and within them (China’s real great leap forward occurred because it allowed private business to grow). Both India and Africa are crowded with monopolies and restrictive practices.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 13BEST WAY TO HELP POOR COUNTRIES IS TO OPEN MARKETS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

Foreign assistance alone cannot increase economic growth and development. Achieving these objectives requires the political will to implement policy change to expand opportunities and remove barriers to growth. Developed countries can assist development by encouraging good policy and opening their markets to developing country products, but success in development ultimately depends on developing countries' adopting and implementing policies that promote economic freedom, good governance, and the rule of law. Only then will developing countries be on the path to economic development.

IN THE LONG TERM, GLOBALIZATION HAS BEEN LARGELY POSITIVE IN INCREASING WEALTH AND DECREASING POVERTY-Lerman '02[Robert; Professor of Economics at American University; Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty; Urban Institute; 5 November 2002; http://www.urban.org/publications/410612.html; retreived 10 January 2015]

One way of analyzing globalization's impact is to take the long view and assess trends from the perspective of centuries. Jeffrey Williamson (2002) and his colleagues (Lindert and Williamson 2001) have done so and they offer a largely positive verdict. Income gaps did widen in the 1820-1950 period, when rapid industrial development took place in Europe, the United States and other European offshoots, and Japan. Starting from a state of nearly universal poverty, the world became more unequal when some countries developed rapidly while others remained poor. Still, in periods of globalization, income gaps narrowed among countries taking part in global trade, immigration, and investment. By far, the main force closing the gap was large-scale immigration. True to theory, the immigration of 60 million European increased wages in the sending, low wage countries, decreased wages in the receiving, high wage countries, and substantially raised incomes for the immigrants themselves. Trade helped incomes converge as well, boosting the prices received by producers and lowering the prices their consumers and producers paid for imports. Investment was the one component that went against expectations. Flows of international capital moved toward already rich countries, perhaps following the movement of workers and perhaps because additional capital is sometimes more productive in places where concentrations of capital are already present—a phenomenon vividly described by William Easterly (2001) in his thoughtful book on growth.Overall, globalization helped the poor countries that adopted sound policies and contributed to income convergence among the countries participating in the global system. However, since stagnation continued in many countries isolated from globalization, world inequality still rose.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 14FREE MARKETS REDUCE POVERTY-MacKenzie '14[D.W.; Assistant Professor at Carroll College; The Data Is Clear: Free Markets Reduce Poverty; Mises Daily; 16 June 2014; http://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

Some Catholic clergy have, once again, denounced supporters of laissez-faire capitalism. Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga claims that the free market economy is “a new idol” which creates inequality, excludes the poor, and that “this economy kills.” Cardinal Maradiaga does not speak alone. He quoted Pope Francis in his recent remarks and claimed that since the Pope “grew up in Argentina,” he “has a profound knowledge of the life of the poor.”I have no doubt that Pope Francis has seen many poor people with his own eyes. But, our comprehension of the root causes of poverty requires both data on economic conditions and theoretical knowledge of economic systems. What does rational analysis of evidence tell us about global poverty?It is an obvious fact that severe poverty has disappeared in the most industrialized countries. Nations like the US, UK, Switzerland, and Japan industrialized within what were predominantly laissez-faire free-market conditions. Even the so-called social democracies, like Sweden and Germany, developed in free-market conditions, and adopted extensive state welfare and regulatory programs only after achieving high levels of economic development and industrialization. World Bank data shows that there is inequality, but this inequality is between the free-market nations and the crony-capitalist and socialistic nations.1

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE BECOMING RICHER DUE TO ECONOMIC GROWTH FROM FREE TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION-The Economist '13[The world’s next great leap forward: Towards the end of poverty; The Economist; 1 June 2013; http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim%20; retrieved 5 January 2015]

Many Westerners have reacted to recession by seeking to constrain markets and roll globalisation back in their own countries, and they want to export these ideas to the developing world, too. It does not need such advice. It is doing quite nicely, largely thanks to the same economic principles that helped the developed world grow rich and could pull the poorest of the poor out of destitution.

OPEN TRADE POLICY IS ASSOCIATED WITH LESS POVERTY-Lerman '02[Robert; Professor of Economics at American University; Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty; Urban Institute; 5 November 2002; http://www.urban.org/publications/410612.html; retreived 10 January 2015]

Has the same pattern prevailed in the last decades? One big difference is lower immigration. Over the last 25 years, 1-2% of the world's population immigrated, a rate far lower than the 10% who immigrated between 1870 and 1910. The trade and foreign investment components of globalization expanded significantly, though with large variations across countries. Confirming what Williamson found for earlier episodes of globalization, David Dollar and Aart Kraay (2000) have shown that low-income countries most open to the rest of the world achieved significantly higher economic growth than in developing countries that reduced their trade and higher than in rich countries. Moreover, the added economic growth induced by globalization was broadly shared so that low-income families saw income growth as high as did other groups in the economy. Although not every study finds clear, positive effects from trade, none show gains for countries that chose to become less open to trade in the 1990s. On balance, then, the weight of the evidence goes in favor of globalization as a force for narrowing income gaps between countries.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 15GLOBALIZATION LEADS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH, DECREASING POVERTY-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

Why would economic freedom, globalization, and the rule of law contribute to economic growth? Rigid labor policies, high regulation and bureaucratic red tape, high official taxation, corruption, and trade barriers are obstacles that create a drag on economic growth. The greater the level of government intervention in the economy, the lower the probability that individuals, investors, and businesses will be able to prosper because costs on private economic activity become higher. This leads talented people to leave the country for more advantageous opportunities or to engage in activities that do not contribute to GDP (such as government service) and enrich themselves through rent seeking and corruption. The practical result is that countries with anti-market economic policies and bad governance are more likely to be poor, to be isolated from the international economy, and to find it more difficult to escape that poverty.[25]

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 16GLOBALIZATION GOOD: CONTINUED GROWTH REQUIRED TO REDUCE POVERTY

GROWTH IS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO BATTLE GLOBAL POVERTY-The Economist '13[The world’s next great leap forward: Towards the end of poverty; The Economist; 1 June 2013; http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim%20; retrieved 5 January 2015]

So caution is justified, but the goal can still be achieved. If developing countries maintain the impressive growth they have managed since 2000; if the poorest countries are not left behind by faster-growing middle-income ones; and if inequality does not widen so that the rich lap up all the cream of growth—then developing countries would cut extreme poverty from 16% of their populations now to 3% by 2030. That would reduce the absolute numbers by 1 billion. If growth is a little faster and income more equal, extreme poverty could fall to just 1.5%—as near to zero as is realistically possible. The number of the destitute would then be about 100m, most of them in intractable countries in Africa. Misery’s billions would be consigned to the annals of history.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 17GLOBALIZATION GOOD: IMPROVES ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF THE VERY POOR

GLOBALIZATION HAS IMPROVED THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE-Howard-Hassmann '09[Rhoda; Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights; Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada; Globalization, Poverty Reduction, and Economic Rights; Global-E; 9 March 2009; http://global-ejournal.org/2009/03/09/globalization-poverty-reduction-and-economic-rights/; retrieved 11 January 2015]

The question is, then, what causes either increases or reduction in poverty? What will be the likely effect of globalization in the future and what factors other than globalization will contribute to that effect? It is tempting for global studies students who oppose globalization to attribute all deterioration in economic rights to globalization and all improvements to resistance to it. Yet countries that did not participate in globalization generally did worse than countries that did participate. Combined with the proper public policy measures, globalization improves the economic human rights of many hundreds of millions of people.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 18GLOBALIZATION GOOD: AVOIDS CONFLICT AND WORLD ECONOMIC INSTABILITY

THE ALTERNATIVE TO GLOBALIZATION IS CONFLICT AND INSTABILITY-Crane '04[David; Columnist; There's no realistic alternative to globalization; The Toronto Star; 28 February 2004; page D02]

There is no doubt we are in the midst of great changes, and that in this process there is a profound - and accelerating - realignment of economic activity taking place across the world which is clearly threatening to some Canadians and their communities. But it would be a terrible mistake to reject globalization. Enabling economic growth around the world is critical if we want a stable and peaceful world. The alternative, in a planet that will be much more crowded in 30 years' time than it is today, is greater conflict and instability.

GLOBALIZATION IS THE ONLY APPROACH THAT CAN LIFT THE WORLD'S POOR OUT OF POVERTY WITHOUT CONFLICT-Crane '04[David; Columnist; There's no realistic alternative to globalization; The Toronto Star; 28 February 2004; page D02]

The great challenge of this new century is to find ways in which a significantly larger global population can live together peacefully while bringing a higher standard of living to the great mass of the world's population that currently lives in poverty, and to do this without destroying the carrying capacity of the biosphere. Successful globalization is the only approach that is likely to work.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 19GLOBALIZATION GOOD: WORKERS BENEFIT FROM GLOBALIZATION

IN THE LONG RUN, WORKERS BENEFIT FROM INTEGRATION INTO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

But what about claims that trade hurts workers? A World Bank study found that "In the long run workers gain from integration [with the world economy]. Wages have grown twice as fast in globalized developing countries than in less globalized ones…."[31] And the environmental damage caused by trade? "Despite widespread fears," the study continued, "there is no evidence of a decline in environmental standards. In fact, a recent study of air quality in major industrial centers of the new globalizers found that it had improved significantly in all of them."[32] Same story on poverty: Globalization is good for the poor. A related World Bank study found that increased growth resulting from expanded trade "leads to proportionate increases in incomes of the poor" and that "globalization leads to faster growth and poverty reduction in poor countries."[33]

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 20GLOBALIZATION GOOD: MARKET INTEGRATION GOOD

INTEGRATION INTO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY IS KEY TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

A Better Strategy for Development. A World Bank study found that increased integration into the world economy from the late 1970s to the late 1990s led to higher growth in income. The more integrated countries achieved 5 percent average annual growth in per capita income during the 1990s.[22] In contrast, the non-globalizing nations experienced average growth of only 1.4 percent during the 1990s, and many experienced negative growth rates.

ECONOMIC OPENNESS TO THE WORLD LINKED WITH DECREASED POVERTY-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

"The proportion of the world's population living in absolute poverty is lower now than it has ever been," the report says.The study echoes a recent World Bank report which found the degree of an economy's openness is closely linked to its standard of living.

GLOBALIZATION IS A BROAD EVOLUTION OF OUR WORLD THAT IS TRANSFORMING OUR ECONOMY TO BE MORE INTERCONNECTED-Amelio '08[William; CEO of Lenovo; Interconnected we prosper: Global 2.0; The International Herald Tribune; 26 June 2008; page 8]

Globalization at first meant a rigid, world assembly line where the West provided ideas and innovation that were then exported for retooling through cheap labor in the developing world.Over the past decade, globalization has morphed from a simple race to the lowest costs into a force that is weaving all of us more tightly together. The power of free trade, adoption of information technology and the explosion of talent and innovation on a distributed, global scale are creating one of the largest economic transformations in history.These fundamental forces are radically shifting the patterns of business and society with regard to national and cultural identities - a key factor in rising standards of living.

GLOBALIZATION CAN DELIVER WIDELY SHARED PROGRESS AND ENLIGHTENED GOVERNMENT-Crane '04[David; Columnist; There's no realistic alternative to globalization; The Toronto Star; 28 February 2004; page D02]

In this new world, the report emphasized, "the potential for good is immense. The growing interconnectivity among people around the world is nurturing the sense that we are all part of a global community" which "can be channelled to build enlightened and democratic global governance in the interests of all."Moreover, "the global market economy has demonstrated great productive capacity. Wisely managed, it can deliver unprecedented material progress, generate more productive and better jobs for all, and contribute significantly to reducing global poverty."

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 21

GLOBALIZATION GOOD: ECONOMIC FREEDOM KEY TO DEVELOPMENT

ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS KEY TO DEVELOPMENT IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

While it is impossible to say how sub-Saharan countries would have done without receiving economic assistance, the record discussed above clearly shows that large disbursements of development assistance did not lead to the economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa that many aid advocates envisioned. However, achieving high per capita economic growth is possible even in low-income countries. This fact is illustrated by successful development by countries in East Asia. Per capita GDP in East Asia and the Pacific was lower than in sub-Saharan Africa in 1960 but has since far eclipsed sub-Saharan Africa.How did this happen? Economic studies indicate that sound economic policies, the rule of law, and good governance are the key.Over the past decade, economic studies have concluded that economic freedom, good governance, and the rule of law are key drivers in promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. A 1997 World Bank analysis of foreign aid found that, while assistance positively affects growth in countries with good economic policies (free markets, fiscal discipline, and the rule of law), countries with poor economic policies did not experience sustained economic growth regardless of the amount of foreign assistance received.[14]Other studies have reached similar conclusions, maintaining that aid can increase economic growth in certain circumstances.[15] These studies conclude that aid may help the poor to cope temporarily with some of the consequences of poverty but that countries beset by a weak rule of law, corruption, heavy state intervention, and other policies that retard growth will not experience increased economic growth even with greater amounts of economic assistance. Subsequent studies question whether aid could spur growth even in good policy environments.[16]

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 22GLOBALIZATION GOOD: CRITICS OF GLOBALIZATION IGNORE HISTORY

GLOBALIZATION CRITICS IGNORE THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF TRADE AND POVERTY-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

Many globalization critics are "poorly informed about the historical record, and appear not to be aware of the contribution played by globalization in the struggle against poverty," the study's authors say.They say closer economic ties between countries, reduced tariffs and greater flows of investments have made the most startling impact on global poverty.

CRITICISM AGAINST GLOBALIZATION IS MISGUIDED-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

The study takes issue with the slogans of protesters at anti-globalization rallies, like the one in Calgary during last month's G8 summit at Kananaskis, Alta.Critics charge globalization with increasing inequality, polluting the environment, exploiting workers, undermining the ability of governments to raise taxes to provide health care and welfare and with causing economic instability.Untrue, according to the study."Many of the charges against globalization are misguided," says the study, which says that while globalization does carry some costs, they are more than outweighed by the benefits.

GLOBALIZATION CRITICS ARE POORLY INFORMED OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD-Cienski '02[Jan; Globalization cures poverty: study: Free markets credited with reducing misery - yet the gap between rich and poor widens; National Post; 9 July 2002; page A1]

Many globalization critics are "poorly informed about the historical record, and appear not to be aware of the contribution played by globalization in the struggle against poverty," the study's authors say. They say closer economic ties between countries, reduced tariffs and greater flows of investments have made the most startling impact on global poverty.

RESEARCH DISCOUNTS THE NEGATIVE ATTITUDES ABOUT GLOBALIZATION HELD BY THE CON-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

The support for the often-controversial position of continuing to lower tariffs and expand free trade was a little much for the European Commission, which represents governments of various stripes and stressed that the study was not its official position."In many respects, the findings will prove controversial, at least to those outside the circle of professional economists, contradicting as they do certain deeply held beliefs about the negative consequences of globalization," wrote Romano Prodi, the European Commission President.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 23GLOBALIZATION GOOD: CRITICS ARE TRYING TO KEEP WEALTH FOR THEMSELVES

CHALLENGES TO GLOBALIZATION ARE AIMED AT KEEPING COMFORTS AMONG THE HAVES OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD-Amelio '08[William; CEO of Lenovo; Interconnected we prosper: Global 2.0; The International Herald Tribune; 26 June 2008; page 8]

Of course, change brings uncertainty, and with uncertainty comes resistance. The rise of a greatly expanded middle class, whose members come from unfamiliar nations and cultures, is also raising questions over whether we can afford to support this kind of increased demand on a worldwide scale.The media and the blogosphere are filled with assertions - some bordering on fear mongering - that attribute everything from the price of food to the price of gasoline to the demands of the developing world.Even if this were the case, it is difficult to accept that we should deny others a chance at prosperity because it may challenge our own comfort. As the evolution of the global economy delivers millions of people from poverty, we should recall what the first wave of a global industrial economy did for the masses of the impoverished in Europe and the United States in the last century.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 24DEVELOPMENT TRUMPS AID

AID AND ASSISTANCE CAN'T RESCUE COUNTRIES FROM POVERTY, ONLY SELF-SUSTAINING GROWTH CAN-Samuelson '08[Robert J.; Columnist; Rx for Global Poverty; The Washington Post; 28 May 2008; page A13]

A second is: Outside benevolence can't rescue countries from poverty. There is a role for foreign aid, technical assistance and charity in relieving global poverty. But it is a small role. It can improve health, alleviate suffering from natural disasters or wars, and provide some types of skills. But it cannot single-handedly stimulate the policies and habits that foster self-sustaining growth. Japan and China (to cite easy examples) have grown rapidly not because they received foreign aid but because they pursued pro-growth policies and embraced pro-growth values.

LACK OF AID IS NOT THE REASON FOR GLOBAL POVERTY-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

Yet the U.S. is often criticized for not providing enough resources for development. The basis for this criticism is the theory that if only aid flows increased, developing countries would achieve economic growth and development. Economic analysis and the historical record do not support this reasoning.The United States and other donor nations have spent over $2.3 trillion on bilateral and multilateral development assistance (in 2003 dollars) since 1960 to help poor countries attain economic growth and prosperity-about a fourth of it in sub-Saharan Africa.[3] Few recipients have achieved substantial improvements in per capita income, and in no case has a development success story been clearly attributable to economic assistance. The evidence provided by numerous studies indicates that this failure is due not to insufficient funds, but to the poor policies of recipient countries.

AID DOESN'T WORK BETTER IN TO DECREASE GLOBAL POVERTY-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

Several recent economic studies, however, dismantle the arguments used by Sachs and the U.N. for increased aid. Former World Bank economist William Easterly specifically analyzed the evidence on whether increased aid or investment can spur growth:The classic narrative-poor countries caught in poverty traps, out of which they need a Big Push involving increased aid and investment, leading to a takeoff in per capita income- has been very influential in development economics. This was the original justification for foreign aid…. Evidence to support the narrative is scarce…. Takeoffs are rare in the data, most plausibly limited to the Asian success stories. Even then, the takeoffs do not seem strongly associated with aid or investment in the way the standard Big Push narrative would imply.[19]

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 25DEVELOPMENTAL AID HAS DONE LITTLE TO BRING ANY LASTING SOLUTION TO GLOBAL POVERTY-Schaefer '06[Brett; Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; How Economic Freedom Is Central to Development in Sub-Saharan Africa; Heritage Foundation Lecture; 3 February 2006; http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/how-economic-freedom-is-central-to-development-in-sub-saharan-africa; retrieved 12 January 2015]

There are 92 developing countries that are in the 2006 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom, co-published annually by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, and for which per capita gross domestic product (GDP) data from 1980 to 2004 are available.Of these, 32 averaged zero or negative compound annual growth in real per capita GDP.Another 23 averaged marginal compound annual growth between 0 and 1 percent.And only 37 averaged compound annual growth in real per capita GDP over 1 percent (China and Equatorial Guinea averaged over 8 percent).Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in development assistance, individuals in developing countries averaged a disappointing 0.94 percent in compound annual growth in per capita GDP from 1980 to 2004.Sub-Saharan Africa performed even worse than this dismal average.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 26A/T: GLOBALIZATION = INEQUALITY

CLAIMS THAT GLOBAL CAPITALISM CREATE INEQUALITY HAVE BEEN REFUTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES-MacKenzie '14[D.W.; Assistant Professor at Carroll College; The Data Is Clear: Free Markets Reduce Poverty; Mises Daily; 16 June 2014; http://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

One could argue that global capitalism allows a few people in some nations to exploit the masses of other nations. Marxists have attempted to make this case since Lenin. Lenin revised Marx because even in his day it had become obvious that Marx’s prediction that capitalists would exploit domestic workers was refuted by evidence. We now know that Lenin’s attempt to blame poverty on global markets is wrong. As previously mentioned, economic conditions in China and India improved after switching from socialism to crony capitalism. China and India have also expanded trade in global markets.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 27A/T: POVERTY SIGNIFICANT

CLAIMING THAT THE EXISTENCE OF POVERTY ALONE PROVES GLOBALIZATION WRONG IS SUPERFICIAL-MacKenzie '14[D.W.; Assistant Professor at Carroll College; The Data Is Clear: Free Markets Reduce Poverty; Mises Daily; 16 June 2014; http://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty; retrieved 12 January 2015]

A superficial examination of the world today reveals that there is poverty, that this poverty has real consequences for living-standards and life-expectancies, and that we do have global markets and capitalism in most of the world. Careful analysis shows that capitalism has truly lessened the severity of poverty over time, and that the main problem with capitalism in most nations is that it has too many elements of government regulation and cronyism. Pope Francis and Cardinal Maradiaga have good intentions, but their anti-capitalistic beliefs are unfounded. Their campaign against global capitalism endangers the poorest people of the world.

EVEN IF POVERTY IS STILL HIGH, THERE IS NO DENYING THAT IT HAS DECREASED OVER THE PAST CENTURY-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

While acknowledging the number of poor people in the world remains "disturbingly high," the study says that in 1950 about 55% of the world's population lived on less than US$1 a day (in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars). By 1992, only 24% of the world's population had to make do with that tiny amount. During that time the number of poor remained static at about 1.3 billion people, while the global population grew rapidly.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 28A/T: GLOBALIZATION = LOW SALARIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

SMALL SALARIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE BY WESTERN STANDARDS AND NOT LOCAL STANDARDS-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

The drumbeat of protest about manufacturers such as Nike and the Gap using Third World sweatshops to make their products actually harms the workers in those factories.While a salary of $5 a day may seem "shockingly poor" to protesters in rich countries, that is often five times more than the workers would have gotten by staying in traditional industries such as agriculture, the study says.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 29A/T: RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

NO RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION UNDER GLOBALIZATION-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

Although there is some proof that countries exporting energy and natural resources such as timber underprice those products, causing environmental harm, there is no evidence of a "race to the bottom" in wages or environmental standards.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 30A/T: RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR LABOR STANDARDS

GLOBALIZATION DOESN'T MEAN BUSINESSES WILL ALWAYS GO FOR THE CHEAPEST LABOR-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

Many critics contend that corporations will relentlessly hunt for the cheapest place to do business, forcing richer countries to gut their social safety nets and environmental rules to match those of the lowest-cost country."If low wages alone were enough of an attraction, more [investment] would have flowed to the poorest countries in Africa, rather than predominantly to a small number of middle-income countries in Asia and Latin America," it says.

WE CAN HAVE GLOBALIZATION THAT DECREASES POVERTY AND MINDS LABOR RIGHTS AND FIGHTS CHILD LABOR AND POVERTY-Sperling '04[Gene; Former Advisor to President Bill Clinton; A New Consensus on Free Trade; The Washington Post; 1 March 2004; page A19]

Break the deadlock on trade and global poverty reduction. We need to get beyond the impoverished debate that open markets are either the principal cause of sweatshops or that they automatically reduce poverty. While we must support strong labor and environmental standards, we should not allow disagreement over enforcement to prevent us from seeking a broader and more creative globalization agenda that supports universal basic education, fights abusive child labor and sweatshops, strengthens civil society watchdogs and independent monitors, and funds transition assistance to workers and small farmers hurt by market opening, while insisting on codes of corporate conduct that support core labor rights.The writer was national economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and is now director of economic programs at the Center for American Progress.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 31A/T: GLOBALIZATION ONLY BENEFITS CORPORATE INTERESTS

REDUCING GLOBAL POVERTY REQUIRES ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS-Lodge and Wilson '07[George C., Professor of Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard Business School and Craig, Economist with the International Finance Corporation; Multinational Corporations Can Reduce Global Poverty; 2007; Gale Group Databases]

Reducing global poverty has become a top priority for world leaders in recent years, and a plethora of international agencies aim to help the poor: civil society organizations or NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], the United Nations and its specialized agencies, the World Bank and others. Yet overall, the efforts to reduce poverty have been disappointing.Leaders of NGOs and development institutions have begun to realize that there is no way that they can sustainably reduce global poverty without the active involvement of MNCs. In the past, attempts at collaboration encountered strong resistance. That resistance, while diminishing, lingers today and rests on two pillars, one ideological and one structural.

POVERTY CAN ONLY BE ALLEVIATED THROUGH A COMMERCIAL-PRIORITY APPROACH-Emmons '07[Garry; The Business of Global Poverty; Harvard Business School Working Knowledge; 4 April 2007; http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5656.html; retrieved 10 January 2015]

"Poverty can only be truly addressed if you meet four conditions," Chu explains. "You must have huge scale to reach the billions who are in poverty; solutions must be enduring and last over generations; solutions must be truly effective and make a difference; and all this must happen efficiently. Only through a commercial approach can you achieve all those things, and the great power of microfinance comes through its ability to generate profit. There is no contradiction between social impact and good profitability; in fact, profitability is central to that social impact."Eliminating, or even alleviating, global poverty is an enormous task. About a billion of the world's people live in slums, and Payatas resident Ronald ("Bobby") Escare is one of them.

DEVELOPMENT OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS KEY TO DECREASING GLOBAL POVERTY-Lodge and Wilson '07[George C., Professor of Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard Business School and Craig, Economist with the International Finance Corporation; Multinational Corporations Can Reduce Global Poverty; 2007; Gale Group Databases]

MNC involvement is crucial to poverty reduction for two reasons: First, the reduction of poverty depends on the growth of business, especially small, domestic businesses. And increasingly for a local business to flourish it must have access to the world: to markets, credit, and technology, all facilitated by MNCs. The second reason is less obvious and more controversial: Poverty reduction requires systemic change, and MNCs are the world's most efficient and sustainable engines of change. They provide political leverage with local governments; they offer opportunity for people who are convinced there is none; they motivate the young to learn and organize to gain power; they build roads and hospitals and other infrastructure. MNCs in developing countries are often the first choice for private-sector jobs by young people, who are attracted by the higher salaries and the learning opportunities. And wise governments get the private sector to do as much spending on infrastructure as possible in order to protect their own treasuries.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 32

CONPOVERTY REMAINS SIGNIFICANT

GLOBAL POVERTY IS VASTLY GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED-Falk '10[Ranier; Editor of the World Economy & Development in Brief; A Small Minority of People in the World Benefit from Globalization; 2010; Gale Group]

The latest World Bank review of purchasing power parities (PPPs) will, however, add fresh impetus to this debate. The data show that both global inequality and global poverty are vastly greater than previously assumed. It is reported that worldwide income inequality is not 65 Gini points, which would roughly equate to the level of South Africa, but 70 points. The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of income distribution, with "0" corresponding to total equality and "100" to total inequality. An inequality level of 70 was never recorded before anywhere. The new PPP estimates also imply that the number of absolute poor is probably considerably higher than assessed so far. According to the outdated PPP calculations, 980 million people must do with less than the purchasing power of one dollar per day.

GLOBAL POVERTY IS GETTING WORSE-Hallinan '06[Conn; Lecturer at the University of California-Santa Cruz; The Devil's Brew of Poverty Relief; Foreign Policy in Focus; 19 July 2006; page 1]

The venues shift, the faces at the table change, but the hard facts about hunger and privation are not much different than they were a decade ago. In some cases the situation has gotten worse.* Over 90% of urban populations have no access to safe drinking water and, by [2007] more than half of the world will live in cities. The slums of Mumbai [formerly called Bombay, India] have more people than the entire country of Norway.* One third of the world's population—2.3 billion people—have no access to toilets or latrines, a major reason for the 13 million annual deaths ascribed to water-borne diseases.* Almost 47% of children in Bangladesh and India are malnourished. Life expectancy in most of Africa is less than 50 years, and in those countries ravaged by AIDS, less than 40 years.* Hunger and malnutrition is worse in sub-Saharan Africa than it was a decade ago.

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS HAS ENDED ANY HOPES OF MEETING UN MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS-Rediff Business '09[Global poverty may not halve by 2015: UNCTAD; Rediff Business; 8 September 2009; http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/08/global-poverty-may-not-halve-by-2015-unctad.htm; retrieved 10 January 2015]

While Asian and Latin American countries have shown relatively strong resistance to the crisis, many East European countries faced strong pressure to devalue their currencies and difficulties in refinancing external debts in the short term, the report said.It said that economies in Africa are likely to see a sharp slowdown in output in 2009, and per capita gross domestic product will actually fall particularly in sub-Saharan Africa."This will render it virtually impossible to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals," it said.The attainability of the 2000-2015 goals, which include halving extreme poverty, halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal education, among other things, was considered heavily dependent on the trend in sub-Saharan Africa.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 33NEW MEASUREMENTS SHOW THAT GLOBAL POVERTY WAS WORSE THAN PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED-Basujun '14[Tanya; How Many People in the World Are Actually Poor?; The Atlantic; 19 June 2014; http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/weve-been-measuring-the-number-of-poor-people-in-the-world-wrong/373073/; retrieved 11 January 2015]

So what did we find out about poverty now that we can measure it better? Sadly, the world is more impoverished than we previously thought. The HPI has put this figure at 1.2 billion people. But under the MPI's measurements, it's 1.6 billion people. More than half of the impoverished population in developing countries lives in South Asia, and another 29 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Seventy-one percent of MPI’s poor live in what is considered middle income countries—countries where development and modernization in the face of globalization is in full swing, but some are left behind. Niger is home to the highest concentration of multidimensionally poor, with nearly 90 percent of its population lacking in MPI’s socioeconomic indicators. Most of the poor live in rural areas.

HISTORICAL TRENDS SHOW THAT INEQUALITY IS INCREASING, NOT DECREASING-Leech '14[Garry; Lecturer in Political Science at Cape Breton University; Distorting Poverty to Promote Capitalism; CounterPunch; 29 January 2014; http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/29/distorting-poverty-to-promote-capitalism/; retrieved 11 January 2014]

It is precisely this process that has resulted in the gross global inequality highlighted in a recent Oxfam report. According to the report, the richest 85 people in the world now possess the same amount of wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people. Despite Bill Gates’ optimism that we are closer to achieving global equality than we might think, the historical trend under capitalism suggests the opposite. The wealth gap between the global North and the global South has grown from a factor of 3:1 in 1820 to 35:1 in 1950 and to 72:1 in 1992 to 167:1 in 2010.

THOSE LIVING IN ABSOLUTE POVERTY IS INCREASING-Toepfer '03[Klaus; Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme; Environment, Poverty and Social Development: A SHORT REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE WORLD IN TERMS OF POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY; UNEP; 23 May 2003; http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=400&ArticleID=4528&l=en; retrieved 10 January 2015]

Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit the number of people living in absolute poverty, particularly in developing countries has increased. According to the 2003 UN Human Development Report, there are 900 million people living in absolute poverty in rural areas. The trends are not much better in the cities, where 1 billion people live in slums. More than 1 billion people lack access to clean water supplies and more than 2 billion people worldwide lack access to adequate sanitation.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 34HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION HAVE INCREASED DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST 15 YEARS-United Nations World Food Programme '06[Hunger and Malnutrition Are the Oldest Enemies of Developing Countries; 2008; Gale Group Databases]

Hunger and malnutrition are still the number one risks to health worldwide. In the final quarter of the 20th century, humanity was winning the war on its oldest enemy. From 1970-1997, the number of hungry people dropped from 959 million to 791 million—mainly the result of dramatic progress in reducing the number of undernourished in China and India. In the second half of the 1990s, however, the number of chronically hungry in developing countries increased at a rate of almost four million per year. By 2000-2002, the total number of undernourished people worldwide had risen to 852 million: 815 million in developing countries, 28 million in countries in transition and nine million in industrialised countries. Today, one in nearly seven people do not get enough food to be healthy and lead an active life, making hunger and malnutrition the number one risk to health worldwide—greater than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS HAS DOOMED AFRICA TO ECONOMIC STAGNATION-Economic & Social Research Council '09[Global poverty is still a priority; EurekAlert; 18 March 2009; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/esr-gpi031809.php; retrieved 10 January 2015]

Professor of Economics, Tony Venables, of the University of Oxford, will discuss the impacts of the recession on developing countries, focusing his presentation on Africa. Africa has had strong economic growth for nearly a decade, but the latest forecasts have growth in 2009-10 dropping to around 3%, barely more than population increase. As a consequence tens of millions more people will remain in poverty and attainment of the MDGs made less likely. "Different economies are affected through quite different transmission mechanisms; drying up of capital flows; reduced export prospects; lower remittances; and lower commodity prices which affect some economies positively and others negatively." explained Professor Venables. "The key question for the future is whether the recession is a one-off reduction in income and increase in poverty, or whether it will also reduce Africa's growth prospects over coming decades, returning it the stagnation of the 1980s and 90s."

FINANCIAL CRISIS HAS DECREASED FOCUS ON WORLD POVERTY-Elliott '08[Larry; Economics Editor; West's pledge to tackle global poverty has been crowded out by our own crisis; The Guardian; 1 December 2008; West's pledge to tackle global poverty has been crowded out by our own crisis; http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/01/global-poverty-credit-crunch-recession/print; retrieved 10 January 2015]

In one sense, though, crowding out is already here. The financial crisis has so dominated the political landscape in the past 16 months that it has crowded out almost every other issue. What, for example, has happened to concern about climate change? It has been pushed on to the back burner as attention switches to the short-term need to create jobs and boost growth, that's what.And how about the west's great crusade to fight global poverty by finding the money needed to hit the 2015 millennium development goals set by the United Nations?

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 35GLOBALIZATION BAD: PRIMARILY BENEFITS THE ALREADY RICH

ONLY A SMALL MINORITY HAVE BENEFITED FROM GLOBALIZATION-Falk '10[Ranier; Editor of the World Economy & Development in Brief; A Small Minority of People in the World Benefit from Globalization; 2010; Gale Group]

So far, only a small minority of top earners has benefited from global integration. Even conservative economists have begun to worry about social inclusion and effective redistribution. As many argue, it is better to prevent protectionist tendencies, which would cut the overall benefits of globalisation, and to share the cake more fairly.

DATA SHOWS THAT GLOBALIZATION POSITIVELY IMPACTS THE VERY FEW-Vidal '04[Matt; Doctoral Candidate; A Look at the Numbers: Globalization and Economic Inequality; 29 November 2004; http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/29/globalization-and-economic-inequality/; retrieved 4 January 2015]

More generally, the data overwhelmingly demonstrate that the benefits of globalization have gone largely to the very few, leaving the masses to fight over the crumbs. And while there are more crumbs to fight over when growth is strong, inequality is most extreme in the cases were globalization takes a more neoliberal form. This is the case in developing countries and also in the most neoliberal of the developed countries, the USA, which has seen more consistently rising inequality than any other industrialized country.

GLOBALIZATION PRIMARILY BENEFITS THE ALREADY WEALTHY-Barman '10[Binoy; Professor of English at Daffodil International University; Globalization Is Not Increasing Social Justice; 2010; Gale Group]

Globalisation has taught the world corporate trickery. The West is the breeding ground of big corporate scandals. Corporate culture seeks to influence the government machinery through fraudulence and corruption for the interest of the vested quarters, the bourgeoisie. It promotes the motto of maximising profit, by fair means or foul. It suggests a heartless handling of business affairs, where human life carries no value.Life becomes a mere commodity. Money stands at the centre of all activities. Everybody runs after money when money itself is not stationary. It flows to the people who have already got enough. It is not meant for the penniless. Globalisation is for the gentlemen; there is no hope for the subaltern, the marginalised.

THE VAST MAJORITY DO NOT GET ANY BENEFIT FROM GLOBALIZATION-Falk '10[Ranier; Editor of the World Economy & Development in Brief; A Small Minority of People in the World Benefit from Globalization; 2010; Gale Group]

This last point is crucial. Not only do small minorities have no share in the benefits of globalisation—the vast majority of people misses out. No serious observer will claim that globalisation, trade and international investment are not good for national economies in themselves. Yet even in the conservative camp, fears are mounting that only a tiny group at the top of society is reaping the benefits. Incidentally, this applies equally to the advanced countries and many developing countries, although details differ, of course. In any case, the question of appropriate counterstrategies and remedies is becoming urgent. Adjustment assistance for those negatively affected by globalisation is considered a rather conventional remedy in the rich world. The focus can be on reforming labour law, improving social-security systems or new measures for retraining and education. Such programmes are usually sold as "helping people to adapt to globalisation", although the measures used usually have only an aftercare character, without tackling the roots of unemployment and poverty.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 36DATA SHOWS THAT GLOBALIZATION PROVIDES HIGHLY UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT-Vidal '04[Matt; Doctoral Candidate; A Look at the Numbers: Globalization and Economic Inequality; 29 November 2004; http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/29/globalization-and-economic-inequality/; retrieved 4 January 2015]

"Over the past decades," Brooks continues, "many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging. The poor nations that opened themselves up to trade, investment and those evil multinational corporations saw the sharpest poverty declines. Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering."In this view globalization is an undifferentiated force of good identified with global financiers and multinational corporations, responsible for rising economic growth and reduced poverty and inequality the world over. But the data presented above paint a picture of highly uneven development, with a few winners and many losers, pockets of wealth and privilege surrounded by poverty and misery.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 37GLOBALIZATION BAD: PRIMARILY HELPS WEALTHY NATIONS

GLOBAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE USED TO PERPETUATE THE DEVELOPED WORLD'S DOMINANCE-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

It is in this respect that the WTO [World Trade Organization], the foremost international trading body, has been widely criticised. The WTO was established with the principal objective of liberalizing and promoting free trade to foster global economic growth and development. However, its real contribution to increased trade is debatable. As American economist Andrew Rose, a free-trade advocate, noted, "Membership in the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]/WTO is not associated with enhanced trade, once standard factors have been taken into account. To be more precise, countries acceding or belonging to the GATT/WTO do not have significantly different trade patterns than non-members."Moreover, many in the South accuse the WTO of double standards. Rather than being a neutral forum, they believe the WTO acts as a lever for the North to increase its economic influence. Although states in the North constantly demand market liberalization, they are often slow to implement it themselves. A particular flashpoint in this respect has been the North's protection of its agricultural sector. The Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Agreement has also proved highly controversial. It established a global 20-year protection period with monopoly trading rights for patent holders, which appears to fly in the face of the WTO's free-trade ethos.

GLOBALIZATION HAS NOT BROUGHT "FREE TRADE" TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD; IT ONLY BENEFITS RICH COUNTRIES-Curran '10[Dave; Deputy President of the Union of Students in Ireland; Globalization Does Not Benefit Developing Nations; 2010; Gale Group]

While poor countries cannot simply trade their way out of poverty, trade if used correctly can be a powerful force for prosperity and poverty reduction. But the current trade rules are totally unfair, and serve to divert the potential benefits of trade away from the poor and toward the rich and powerful. Trade is not free when all the rules have been rigged to benefit western corporations. Poor farmers in Africa cannot "freely" bargain over price with giant coffee conglomerates, because of the huge bargaining power of the companies and the vulnerability of the producers. And a trading system that values the "intellectual property" of drug companies over the lives of AIDS victims should be either reformed or dismantled. For trade to work for the poor, it must be more than free. It must also be fair trade, and must be combined with redistribution, regulation of capital flight, debt cancellation, environmental sustainability and the dismantling of exploitative power relations. The neo-liberal prescription for development, because it ignores all these considerations, is a shallow, self-serving way of redistributing the world's resources further into the hands of the powerful.

FREE TRADE IS NOT USED FAIRLY BY ADVANCED ECONOMIES-Thompson '10[James W.; Writer and Investor; Globalization Could Result in a Backlash Against Modernity; 2010; Gale Group]

As for free trade, he believes it could work if it were implemented by all nations. However, he maintains that it has not been used fairly by advanced economies, as many of them have resorted to protectionist measures.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 38GLOBALIZATION BENEFITS ONLY WEALTHY NATIONS-Barman '10[Binoy; Professor of English at Daffodil International University; Globalization Is Not Increasing Social Justice; 2010; Gale Group]

At the state level, globalisation only feeds the economy of rich nations. The industrialised countries sell their "un-sellable" products to the hungry population of the underdeveloped or developing countries and earn undue profit. The balance of trade is tilted, without any exception, towards the heavyweights.

GLOBALIZATION IS BEING USED TO KEEP ECONOMIC POWER IN THE EXISTING DEVELOPING WORLD-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

At the same time, little attention is paid to levelling the international trading playing field and ensuring the South a greater share in global wealth. There is a widespread and growing conviction in the South that the North is using the concept of free trade both as a means to pry open their domestic markets while ensuring their global economic hegemony remains unthreatened. The real problem would appear to be no

THE GLOBAL CAPITAL SYSTEM PRIMARILY BENEFITS THE DEVELOPED WORLD-Leech '14[Garry; Lecturer in Political Science at Cape Breton University; Distorting Poverty to Promote Capitalism; CounterPunch; 29 January 2014; http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/29/distorting-poverty-to-promote-capitalism/; retrieved 11 January 2014]

Foreign development aid from wealthy nations and philanthropy provided by Bill Gates and others of his ilk help to distort this historical trend by creating the impression that wealth (and generosity) actually flow from the North to the South, thereby humanizing a global capitalist system that primarily benefits people in the global North. In actuality, a more effective solution to poverty would be the cancellation of the foreign debt owed by many nations in the global South in conjunction with providing people with access to the best arable lands to produce food for local markets and ensuring that valuable natural resources are exploited in a sustainable manner for the benefit of domestic populations.

FREE TRADE IS A CLOAK TO MORE SINISTER ACTIONS BY DEVELOPED NATIONS TO CONTINUE ECONOMIC DOMINANCE-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

At the same time, other analysts would hold that free trade has frequently been used to cloak efforts by wealthier nations to further strengthen their economic dominance as well as to obstruct the development efforts of poorer countries.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 39HISTORICALLY, WEALTH HAS FLOWED FROM POOR COUNTRIES AND RICH COUNTRIES-Leech '14[Garry; Lecturer in Political Science at Cape Breton University; Distorting Poverty to Promote Capitalism; CounterPunch; 29 January 2014; http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/29/distorting-poverty-to-promote-capitalism/; retrieved 11 January 2014]

Throughout the history of capitalism far more wealth has flowed from the South to the North than vice-versa. Today much of that wealth is transferred to nations in the global North in the form of debt payments (often for loans that have been paid off several times over due to the amount of interest paid). In fact, the annual debt payments made to the North by many nations in the global South exceed the amount that flows in the opposite direction in the form of development aid, remittances and philanthropic donations. As a result, argues Shiva,The poor are not those who have been “left behind”; they are the ones who have been robbed. The riches accumulated by Europe are based on riches taken from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Without the destruction of India’s rich textile industry, without the takeover of the spice trade, without the genocide of the native American tribes, without Africa’s slavery, the Industrial Revolution would not have led to new riches for Europe or the U.S. It was this violent takeover of Third World resources and markets that created wealth in the North and poverty in the South.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 40GLOBALIZATION BAD: PRIMARILY BENEFITS CORPORATIONS

GLOBALIZATION CONCENTRATES POWER IN THE HANDS OF MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS-Bybee '10[Roger; Writer and Activist; Globalization Threatens Democracy and Promotes Economic Polarization; 2010; Gale Group]

More and more, it is becoming clear that the essence of corporate globalization is to use capital's mobility to evade the constraints of democracy at the national level and establish rules that guarantee global corporate supremacy. Transnational corporations have come closer to being able to shift production sites whenever democracy threatens near-absolute corporate dominance.

GLOBALIZATION BENEFITS MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS FIRST AND FOREMOST-Asia Pacific Research Network '08[Globalization Threatens Human Rights; 2008; Gale Group]

The WTO, however, has done the exact opposite in its decade of existence and has pushed neoliberal "globalization" policies—one-sidedly at that—to the detriment of the most numerous and most vulnerable sectors of society. The main subjects and ultimate beneficiaries of the WTO's free market policies have been giant transnational corporations (TNCs) and countries' political and economic elites rather than the countless individual human beings most in need.

MOVEMENT TOWARDS GLOBALIZATION HAS ONLY BENEFITED CORPORATE AND INVESTOR INTEREST, NOT WORKER INTEREST-Vidal '04[Matt; Doctoral Candidate; A Look at the Numbers: Globalization and Economic Inequality; 29 November 2004; http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/29/globalization-and-economic-inequality/; retrieved 4 January 2015]

The integration of economic activities across national borders that goes under the name of globalization is effected primarily by economic actors in the private sphere (mainly multinational corporations) and government actors. The former are concerned only with profit, while the latter are severely constrained by the needs of the former. Key institutions of neoliberal or free-market globalization such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and similar trade agreements are negotiated primarily to benefit employers and investors, as is clear to anyone familiar with the lack of labor, environmental and other social protections in such agreements.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 41GLOBALIZATION BAD: NOTHING MORE THAN CANNED AMERICANISM

GLOBALIZATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN EXPORTED AMERICANIZATION-Thompson '10[James W.; Writer and Investor; Globalization Could Result in a Backlash Against Modernity; 2010; Gale Group]

For many skeptics, globalization merely is a transparent euphemism for "Americanization," the global diaspora of American-style capitalism and, with it, the spread of its materialistic values. At best, our culture can be exciting and, sometimes, perhaps liberating. Yet, what often is perceived is the worst that we have to offer—from the narcissism of the Shopping Channel to the macho posturing of steroid-fueled TV wrestlers. For the left (and for many moderates and conservatives as well), globalization widely is perceived as a means by which the U.S. can expand its global influence under the more attractive banner of modernization. Although globalization is grounded upon economic activities, it has significant political and social ramifications: clearly, it cannot exist without political pre-conditions; conversely, it may be derailed by political "backlash" as symbolized by the impact of antiglobalization protests.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 42GLOBALIZATION BAD: HAS SLOWED PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING WORLD

GLOBALIZATION HAS RESULTED IN SLOWER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS-Curran '10[Dave; Deputy President of the Union of Students in Ireland; Globalization Does Not Benefit Developing Nations; 2010; Gale Group]

The 1980s, which saw the beginning of "rolling back" the state in Latin America and Africa under the IMF's "Structural Adjustment Programmes", is now considered by many development agencies to be a "lost decade" in terms of poverty reduction, with economic development slowing in most regions of the world, and with many countries falling back further into poverty. And the 1990s have not been much better. A study by the US-based Centre for Economic and Policy Research found that by all measures of human well-being—infant mortality, life expectancy, even economic growth—progress has been slower in the 1980s and 90s than in previous decades, and in the regions subject to neo-liberal economic policies the most, such as Latin America and Africa, growth has been almost zero, with many countries actually experiencing negative growth. In other words, the era of globalisation has resulted in slower economic and social progress, even by its own narrowly defined indicators. Contrary to the assurances of the World Bank and free-market globalisers, the "rising tide" has lifted mainly yachts, and many boats are now sinking fast.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 43GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS THE POOR

GLOBALIZATION IS AGGRAVATING POVERTY-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

Rather than helping the South reduce poverty, the current international free-trade structure is actually aggravating it. Already in a weakened position, the South is now also deprived of many of the economic policies it needs to tackle them.

GLOBALIZATION HAS WORSENED POVERTY-Asia Pacific Research Network '08[Globalization Threatens Human Rights; 2008; Gale Group]

It has ever more geared the world's economic policies towards promoting corporate and elite profits: the underdeveloped countries have been opened up to foreign trade and investment even as the protections and support for rich country TNCs continue. This has worsened poverty, deepened inequality and prevented the progressive realization of the human rights of billions.

GLOBALIZATION HAS WREAKED HAVOC ON THE POOREST OF WORKERS-Barman '10[Binoy; Professor of English at Daffodil International University; Globalization Is Not Increasing Social Justice; 2010; Gale Group]

Globalisation has done no good to the poor. It has made farmers dependent on genetically modified seeds produced by the technologically advanced nations. It has dragged workers from one geographical location to another, often dumping them in more repressive working environments. The labourers only change zones, without much uplift in status.This "dislocated labour" serves the rich, the manufacturers, the giant corporations. In the process, slave remains slave and master remains master. Globalisation turns daily necessities dearer, almost out of the reach of the poor. And, if anybody has to die from hunger in the days of soaring prices, it is the poor peasants and workers, the downtrodden, first.

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS HAVE SEEN THEIR SITUATION GET WORSE UNDER GLOBALIZATION-Curran '10[Dave; Deputy President of the Union of Students in Ireland; Globalization Does Not Benefit Developing Nations; 2010; Gale Group]

It is not that there has been no growth under globalisation—rather, that the benefit of this growth has gone primarily to a small few. Inequality in most countries has increased to levels never seen before, and hundreds of millions of poor people have seen their situations worsen. The rabid anti-statism of neo-liberal theory saw African countries instructed to cut back on state expenditure on health care and education. In a region now devastated by AIDS, these recommendations were irresponsible in the extreme.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 44GLOBALIZATION HURTS THE MOST VULNERABLE PARTS OF POPULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD-Asia Pacific Research Network '08[Globalization Threatens Human Rights; 2008; Gale Group]

The central problem is that the WTO systematically disregards human rights: its core philosophy of neoliberal "globalization" is methodically biased for "free" trade that promotes corporate monopoly profits rather than human well-being and development; the big developed country governments aggressively push anti-developmental economic policies, which underdeveloped country governments tolerate and indeed sometimes even embrace. The end result is that domestic productive and social welfare structures around the world are devastated with severe effects especially on the economically vulnerable parts of populations who are the most numerous.

GLOBALIZATION IMPACTS HUMAN RIGHTS-Asia Pacific Research Network '08[Globalization Threatens Human Rights; 2008; Gale Group]

The vast majority of humanity suffers the ills of poverty and is mired in hunger, disease and ignorance. Trade and investment policies have a direct and immediate impact on these and cannot be negotiated without taking international human rights obligations fully into account and be guided by these principles. Indeed, trade and investment policies must not just pay attention to human rights but precisely be about actively promoting economic and social rights to food, work, education and health. The welfare of billions cannot be left to the dictates of the free market, self-serving political elites and big business.Neoliberal globalization policies have clearly gone against the spirit and letter of international human rights treaties. The advanced powers have used the WTO, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) to aggressively push tight fiscal and monetary policies, open trade and investment regimes, and the right of corporations to make their monopoly profits. At the same time they restrict access to their domestic markets and continue giving their TNCs special privileges and subsidies. The world's enormous numbers of poor that are most economically vulnerable have suffered greatly from these.

A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF THE DATA SHOWS THAT GLOBALIZATION DOESN'T PROVIDE A MASSIVE LIFT FOR THE WORLD'S POOR-Vidal '04[Matt; Doctoral Candidate; A Look at the Numbers: Globalization and Economic Inequality; 29 November 2004; http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/29/globalization-and-economic-inequality/; retrieved 4 January 2015]

Chiding leftists for being overly pessimistic, Brooks vaunts his optimistic reading of the data: "In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a ‘spectacular’ decline in poverty in East and South Asia. Less dramatic declines in extreme poverty have been noted around the developing world, with the vital exception of sub-Saharan Africa."Reading the same table as Brooks presumably did, I find less reason to be optimistic. To begin with, despite the impressive overall global economic growth, there was little decline in overall extreme poverty in the world. In 2001 there remain 1.1 billion people in the world living on less than $1 per day, down just slightly from 1.2 billion in 1990, hardly a noteworthy achievement after the most prosperous decade in world history.[3]In fact, Brook’s interpretation of the data dramatic declines in extreme poverty everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa is wrong on its face. In Europe and Central Asia, the number living on $1 per day increased dramatically from two to 17 million, while in Latin America and the Caribbean (certainly part of the "developing world") the number in extreme poverty remained essentially unchanged, increasing by one million to a total of 50 million people in extreme poverty in 2001.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 45GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS POOR NATIONS

FREE TRADE HAS NOT BENEFITED THE ECONOMY OR WORKERS IN DEVELOPING NATIONS-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

The belief that trade, not foreign aid, will lead developing nations toward prosperity is questionable. Though open trade policies may help, so far they have been misused and misapplied. While the industrialized global North has made free trade a part of their assistance philosophy, these economic powerhouses are more often than not simply finding new markets for their goods and resisting the importation of products from the developing South. For example, industrialized nations have retained tariff barriers on imported goods yet require that developing nations drop their protections. As a result, developing nations are flooded with cheap goods with which domestic manufacturers cannot compete. If free trade is not made equitable, then developing nations will not benefit from opening their markets.

IN PRACTICE, GLOBALIZATION HAS WRECKED THE ECONOMIES OF DEVELOPING NATIONS-Thompson '10[James W.; Writer and Investor; Globalization Could Result in a Backlash Against Modernity; 2010; Gale Group]

In his classes, Stiglitz has stated, "Capitalism, American-style, has some real problems." In Globalization and Its Discontents, he contends that globalization still could enrich people everywhere but, in practice, it often has damaged the economies of developing nations. Furthermore, he claims that globalization could work only if the International Monetary Fund was less aggressive in pressuring developing nations to open their markets to free trade and if these countries would focus more on creating "safety nets" to cushion their own citizens from the economic "shocks" of globalization. Stiglitz is more concerned about the social and political dimensions of the process, and places greater emphasis on creating effective political and social institutions rather than simply relying upon powerful market forces to transform societies.

THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN EXPORTS HAS NOT HELPED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

Mike Moore, ex-head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a strong free trade supporter, stated in August 2008, "Seven years ago, we introduced at Doha [a round of trade talks that took place in Doha, Qatar] what was to be a 'development round.' All trade rounds are. President [John F.] Kennedy, who introduced the Tokyo round, famously said, 'This will lift all boats and help developing countries like Japan.' Case made, I would have thought."However, there are many who have questioned the link between trade liberalization and economic growth. According to the development theorist, Richard Peet, "The past two decades have seen a rapid opening up to trade in developing countries ... [and] trade volumes in developing countries have grown faster than the world average.... This massive increase in exports has not added significantly to developing countries' income."

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 46FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE POSITIONED TO PUT THE DEVELOPING WORLD AT A DISADVANTAGE-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

Perhaps most damning of all is the fact that the majority of trade agreements, both inside and outside the WTO, have relatively little to do with the promotion of free trade. These agreements tend to be predominantly concerned with the imposition of rules, including conditions on how services can be delivered or the appropriate manner to regulate foreign investors. They appear more concerned with creating a homogenous global marketplace, where the South is at a disadvantage.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 47GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS MORE LONG-LASTING ECONOMIC REFORM IN POOR COUNTRIES

FREE TRADE PREVENT COUNTRIES FROM UNDERTAKING TRUE ECONOMIC REFORM-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

Moreover, the current free trade model has been widely criticized as preventing developing countries from introducing economic reforms suitable to their own growth and poverty-reduction needs. By imposing a "one size fits all" approach, states in the global South have seen their range of development policy measures seriously curtailed.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 48GLOBALIZATION BAD: EXPLOITS WORKERS

GLOBALIZATION HAS LEAD TO THE GLOBAL EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS-Kara '13[Siddharth; Fellow at the Carr Center Program on Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery at Harvard Kennedy School of Government; The Need to Keep Labor Costs Low Leads to the Exploitation of Workers; 2013; Gale Group]

However, unlike the agricultural and domestic slaves of the past, today's victims of modern-day slave trading are exploited in countless industries, and they are vastly more profitable. Whether for commercial sex, construction, domestic work, carpet weaving, agriculture, tea and coffee, shrimp, fish, minerals, dimensional stones, gems, or numerous other industries that I have investigated, human trafficking touches almost every sector of the globalized economy in a way it never has before. Understanding the reasons for this shift in the fundamental nature of human trafficking is vital if more effective efforts to combat it are to be deployed. The key thesis to understand is that the slave exploiter's ability to generate immense profits at almost no real risk directly catalyzed the pervasiveness of all forms of contemporary slave labor exploitation.

GLOBALIZATION HAS CREATED A LABOR RACE TO THE BOTTOM-Asia Pacific Research Network '08[Globalization Threatens Human Rights; 2008; Gale Group]

Trade liberalization has also intensified the process of workers being pitted against each other, and of their wages and benefits being driven down in a race to the bottom in the name of increased corporate competitiveness. Even the working people of the developed countries have been adversely affected.

FREE TRADE ALLOWS CORPORATIONS TO IGNORE LAWS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS-Bybee '10[Roger; Writer and Activist; Globalization Threatens Democracy and Promotes Economic Polarization; 2010; Gale Group]

Trade agreements like NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] have effectively given corporations the power to set rules and ignore laws on product safety and the environment, allowing them to override democratically enacted laws and even win damages for lost profits through decisions by remote and secretive non-elected panels. For example, the state of California stands to lose over $970 million for banning a Canadian-made gasoline additive called MTBE [methyl tertiary butyl ether] that made drinking water toxic and severely reduced the value of numerous homes.

FREE TRADE HAS DECREASED THE ABILITY OF COUNTRIES LIKE THE UNITED STATES TO PUSH FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR STANDARDS-Coats '10[Stephen; Director of the U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project; Stronger Trade Agreements Are Needed to Guarantee Labor and Environmental Rights; 2010; Gale Group]

In this area, we have lost a lot of important ground with the passage of NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] and CAFTA [Central American Free Trade Agreement], international agreements that represent steps backward in the US's ability to push for the enforcement of international labor standards. For instance, in 1999 when seven Guatemalan union leaders were threatened with murder and fled to the US, the US acted in accordance with existing trade law and withheld Guatemala's trade benefits until the Guatemalan government had apprehended and tried the unionists' attackers. Since the passage of CAFTA, however, there has been a resurgence in anti-labor violence in Guatemala (four trade unionists were assassinated in 2007 and another five in 2008, with no charges brought in any of the cases) and the US has not been able to apply any meaningful trade pressure to hold the Guatemalan government accountable.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 49WORKERS ARE VULNERABLE TO EXPLOITATION UNDER GLOBAL TRADE MOVEMENTS-Coats '10[Stephen; Director of the U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project; Stronger Trade Agreements Are Needed to Guarantee Labor and Environmental Rights; 2010; Gale Group]

Workers are extremely vulnerable to exploitation right now. In 2005, the international Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (also known as the "Multifibre Agreement") came to an end. For 20 years this pact had provided quotas for the amount of clothing that each developing nation could export to wealthier European and North American markets. The World Trade Organization's decision to phase it out has ushered in a period of intense competition among exporter nations, which translates as a "race to the bottom" to reduce labor costs. To this, of course, has been added the impact of the global recession, causing downward pressure on wages and working conditions for workers.

GLOBALIZATION HAS MEANT THAT CORPORATIONS GO WHERE THE STANDARDS FOR LABOR AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE LAX-Schwenniger '10[Sherle; Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Goundation; Mismanaged Globalization Is Responsible for the Modern Financial Crisis; 2010; Gale Group]

This pattern of economic growth had other worrying features. Corporate profits soared as companies in the developed world took advantage of China's low wages, lax environmental standards and undervalued currency to locate production there. But wages and family income in the United States stagnated under this and other low-wage competition (as well as from the declining power of organized labor). As a result, income and wealth inequality increased in the United States and China. The US tradable-goods sector also took a hit as Japan, China and other Asian economies manipulated their currencies to maintain competitive advantage. [From 2001 to 2008] the United States lost nearly 4 million manufacturing jobs. During this same period, large chunks of industrial capacity were transferred from more energy-efficient developed countries to energy-inefficient developing countries like China, which compensated for its energy inefficiency with lower wages. This relocation of production helped spur increased demand for oil and gas, setting off an energy price spiral, which was exacerbated by bubblelike speculation in these commodities. Higher oil prices resulted in the transfer of huge amounts of wealth from middle- and working-class people in the United States and other oil-importing countries to oil producers in the Gulf and elsewhere.

GLOBALIZATION CREATES FINANCIAL AND LABOR INSTABILITY FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES-Lerman '02[Robert; Professor of Economics at American University; Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty; Urban Institute; 5 November 2002; http://www.urban.org/publications/410612.html; retreived 10 January 2015]

The rapid shifts induced by globalization can be another source of discontent. Like technical change, trade, investment and migration can generate disruptions in the lives of farmers, workers, and firms. With openness comes competition from around the world. Consumers gain, as the competition forces suppliers to make better products and to become more productive. But firms and specialized workers not able to keep up with the competition can suffer. Yet, even without international trade, internal competition, technical change, and labor mobility cause substantial movement between jobs in nearly all advanced economies. More serious is the impact of financial instability that sometimes accompanies the liberalizing of international financial flows. This very real problem has harmed low-income and middle-income countries in recent years and is a negative on the globalization balance sheet. The solution is not to limit the capital inflows to developing countries but to create a financial structure in the corporate, banking, and government sectors that cushion shocks instead of creating a veritable "volatility machine." (The phrase is the title of the insightful book by Michael Pettis).

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 50GLOBALIZATION BAD: HURTS FARMERS

GLOBALIZATION HAS HURT MILLIONS OF FARMERS WHO RELIED ON FOOD PRODUCTION FOR LIVELIHOOD-Asia Pacific Research Network '08[Globalization Threatens Human Rights; 2008; Gale Group]

The WTO violates people's right to work and to food. Nearly three billion people around the world, overwhelmingly in the underdeveloped countries, directly depend on agricultural production for their livelihoods. Yet the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) has been used to tear down tariff and non-tariff barriers in the underdeveloped countries while permitting the developed countries to maintain billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies. This lop-sided agricultural trade has deprived millions of people of the most basic means for survival.Cheap agricultural imports have flooded underdeveloped country markets, destroyed rural livelihoods, and displaced millions of farmers and farmworkers. As it is, some 750 million people worldwide are unemployed or otherwise still not earning enough from the work they have and are looking for more work. The collapse of domestic food production and the lost incomes of rural producers combine to drive people into hunger. A billion people are hungry every day of which 200 million are malnourished children under 5 years.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 51GLOBALIZATION BAD: INCREASES INEQUALITY

GLOBALIZATION NOW LINKED IN INCREASING INEQUALITY-Falk '10[Ranier; Editor of the World Economy & Development in Brief; A Small Minority of People in the World Benefit from Globalization; 2010; Gale Group]

Poll results are always easy to challenge. But in this case, they match the latest trends of debate among economists and international development agencies. This debate revolves around the extent to which inequality in and between nations is linked to globalisation and international economic integration. The concern about increasing inequality triggering backlashes against global integration has spread to orthodox economists. Earlier, they only used to discuss the benefits of globalisation.

GLOBALIZATION INCREASES INEQUALITY-Lerman '02[Robert; Professor of Economics at American University; Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty; Urban Institute; 5 November 2002; http://www.urban.org/publications/410612.html; retreived 10 January 2015]

If globalization encourages growth, lowers poverty, and reduces income gaps among countries, why do so many advocates for the poor stridently oppose liberalizing trade, investment, and immigration? One possibility is globalization might increase inequality within countries. Since time is too short to examine the evidence among all countries, consider the cases of China and the United States.China did experience a rise in inequality after liberalizing its foreign trade and investment. Yet, according to Williamson, many rural areas did not fully share in the country's income gains and poverty reductions because there was too little globalization, not too much. The coastal cities and provinces benefited most, partly because other provinces were not integrated with the rest of China. The government's ban on migration from the rural and non-coastal areas until the mid-1990s widened urban-rural and coastal-hinterland income gaps.

GLOBALIZATION HAS ONLY PROVIDED WINNERS AND LOSERS-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

The only real progression would appear to have been the escalating growth in inequality between the winners and the losers in the global marketplace. This inequality has socially devastating consequences with increased levels of violence, higher rates of social exclusion and marginalization, and reduced life expectancy. It would therefore appear unwise to rely on the ability of our current free-trade system, through some sleight of its invisible hand, to alleviate the evils of poverty, hunger and inequality.

COUNTRIES THAT PARTICIPATE IN GLOBAL MARKETS ARE SUBJECT TO WIDER SWINGS OF INEQUALITY-Vidal '04[Matt; Doctoral Candidate; A Look at the Numbers: Globalization and Economic Inequality; 29 November 2004; http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/29/globalization-and-economic-inequality/; retrieved 4 January 2015]

Second, "developing countries that liberalized and globalized were subjected to larger swings in inequality than countries that did not . In most cases, identifiable liberalizations are followed by rising inequality in wages." In short, while strong economic growth can help reduce poverty, neoliberal globalization produces increased income inequality.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 52GLOBALIZATION INCREASES INCOME INEQUALITY-Bybee '10[Roger; Writer and Activist; Globalization Threatens Democracy and Promotes Economic Polarization; 2010; Gale Group]

Particularly breathtaking is the level of economic polarization occurring under globalization. The richest 1 percent of Americans now collect 18.1 percent of total income, earning a much larger share of income than the bottom 40 percent of households, which only received 12.5 percent, a 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found.In Mexico a similar process of polarization has occurred. Wages have fallen at least 25 percent, according to a Carnegie Endowment [for International Peace] study. Low wages in Mexico (typically 60 cents to $1 an hour in U.S.-owned maquiladora plants) have exerted a strong allure to U.S. corporations, with over one million jobs lost since NAFTA's enactment, according to the Economic Policy Institute. At the same time, the removal of protections for Mexico's agricultural and retail industries, accompanied by the aggressive entry of U.S.-subsidized agribusiness products, has driven some 1.5 to 2 million farmers off the land. While low-wage employment in maquiladora plants along the border mushroomed after NAFTA's enactment, Mexico is now being increasingly bypassed in favor of even more repressive and lower-waged China.

INEQUALITY INCREASING, EVEN IF POVERTY IS DECREASING-Falk '10[Ranier; Editor of the World Economy & Development in Brief; A Small Minority of People in the World Benefit from Globalization; 2010; Gale Group]

The International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the OECD have also rediscovered the topic of inequality. In its World Economic Outlook of October last year, the IMF studied the relationship between globalisation and inequality. The OECD's Employment Outlook concluded last year that the trend of outsourcing and offshoring is increasing the vulnerability of jobs and wages in many developed nations. In the North-South context, debate previously revolved around the question of whether it is only inequality that is growing, or whether poverty is growing too. Poverty levels can in fact decrease in spite of growing inequality—if all incomes rise, for instance, but the higher income brackets do so faster than the lower ones. If this were the case, then growing inequality would be compatible with the Millennium [Development] Goals.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 53GLOBALIZATION BAD: LEADS TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

HUMAN TRAFFICKERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT TO MOVE WITHOUT HINDRANCE-Kara '13[Siddharth; Fellow at the Carr Center Program on Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery at Harvard Kennedy School of Government; The Need to Keep Labor Costs Low Leads to the Exploitation of Workers; 2013; Gale Group]

Most importantly, slave exploiters and traffickers take advantage of the fact that movement in the globalized world is exceedingly difficult to disrupt. Borders are porous, documents can be forged, and it can be difficult to identify a potential victim of human trafficking before the forced labor has taken place. Movement is also inexpensive. Whereas ships from Badagry to the Americas had to spend weeks at sea at great expense to transport slaves to the point of exploitation, today's victims of human trafficking can be transported from one side of the planet to the other in a few days or less, at a nominal cost of doing business even when airfare is involved. For these and other reasons, any efforts to combat human trafficking by thwarting movement will prove highly challenging.

THE EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS IS NO LESS THAN MODERN DAY SLAVERY-Kara '13[Siddharth; Fellow at the Carr Center Program on Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery at Harvard Kennedy School of Government; The Need to Keep Labor Costs Low Leads to the Exploitation of Workers; 2013; Gale Group]

One point is crucial to establish from the start—slavery still exists. But what exactly is "modern slavery?" There is still considerable debate regarding the definition of terms such as "slavery," "forced labor," "bonded labor," "child labor," and "human trafficking." With "slavery," we can go as far back as the League of Nations Slavery Convention of 1926 and the International Labor Organization's Forced Labor Convention of 1930. These early definitions focused on the exercise of power attaching to a right of ownership over another human being.Over the decades, international conventions and jurisprudence [philosophy of law] relating to slavery shifted away from targeting actual rights of ownership toward the nature of the exploitation, particularly as it involves coercion (physical or other), nominal or no compensation, and the absence of freedom of employment or movement. The term "forced labor" has generally come to replace the term "slavery," given the powerful historical and emotional connotations of the latter term. Similarly, "human trafficking" has come to replace the term "slave trade."

GLOBALIZATION HAS MADE THE POOR MORE VULNERABLE TO SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING-Kara '13[Siddharth; Fellow at the Carr Center Program on Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery at Harvard Kennedy School of Government; The Need to Keep Labor Costs Low Leads to the Exploitation of Workers; 2013; Gale Group]

The policies and governance of economic globalization sharply exacerbated these and other forces during the 1990s. The deepening of rural poverty, the net extraction of wealth and resources from poor economies into richer ones, the evaporation of social safety nets under structural adjustment programs, the overall destabilization of transition economies, and the broad-based erosion of real human freedoms across the developing world all increased the vulnerability of rural, poor, and otherwise disenfranchised populations. These forces unleashed mass-migration trends that shrewd criminals and slave traders could easily exploit. While these global economic and sociocultural supply-side drivers of the contemporary human trafficking industry will require considerable, long-term efforts to redress, we do not have to rely on supply-side measures alone to severely mitigate, if not virtually abolish, human trafficking.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 54GLOBALIZATION BAD: = COLONIALISM

GLOBALIZATION HARKENS BACK TO COLONIALISM-Barman '10[Binoy; Professor of English at Daffodil International University; Globalization Is Not Increasing Social Justice; 2010; Gale Group]

Globalisation has gobbled the whole world. There is virtually no part on earth which has not been hit and bit by the enormous fangs of the monster. All aspects of life have come under the sinister impact of globalisation, growing and dwelling in the shadow of capitalism. It dazzles like the sun and blinds normal vision. With its apparent grandeur, it ensnares people, though it is hollow in its core. I doubt globalisation will lead us to a better future, bringing well-being for the common folks.I was thinking of the globalised perils while listening to [Bangladeshi] Professor Dr. Fakrul Alam on "Postcolonialism in the age of globalisation" at AIUB [the American International University-Bangladesh] on March 17 [2009]. In fact, the word "globalisation," a buzzword nowadays, attracted me to what the organisers called [an] "interactive colloquium."Professor Alam talked eloquently on postcolonial literature and its background and development, clearly delineating its connection with present-day world order. Literature has assumed new dimension in recent decades in the face of globalisation, focussing on issues like diaspora, hybridity and cosmopolitan culture.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 55GLOBALIZATION BAD: = REVOLUTION

GLOBALIZATION WILL PRODUCE LOSERS, WHICH COULD LEAD TO WORLD UNREST-Thompson '10[James W.; Writer and Investor; Globalization Could Result in a Backlash Against Modernity; 2010; Gale Group]

The current backlash against globalization stems primarily from a number of linked political and social issues. Clearly, globalization does represent a serious challenge for privileged elites, whether they exercise control of an advanced economy, such as France or Japan, or if they wield power in a developing nation, such as Brazil, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. Adding to the turbulent political mix, globalization certainly will produce many winners, but it will propagate losers as well—and there is a very good chance that some of the disgruntled losers might lead successful revolts against modernization.In this presidential election year [2008], the Democrats especially have been noisy on the issues of globalization and free trade, favoring instead what has been labeled "The Third Way" by former Pres. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, Britain's ex-prime minister. Should globalization indeed lead to fragmentation and decline, as it did in the 1930s, it would be, in the words of baseball "linguist" Yogi Berra, "Déjà vu all over again"—and that would not be a good thing.

IF GLOBALIZATION IS IN ANY WAY UNEVEN, IT COULD GREAT UPRISING AND REVOLUTION WORLDWIDE-Thompson '10[James W.; Writer and Investor; Globalization Could Result in a Backlash Against Modernity; 2010; Gale Group]

Globalization can result in drastic political and economic transformations that can uproot entire societies. The bloody legacy of Europe during the last century is the best reminder of the hazards of radical economic and political transformations. If globalization results in economic changes that benefit some ethnic or racial groups more than others, then a powerful backlash against it easily could occur—not only in poor countries, but in developed nations.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 56GLOBALIZATION BAD: FORCES CONSUMERISM AND CONSUMPTION ON THE WORLD

GLOBALIZATION HAS ENSLAVED THE WORLD AS CONSUMERS-Barman '10[Binoy; Professor of English at Daffodil International University; Globalization Is Not Increasing Social Justice; 2010; Gale Group]

He said that globalisation was ushering in a system of "internationalism," dismantling the barriers of narrow nationalism. So the dream of a "world without borders" hovers over the horizon. It holds a promise for many, like the revered Professor Alam. But to me, the promise is empty.Globalisation has brought more hazards than comforts. A mechanical and materialistic view of life has been imported and incorporated, through the vehicle of globalisation, into oriental space hitherto basking in the complacency of idealism. It has gnawed at the ethical base of this region. It has been a great loss for humanity, I should say, a colossal moral defeat.Globalisation preaches the philosophy of hedonism. Consumer goods are spread around and a mantra is whispered; "Consume, consume and consume. You have no work other than consumption!" Thus, globalisation has made the human soul spiritually sick, morally bankrupt and intellectually pretentious.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 57GLOBALIZATION BAD: ALIENATES THE POOR FROM THEIR CULTURE

GLOBALIZATION IS ALIENATING PEOPLE FROM THEIR CULTURE AND IDENTITY-Barman '10[Binoy; Professor of English at Daffodil International University; Globalization Is Not Increasing Social Justice; 2010; Gale Group]

Globalisation has posed a genuine threat to indigenous culture and language across the globe. The dominant culture is out there to suppress the meek and mild. The affected, with the loss of their culture and language, fall into a vacuum, suffering from an identity crisis.They become alienated from and in themselves. Some may take it as a harmless outcome of the spontaneous interaction between multifarious cultural and linguistic elements while others may see it as the consequence of cultural and linguistic imperialism or aggression.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 58A/T: GLOBALIZATION WILL INEVITABLY DECREASE POVERTY

HISTORY SAYS THAT THE SUCCESS OF GLOBALIZATION IN BEATING POVERTY IS NOT INEVITABLE-Thompson '10[James W.; Writer and Investor; Globalization Could Result in a Backlash Against Modernity; 2010; Gale Group]

Globalization advocates often insist that the success of this movement is inevitable, but history provides a very different perspective. In the past, many highly developed societies have collapsed, but none more surprisingly than the demise of the former Soviet Union. According to Harold James, economic historian and author of The End of Globalization, a more striking example is the failure of the first attempt at globalization, which lasted for roughly 100 years—from 1815 (the year of Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo) to 1914 (the outbreak of World War I). By the end of the 19th century, the global economy was integrated through the almost unhindered mobility of goods, capital flows, and people. Foreign trade was relatively tariff-free; production quotas were unknown; passports were not required; borders were unguarded; and immigration was unchecked. In search of prosperity, millions of Europeans and Asians left their homelands to seek out better opportunities in the New World. The countries receiving these immigrants usually enjoyed substantial economic growth while the natives of the receiving countries often were affected negatively. Often, the reduced earnings of native workers led to populist anti-immigrant political action such as the American Know Nothing movement of the 1850s. European countries—such as Ireland, Italy, and Poland—sending these immigrants soon realized productivity gains coupled with sizable increases in personal incomes that allowed these then-undeveloped European nations to escape from poverty.After the bloodbath of World War I, many of the political and economic institutions that previously had aided globalization quickly were eliminated in one country after another. High tariffs become the norm, bringing to an end almost a century of free trade. The U.S. led the way with the ill-fated Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Immigration, especially from Europe, drastically was curtailed by restrictive laws passed during the 1920s. The world's central bankers eventually turned to market intervention policies to regulate international capital flows and the values of their domestic currencies.Finally, monetary instability in many countries, particularly in Germany and the U.S., plus the political crises associated with the divisive issues of war reparation payments ended with the virtual breakdown of the global economy during the interwar years. By the late 1930s, many influential Western government officials, economists, and businessmen reluctantly had concluded that global economic integration no longer was feasible and that their future policy hopes should be based upon effective and timely government intervention. At the depths of the Great Depression in 1933, English economist John Maynard Keynes famously declared, "Let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible and, above all, let finance be primarily national." This pessimistic conjecture marked a complete departure from the classic liberal economic doctrine, with its faith in the gains to be realized by all nations from free trade.It turned out that the political solutions for the crises of global capitalism during the Depression usually proved worse than the world economic meltdown. All too often, the shift from capitalism led to political dictatorships in Germany, Russia, Spain, and Italy—to name just a few—and to mostly ineffectual government intervention in many of the world's democratic societies, including the U.S. and Great Britain. By the outbreak of World War II, the liberal democratic nations of the West had been discredited by their failed economic policies and their lack of political resolve.During the bleak 1930s, Adolf Hitler's Third Reich claimed economic miracles of rapid economic growth while the rest of the world suffered through the Great Depression. In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin's Communist propagandists made similar economic claims that succeeded in bamboozling many observers, particularly left-wing Western intellectuals, such as [economist] John K. Galbraith, well into the 1980s. After the apparent triumphs of authoritarian rule in Europe during the Depression years, a number of those nations' economic policies were emulated in the U.S. (including some from Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party in Italy) as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal agenda. In retrospect, most of these latter policies proved to be quite unwise. Eventually, the full truth became known, but not until 1945 for the democratic Nazi regime. Meanwhile, the massive blunders of CCCP [Soviet]-style communism were not completely exposed until after the meltdown of the Soviet Union by 1991.

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 59A/T: GLOBALIZATION HAS DECREASED POVERTY

DECREASE IN POVERTY IS ONLY REALLY IN CHINA AND INDIA; MOST THE WORLD'S POOR IS NOT BENEFITED FROM GLOBALIZATION-Frewen '13[Justin; UN Consultant and Political Science Doctoral Candidate at the University of Galway in Ireland; The "Trade, Not Aid" Strategy Has Not Helped Developing Nations; 2013; Gale Group]

Although, free trade supporters contend that the opening up of global trade has paved the way for dynamic economic growth that has, in turn, led to a reduction in global poverty levels, this decline in poverty has been predominantly in just two countries, China and India. The reality has been quite different in the majority of other countries in the South. Furthermore, research has shown that, in fact, economic growth in a country such as India has not appreciated significantly subsequent to its adoption of a liberalized trading system.

STUDIES CLAIMING A DECREASE IN POVERTY ARE BIASED BY STATISTICS FROM INDIA AND CHINA-Cienski '07[Jan; Globalization Cures Poverty: Study; Global Policy Forum; June 2007; https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162-general/27754.html; retrieved 11 January 2015]

The study's optimistic conclusions were discounted by globalization skeptics, who saw it as one of a host of biased reports aimed at confirming the reigning orthodoxy."For the last 25 years, globalization has been heavily tilted in favour of banks and investors and against the interests of working people," said Robert Scott, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington-based think-tank.He charged that the numbers showing poverty reduction were skewed by the exceptional cases of China and India. Removing those two huge nations creates a much more ambiguous case for globalization and shows dramatic increases in global inequality, Dr. Scott said."The evidence shows that unregulated capital and trade flows contribute to rising inequality and impede progress in poverty reduction," a new Economic Policy Institute study said."

February 2015 NSDA Public Forum: Globalization vs. Poverty Page 60A/T: GLOBALIZATION = POVERTY REDUCTION

DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT GLOBALIZATION IS SHOULD GET THE CREDIT FOR GROWTH OR OTHER FACTORS-Lerman '02[Robert; Professor of Economics at American University; Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty; Urban Institute; 5 November 2002; http://www.urban.org/publications/410612.html; retrieved 10 January 2015]

Distinguishing the effects of globalization from other economic, political, and social developments is difficult. We cannot run a simple experiment with and without components of globalization. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose a country adopts laws to protect private property in order to attract investments from abroad. Now, at the same time, the new laws stimulate more investment by local citizens. If higher growth takes place, should globalization or sound local property laws get the credit?