The Effect of Globalization on Developing Countries - Research Paper Example

HOW SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE IN REAPING MORE BENEFITS THAN COSTS FROM GLOBALISATION Introduction The governments of developing countries, like the more well-to-do industrialized nations, are seeking to reap more benefits than costs from the processes of globalisation. International exchange of technological innovations, world-wide network of financial markets and trade, and development of new institutions and values are essential components of globalisation. “A number of developing countries are adapting to the new global environment by increased trading in goods and services, and using new technology for creating jobs and stimulating dynamic local economies” (Grindle, 2000: 178). In spite of several important benefits brought by globalisation, policy makers in developing countries are concerned about the negative impacts such as constriction rather than increase of development, greater domestic challenges to contend with, and growing international vulnerabilities to overcome. This paper proposes to discuss globalisation in respect of developing countries, identify the measures taken by them to gain from the phenomenon, and to evaluate the extent to which poor countries have been successful in reaping more benefits than costs from globalisation. Discussion The Effect of Globalization on Developing Countries: Though on the one hand, great benefits are incurred by globalisation, there are definite reasons for citizens in developing countries to be apprehensive of the phenomenon. Globalisation has the potential to have adverse effects on important social protection networks, cause higher rate of environmental damage, economic breakdown, loss of cultural identities, increased conflict, crime and spread of diseases. There are many factors that affect opportunities for development such as: uncertain economic growth, deep rooted prevalence of poverty, poorly functioning institutions, and non-availability of sufficient technological innovation. In order to strengthen these vulnerabilities, and “to reverse these conditions at national and international levels, wise policy making, effective implementation, and the creation of capable state institutions are essential” (Grindle, 2000: 179). Policy making is considered to be crucial for determining the extent to which poor countries can overcome the marginalization imposed on them, in order to benefit from globalisation. The Developing Countries Who are at Greatest Risk of Being Left Behind by Rapid Change: The sixty-three countries classified as low-income are the most vulnerable, and these are: “almost all countries in Africa, the most populated countries of Asia and South Asia, which account for 3.5 billion of the world’s 5.9 billion people. Moreover, the poor people in ninety-four middle income countries: mostly in Latin America, the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia” are also marginalised by globalisation (Grindle, 2000: 179). The Importance of Governance and Social Partnership for Achieving Equality in the Benefits of Globalisation: Governance is defined as “the controlling, directing or regulating influence of the set of institutions and policies that determine the functioning of an economy and society” (ILO, 2003: 1). The concept covers not only political authority and the role of government, but also includes the role of economic and social institutions that form the foundations of an economy. Social partnerships are essential between these institutions which function on both formal and informal norms and rules that are followed by non-governmental agencies such as employers’ organizations, trade unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Social partnership which is an important part of governance, refers to collaborative relationships between governments, employers’ and workers’organizations to achieve mutually agreed economic and social objectives. Some significant challenges of globalisation are successfully confronted by social partnership, such as: increased international competitiveness, economic reform, social protection and requirement for adjustment, economic shocks and crises, and equitable sharing of the benefits of globalisation (ILO, 2003: 1). According to the ILO (2003: 1), for enhanced social impact from globalisation, “it is now widely recognized that good governance is a prerequisite for successful development”. Good governance refers to the capacity for designing and implementation of beneficial policies, maintaining political and social stability, freedom from corruption, strong law enforcement, public order, etc which will make it possible for the country to reap the full economic benefits of globalisation. The positive steps by Korea, whose government believes in the advantages of participating in globalisation, are worth noting. While opening and liberalizing the economy, Korea’s commitment to ensure policies that protect poorer nations that are left behind is significant (Han, 2006: 3). There is importance given to social support in the country’s GDP, in the substantial strengthening of its social safety net, in response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and in its participation to reduce inter-nation disparity. Recognising that the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) was key to Korea overcoming poverty and progressing to the next level, the government is increasing its ODA by the year 2009, particularly to Africa. Also, to promote the economic growth of poorer countries, there is information sharing and technology transfer. Korea’s efforts are observed to be on the same lines as those formulated by the Millennium Development Goals of the international community, which call for self-sustainable economic growth and development of low income countries. Further, Han (2006: 3) emphasizes the effectiveness of “trade instead of aid in stimulating economic growth and development”, and supports the steps taken by the international community towards “aid for trade”. Balancing Globalisation: Participating countries stand to gain in efficiency from the international trade of goods and services which is an essential part of globalisation. The products as well as production factors such as capital and workers move freely across countries to seek best returns. These trends are considered to be irreversible (Han, 2006: 1). Globalisation has the power to improve the economic conditions of people. “Active participation in globalisation has brought remarkable growth in China since the 1980s, and in India more recently. This simply means that over 40 percent of the worlds population is being saved from poverty. Ireland has gracefully transformed itself from a small, forgotten country in Europe to a rich, advanced country through foreign direct investment” (Han, 2006: 2).Vietnams rapid development by means of economic liberalisation and foreign direct investment is another example of third world countries that have benefited from globalisation. Han (2006: 2) supports the view that globalisation promises economic properity in all regions. The extent of prosperity that can be gained by nations is directly related to the internal adaptability of the country. The key to economic success is market liberalisation; and research has proved that “the average growth rate of actively open economies was five times greater than that of closed economies”. Though globalisation brings prosperity with increased opportunities, it is seen that enhancement of efficiency resulting from globalisation is brought about by intensified competition among countries, firms and workers. Workers, firms, and countries, are all competing with their counterparts in order to attract the best opportunities. “This intensified competition operates as a factor that deepens the disparity between nations and individuals. In this sense, disparity might be an inevitable result of increased efficiency”. Besides, developing nations believe that the effectiveness of their nation’s policies will be reduced by globalisation, since adverse impacts of external shocks to domestic economies may become magnified. An example is the Asian crisis in 1997, due to which Korean economy was severely affected. For the above reasons, people in developing countries tend to be wary of globalisation. Consequently, “those nations that opt for maintaining closed economies will lose out on opportunities to save their citizens from poverty, eventually finding it even more difficult to promote social integration” states Han (2006: 2). As Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Economy of the Republic of Korea, the author advocates the active participation of poor nations in the globalisation process, since “the benefits of globalisation outweigh the possible costs”. Minimizing the costs of globalisation is required to be done concurrently with the maximising of its benefit. Promoting the employability of workers to reduce the adverse effects of structural changes in the employment market, will help to make the labour market more flexible. This in turn is essential for achieving positive outcomes from globalisation. To increase the flexibility of capital markets, liberalized cross border transactions will help to promote globalisation. To prevent any increase in economic instability, sound regulations implemented with adequate monitoring is essential. A lesson that was learned from the Asian crisis was that financial liberalisations without prudential regulations is potentially damaging. It is in each nation’s best interests, that adaptation of its institutional system to a new global environment should be carried out. Thus, “the ultimate determinant of a nation’s future in a fully globalised world, would be its institutions which would be left non-tradables till the end”(Han, 2006: 3). Poverty in Spite of Economic Liberalization in the Developing Countries: Nuruzzaman (2005: 109) states that the post-Cold War neoliberal regime of liberalization, by means of reducing the prospects of economic growth in developing countries, fosters conditions that promote greater poverty instead of alleviating it in the developing countries. The author further observes that the neoliberal claim is an exaggeration of the benefits global economic liberalization is supposed to confer on the poor nations of the world. The following are hard economic data that confirm the increase in poverty levels as a result of globalisation. “In the decade of the 1990s, in particular, there has been a rise in the incidence of poverty in the developing world. The total number of the poor living below the “absolute poverty” line rose from 1 billion in 1977 to 1.4 billion in 1992, states Michael W. Doyle (2000:81). Chen and Ravallion (2001: 283) find the number of poor people in the 1980s and early 1990s to be unchanged. In fact, according to The World Bank (1998) which is the global institutional arm of neoliberalism, there is a noticeable increase in the incidence of poverty in the 1990s and by 1998 there were 1.3 billion people living below the poverty line, and another billion who were nearly as poor. In another study, the World Bank (2000: 3) states that there has been no increase in per capita income growth from 1970 to 2000 in forty developing countries with four hundred billion people. Further, “the absolute number of poor have continued to increase in all regions except East Asia and the Middle East. Overall, despite impressive growth performance in many large developing countries, absolute poverty worldwide is still increasing”. Also, the continued rise in poverty levels is taking place in spite of the increasing participation of poor nations in the neoliberal regime of economic liberalisation. Greenaway et al (2002: 230) observe that from 1980 to 2000, more than one hundred countries have undertaken trade liberalization measures either voluntarily or under pressure from the World Bank. From their research, the authors found that “liberalisation may impact favourably on growth of real GDP per capita. However, the effect would appear to be lagged and relatively modest” (p.243). Policy Changes for Inclusive Development in the Process of Globalisation: Policy changes need to be planned and implemented to ensure that the benefits that are generated by globalisation are shared more equitably among all nations, and the poorest in the developing as well as developed countries, should be able to experience an improvement in income, health care and quality of life available to them. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which is currently being held in Geneva from the 1st to the 11th of October, 2007 is focusing on the following policy issues that could contribute to promoting a more inclusive process of globalization that is oriented towards benefiting the poor nations. The last five years of unprecedented economic growth has opened up a window of opportunity, which the issues selected in the agenda aim to take full advantage of (UNCTAD, 2007:1). The main purpose is to reduce the gap between those who have benefited from globalisation, and those for whom the benefits have not been available. The international community currently faces two broad challenges: “first, the current growth trends need to be actively maintained, so as to allow an increasing number of developing countries to reap the benefits of globalization; and, second, there is a need to ensure that the process of globalization becomes more inclusive, so that it benefits countries and sectors of the population that have been left out”. Policy changes are required to be implemented, relating to trade opportunities, regional integration, new and innovative financial mechanisms, building productive capacity, the global value-chain, the optimal role of commodities, climate change and environmental concerns, and the role of aid, including aid for trade (UNCTAD, 2007: 1-8). An opposing viewpoint has been put forth by Nayyar (2006: 137). The author has conducted a research study on globalisation and its implications for development: during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A comparison of these two timelines, has revealed striking similarities between both the eras. Neither then, nor in the present, has globalisation “led to rapid growth and economic convergence in the world. Indeed, growth slowed down, income levels diverged, while the gap between the industrialized and the developing countries widened, during both epochs”. Nayyar (2006: 158) comes to the surprising conclusion that globalisation does not conform to the concept of convergence and development. The author states that social tensions and fragmentation within countries may be caused by economic integration with other countries. “Globalisation has introduced a new dimension to the exclusion of people from development”. In contemporary societies the world over, exclusion is more complicated than merely the inability to satisfy basic human needs for large numbers of people. The consumption patterns and lifestyles of the rich which is communicated by globalisation, have powerful effects on those with few resources. The electronic media has shrunk the globe, and made it possible to access information from all areas of the world. People everywhere, including the poor are exposed to the lifestyles and consumerism of people in rich countries. When powerful forces of expectations and aspirations are ignited, those who do not have the incomes cannot buy goods and services in the market, resulting in frustration and alienation (Nayyar, 2006: 158). The reaction of people who experience such exclusion differs. Though outcomes do not always take extreme forms, it is observed that “some seek short cuts to the consumerist paradise through drugs, crime or violence. Some seek refuge in ethnic identities, cultural chauvinism or religious fundamentalism”. For the purpose of bringing identity and meaning in their lives, emphasizing and acting upon their traditional or indigenous values is often the only thing that poor people can assert. Nayyar (2006: 158) supports the belief that erosion of social stability through fundamentalist terrorist activities is one of the contemporary social problems that is attributed to exclusion resulting from globalisation. Hence, it is clear that policy development for inclusiveness will have to keep in mind the adverse side-effects that result from globalisation. Exports from Marginalised Economies: Globalisation and Trade: It has been observed that growth in exports, in the case of developing and transitional countries has been low when compared to the rest of the world. These economically poor nations are seen to be marginalised, and are not able to benefit from the processes of globalisation. Morrissey & Filatotchev (2001: 1) conducted research studies to discover whether changes in the method of export promotion may benefit developing nations. The authors state that “policies to promote investment in firms, in labour, and in infrastructure are as important as the economic liberalisation that has taken place”. Ownership, governance structures and core values of firms are directly related to the company’s networking on a global scale. The links formed with buyers and distributors in the more developed markets can determine the company’s prospects in the global market. The researchers concluded that by networking and diversification, the marginalised economies can export goods to other countries, and participate successfully in globalisation (Morrissey & Filatotchev, 2001: 1). In order to help marginalised economies benefit from globalisation, economic policy reforms: particularly trade liberalisation had been implemented since the 1990s, and earlier for many other countries. However, the growth response of exports has been slow. A four-year Trade and Enterprise Research Programme financed by DFID examined possible explanations for this slow export supply response. The comprehensive research project identified both obstacles and opportunities for increasing exports from countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Union (Morrissey & Filatotchev, 2001: 1). The research identified that developing countries need to invest in labour productivity and improved infrastructure. Moreover, developing nations needed to adopt new methods with emphasis on the importance of ownership and management structures, and the role of global buyers and distribution networks. Milner & Morrissey (1999: 60) observe that economic reforms which were implemented were partial. In sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Union, the degree of sustained implementation has been low. Also, other barriers may be present due to geographical distances and the incurring of high costs of transportation charges for moving goods. Further, poor nations may have underdeveloped institutional structures, that restrict their ability to become part of the global market. “Foreign investment and partnerships, at production and marketing levels, will be essential if exports are to increase and these countries are to grow in line with global markets. Equally important are the role of global buyers and the changing nature of global commodity chains (Morrissey & Filatotchev, 2001: 3). Domestic and national policy reforms as well as international policies of the World Trade Organisation are also important. International relations between various groups: governments, firms, or governments and firms also play a part in determining the impact of globalisation on economies, state Morrissey & Filatotchev (2001: 10). To support export growth, producers in marginalised countries need to access commodity chains as partners. Measures to reduce transport delays, such as faster customs clearance procedures, could provide large benefits at low cost. Of at least equal importance is developing the skills and entrepreneurial base of firms, to increase productivity and outward-orientation. Corporate restructuring, ownership and foreign investment are all relevant here. From the policy perspective, strengthening the legal system, so that legal rights are more likely to be enforced, may ultimately be the key to enhancing corporate restructuring and internationalisation of firms, in the FSU especially. Only with the help of policy and institutional reform, can marginalised economies benefit from an integrated global economy (Morrissey & Filatotchev, 2001: 3). Further, globalisation has resulted in reduced powers of the government in terms of policy interventions, and this responsibility is increasingly in the hands of global companies themselves. Hirst & Thompson (1999) argue that genuinely global companies are the exception, rather than the rule, capital mobility is not shifting economic activity to developing countries, international economic activity is primarily regional rather than global, and is subject to the political power of nation states. So far as pointing out limitations to the concept of extreme globalisation is concerned, this view appears to be well thought out. However, tremendous changes in the international economy may be understated (Perraton, 2001: 669). Poverty Reduction and Justice to Third World Countries: Rich First World countries can no longer stay aloof from the prevalence of poverty and injustice in the developing world. Considering the events of 11th September, 2001, and their aftermath, it is clear that globalisation has resulted in economic interdependence, without institutions for global distributive justice. The social policy of greater mobility of people both within and between states has been affected, along with increased requirements for implementation of security measures, states Jordan (2002: 119). A broad concept of justice is required in relation to developing nations, which takes into account benefits of trade, foreign investment, tourism and the exploitation of cheap labour. The demand of compensation for centuries of slavery, the campaign for debt relief, etc are issues at stake in relations between rich and poor nations. “The demand for global justice will always be accompanied by the threat of terror in a globalized economic environment”, states Jordan (2002: 127). Hence, processes of global governance that go well beyond anti-terrorist and migration control regimes have to be implemented. . The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) approach, promoted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is part of the development agenda that was inaugurated at the 1999 World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha (Qatar). It is observed that the ideology and practice of the global politics of international development reinforce the conditions of global inequality. The PRSP and related approaches are currently presented as key elements in the growth of international development. However, other social and political alternatives are not taken into consideration, states Weber (2004: 187). Foreign Direct Investment: Its Implications on Globalisation: The prospects for developing countries in the world economy is directly related to foreign direct investment (FDI), hence policy in this area is considered to be crucial. “FDI is characterised by a lasting interest in, or effective management control over, an enterprise in another country and is distinguished from portfolio flows which consist of equity flows and bond issues purchased by foreign investors” (Addison and Heshmati, 2004: 15). The importance of FDI is supported by those who consider it as important for economic growth in all circumstances. Those who are anti-globalisation, denounce FDI as detrimental to national development. “The character and patterns of FDI flows are constantly evolving, particularly with the revolutions in communications and information technology taking place, depending on the sector and by the type of host country”, state Addison et al (2006: 1). Sound evidence about the issues pertaining to FDI support policy-making in this area. There are four essential aspects of FDI that are taken into account: 1) The impact of FDI on economic growth is significant, because it is one of the factors required for reducing poverty. Growth itself attracts more FDI so that success leads to further success. 2) The importance of information and communication technology (ICT), which is a major facet of globalisation. In this respect, it was found that ICT attracts FDI for developed countries, but not for developing countries, though FDI raises a country’s level of ICT. 3) The reasons why Africa has been less successful than other countries for attracting FDI: though reasons vary from the political to the macro-economic, the areas of high-returns are: skills, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. 4) Trade liberalisation is the other major dimension of globalisation, along with FDI. The ways in which FDI in-flow affect skill-formation in the context of trade liberalisation, is also an important determinant of economic growth. On this point, FDI may have positive effects on skills and reduce wage inequality, in theory at least. This imporant result needs to be tested by further research studies (Addison et al, 2006: 6-7). Many developing countries opt for effectively sourcing private capital flows, of which FDI is a key element. This is due to the limited availability of financial flows. Though more aid is important, it cannot deliver the kinds of benefits, particularly in knowledge transfer, that FDI promises. For the international community, and the United Nations system in particular, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are now the all-encompassing framework for assisting the developing world. “The UN’s ‘Global Compact’ seeks to promote a more central and responsible role for the international business community in the development process, and FDI is a crucial part of this. FDI can help the international community to achieve the MDGs by their target date of 2015”, state Addison et al (2006: 7). With only a a few years left to go, the growth of employment opportunities will have to be very fast, in order to achieve the ambitious target of halving global income poverty. Both domestic and foreign companies would need to increase their rate of investment to a great extent. Trade Liberalization and Growth in the Third World Countries: According to Greenaway et al (2002: 229), economic growth in developing countries is expected to be promoted with the help of trade liberalization, since the last twenty five years. Yet positive growth outcomes are not observed to take place, as a necessary result of liberalisation. The researchers used a dynamic panel framework and three different indicators of liberalisation, and found that liberalisation does appear to impact favourably upon growth of real GDP per capita, though there is a lag in the occurrence of growth which is relatively modest. This finding is stated to be dependent on changes in specification, sample size and data period. The lag is stated to occur because “liberalisations vary in their depth and intensity and never amount to an immediate shift to free trade. The liberalisations which are picked up, are often first rather than final steps” (Greenaway et al, 2002: 243). With the passage of time, economies become more open, partly as an outcome of improved trade reforms, and due to reductions in transportation and communication costs, technological change and so on. The results of increased openness in the economies are observed to be increased growth and profitability for the developing countries. In entering the global market, it is essential that structural and trade adjustments are made by developed as well as developing countries. “Macro-economic policies that promote stability and growth, labour market policies that improve work-force skill levels”, and the shifting of resources to expanding activities, from declining activities, strong and efficient regulatory, institutional and governance framework, and “liberal trade and investment policies that support structural adjustment by contributing to growth, innovation and competitiveness”. For the lowest income countries, it is essential that coordinated efforts in institution building and development of human and physical capital are particularly emphasized (OECD Staff, 2005: 93). Griswold (2006: 39-40) states that there is a strong connection between trade, development and political reform. Economic and political freedoms reinforce each other, and are mutually beneficial. For the past three decades, globalisation, human rights, and democracy have been progressing together, though slowly and falteringly in developing countries. Also, countries which are more open to the global economy are democratic in nature, with respect for civil and political liberties. Kohli et al (2003: 244) observe that “globalisation is proceeding inexorably, and and sub-Saharan Africa must decide how to live in a more complex and more competitive world. Africa has little to lose from globalisation and much to gain, provided it is accompanied by policy changes in several areas”. Thus, it is clear that policy changes in the most crucial areas for development have to be given the first priority, for initiating progress in globalisation. Overcoming Drawbacks to Reap More Benefits Than Costs From Globalisation: Africa: Poor nations like Africa can benefit from opening up their economies. Some drawbacks that stifle trade and export are: “the region’s weak infrastructure, unfortunate geographical features, and reliance on a limited number of primary products”. These factors will need to be confronted by governmental policy reforms, so that corrections may be made where crucial, such as: overvalued currencies, high trade restrictions, etc. (Kohli et al, 2003: 244). Opening of the economy offers potential benefits to all the stakeholders, by promoting “imports of technology, capital goods, foreign savings, ideas, and institutions”. To achieve these progressive factors, it is required that governments adopt a set of complementary policy and institutional reforms. Reforms are needed to counter the high costs of opening the economy, which are: “growing social inequalities, the marginalization of some groups, and local turbulence and insecurity occassioned by external shocks”. To control these destabilizing side-effects and thereby reap the benefits of globalization, governments must scrupulously construct macroeconomic stability, attractive investment conditions, and sound institutions. These include complex democratic and judicial systems and safety nets which are needed to channel peacefully the strains and conflicts inevitably generated by global markets (Kohli et al, 2003: 244). Latin America in the Global Economy: “During the past twenty years, and particularly since the early 1990s, Latin America has become increasingly integrated into the global economy, both through expanding trade in goods and services and through the liberalization of capital accounts” (Kaufman, 2003: 98). However, intra-regional variations within the country continue to exist. The past period of import-substitution industrialization (ISI) has been replaced by the new period of radical changes that have swept through Latin America as a whole. It has also the distinction of adopting “neoliberalism”, unlike other middle-income countries in the region. On the other hand, unlike the East Asian economies, “Latin American states have played a relatively limited role in fostering export competitiveness”. The necessary building of workmen skills and institutional reforms, besides enhanced development of primary goods will be required before export trade can be undertaken. Significantly, most of the countries of the region are well ahead of most African countries in terms of market-oriented reforms. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the weaknesses in developing countries, which results in greater decline as a result of globalisation. However, major policy reforms are underway, and many developing nations have already been benefiting from opening their economies to the global market. Increased barrier-free trade and liberal reforms have helped more than 200 million people to be lifted out of poverty. But many countries have been left behind, because “the liberalization of trade during the last fifty years has not included two sectors: textiles/garments and agriculture. Those are the labor-intensive goods poorer countries can produce and sell at competitive prices”, states Norberg (2003: 1). Future prospects appear to be bright “for developing countries to reap more benefits than costs from globalisation”. Changes in all areas are being brought about by the governments in an increasing number of poor countries. Further research in foreign direct investments and liberalisation of the economy can prove beneficial in planning policy reforms in funding systems. Initiatives taken by the international community to help poor nations in developing their trade for participating in the world market, would prove to be profitable for the industrialized nations also. References Addison, T., Guha-Khasnobis, B., Mavrotas, G. 2006. Introduction and overview. The World Economy, 29 (1): 1-8. Addison, T. & Heshmati, A. 2004. The new global determinants of FDI flows to developing countries: the importance of ICT and democratization. In M. Bagella, L. Becchetti, I. Hasan and W. C. Hunter (eds.), Monetary Integration, Markets and Regulation: Research in Banking and Finance, 4: 151–86. Chen, S. & Ravallion, M. 2001. How did the world’s poorest fare in the 1990s? Review of Income and Wealth, 47 (3): 283-300. Doyle, Michael W. 2000. Global economic inequalities: a growing moral gap in P. Wapner and E.J.R. Lester, eds. Principled world politics: the challenge of normative international relations. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Greenaway, D., Morgan, W., Wright, P. 2002. Trade liberalisation and growth in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 67: 229-244. Grindle, M.S., 2000. Ready or not: the developing world of globalisation. In J.D.Donahue & J.S. Nye, eds. Governance in a globalising world. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Ch.8. Griswold, D. 2006. Globalisation, human rights and democracy. In the U.S. Department of State The Challenges of Globalisation. Bureau of International Information Programs, February 2006, The United States of America: Diane Publishing, 39-41. Han, D. 2006. Balancing globalisation. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Forum, 22-23 May, 2006, Paris. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/41/36757066.pdf [accessed 2nd October, 2007] Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. 1999. Globalisation in question: the international economy and the possibility of governance, 2nd edn. United Kingdom: Polity Press. ILO (International Labour Office). 2003. Governance, social partnership and globalisation: a preliminary review of issues. 286th Session, Third Item on the Agenda. Governing Body, Working Party on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, Geneva, March 2003. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb286/pdf/sdg-3.pdf [accessed 30th September, 2007] Jordan, B. 2002. Global justice: the terrors of interdependence. Social Policy and Society, 1 (2): 119-128. Koffman, R.R. 2003. Chapter 4. Latin America in the global economy: macro-economic policy, social welfare, and political democracy. In A. Kohli, C-I. Moon & G. Sorensen. Eds. States, markets, and just growth: development in the twenty-first century. New York: United Nations University Press: 97-126. Kohli, A., Moon, C-I. & Sorensen, G. Eds. 2003. States, markets, and just growth: development in the twenty-first century. New York: United Nations University Press. Milner, C. & Morrissey, O. 1999. Measuring trade liberalisation in Africa. In M. McGillivray & O. Morrissey, eds. Evaluating economic liberalisation. London: MacMillan, 60-82. Morrissey, O. & Filatotchev, I. 2001. Globalisation and trade: the implications for exports from marginalised economies. Great Britain: Frank Cass Publishers. Nayyar, D. 2006. Globalisation, history and development: a tale of two centuries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30: 137-159. Norberg, J. 2003. Developing countries forsaken? Newspaper article. The Washington Times, September 7, 2003. Nuruzzaman, M. 2005. Economic liberalization and poverty in the developing countries. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 35 (1): 109-115. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Staff. 2005. Trade and structural adjustment: embracing globalisation. United Kingdom: OECD Publications. Perraton, J. 2001. The global economy: myths and realities. Review of P. Hirst & G. Thompson, 1999. Globalisation in question: the international economy and the possibilities of governance, 2nd Edn., United Kingdom: Polity Press. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 25: 669-684. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) Secretariat. 2007. Globalisation and inclusive development. Trade and Development Board. Fifty-fourth session, Geneva 1-11 October, 2007. Item 2 of the Provisional Agenda: pp.1-8. Available at: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdb54d7_en.pdf [accessed 2nd October, 2007] Weber, H. 2004. Reconstituting the “third world”? Poverty reduction and territoriality in the global politics of development. Third World Quarterly, 25 (1): 187-206. World Bank. 2000. Poverty in an age of globalisation. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Available at: http://www1.worldbank.org/economicpolicy/globalization/documents/povertyglobalization.pdf [accessed 1st October, 2007] World Bank. 1998. Poverty reduction and the World Bank: progress in fiscal 1996 and 1997. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. [accessed 1st October, 2007] Available at: http://poverty2.forumone.com/files/5598_pr_all.pdf Read More