Over the past two decades, the percentage of the world’s population living on less than a dollar a day has been cut in half. How much of that improvement is because of—or in spite of—globalization? While anti-globalization activists mount loud critiques and the media report breathlessly on globalization’s perils and promises, economists have largely remained silent, in part because of an entrenched institutional divide between those who study poverty and those who study trade and finance. Globalization and Poverty bridges that gap, bringing together experts on both international trade and poverty to provide a detailed view of the effects of globalization on the poor in developing nations, answering such questions as: Do lower import tariffs improve the lives of the poor? Has increased financial integration led to more or less poverty? How have the poor fared during various currency crises? Does food aid hurt or help the poor? Poverty, the contributors show here, has been used as a popular and convenient catchphrase by parties on both sides of the globalization debate to further their respective arguments. Globalization and Poverty provides the more nuanced understanding necessary to move that debate beyond the slogans.

Globalization has affected a change across the regions of the world and India is no exception. The national economy has become far more integrated with the global economy now. However, there are large parts of the underdeveloped regions that suffer from endemic underdevelopment. The north-eastern region is one such region. The relevance of Globalisation in the context of the North-Eastern Region of India has additional implications in terms of social and political integration. The most important characteristic of the north-eastern region is that all the constituent units (states) are relatively closed ethnic groups. All the states in the region share porous international border. Consequently, both product and factor markets in these states have some international dimension. Given the socioeconomic and geopolitical dimensions in the region, the prevailing pattern of development in these states has also culminated in the form of social unrest and degradation of economic values. This clearly implies that the development policies and programmes have fallen short of meeting the social and economic aspirations of the indigenous population in the region. In this context, the question that arises is how the forces of Globalization and economic growth could be combined together to address the implicit and most relevant questions associated with migration, unemployment and development of trading activities in the perspective of North-Eastern Region of India.

Contributed papers presented at a national seminar organized by North East India Council of Social Science Research in Shillong, India.

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is an economically diverse region. Despite undertaking economic reforms in many countries, and having considerable success in avoiding crises and achieving macroeconomic stability, the region’s economic performance in the past 30 years has been below potential. This paper takes stock of the region’s relatively weak performance, explores the reasons for this out come, and proposes an agenda for urgent reforms.

"The paper presents a nontechnical summary of the current state of debate on the measurement and implications of global inequality (inequality between citizens of the world). It discusses the relationship between globalization and global inequality. And it shows why global inequality matters and proposes a scheme for global redistribution. "--World Bank web site.

This study systematically evaluates the economic consequences of globalization for India in the light of the attack of the critics against globalization on grounds of economic stagnation, ?deindustrialization,? ?denationalization,? destabilization, and impoverishment. On the basis of abundant qualitative and quantitative data, it strongly repudiates the case of the critics, and demonstrates that India has been a significant beneficiary of the globalization process. Instead of economic stagnation, India has seen acceleration in its average annual rate of economic growth. Instead of deindustrialization, there has been substantial industrial growth and, indeed, acceleration in the industrial growth rate.Instead of denationalization, business in India is now more competitive and is venturingforth into the global market; increased imports and the entry of foreign multinationalshave not swamped it; essentially, India is master of its own destiny. Instead of economicdestabilization, there has been since the paradigm shift in economic policy in 1991 a marked absence of economic crisis in India. And, instead of impoverishment, India hasseen a long and unprecedented period of welfare enhancement since it began its reintegration into the world economy in 1975; there has been a secular decline in povertysince then, while inequality has not increased much. The policy conclusion that flows from this experience is that India ought to be, in general, more open to globalization in the interest of sustaining the acceleration in economic growth and enhancing the welfare of its people. To this end it should push forward with the reform agenda.This is the twenty-second publication in Policy Studies, a peer-reviewed East-West Center Washington series that presents scholarly analysis of key contemporary domestic and international political, economic, and strategic issues affecting Asia in a policy relevant manner.