Globalisation: good or bad?

Walking around your average university campus you'd be convinced that economic globalisation (i.e. free trade and out-sourcing) is the most ruthless and evil concept ever devised by those capitalistic dogs of the West. Alternatively, economically liberal publications such as The Economist and The Australian champion the idea of economic interdependence among countries as the ultimate panacea for the world's ills such as disease, poverty and war (admittedly, an interesting notion that two nations will be reluctant to war with each other because of their bilateral trade agreements).

Who's right? Personally, I had my money on the latter (afterall, Nike doesn't make poor people, it makes shoes) but according to this article, both sides have some valid points. The article is perhaps slightly too long (depending on your attention span) but I found some of the points interesting nonetheless:

Antiglobalizers' central claim is that globalization is making the rich richer and the poor poorer; proglobalizers assert that it actually helps the poor... the World Bank estimates the fraction of the population in developing countries that falls below the $1-a-day poverty line (at 1993 prices)--an admittedly crude but internationally comparable level. By this measure, extreme poverty is declining in the aggregate.

But although the poorest are not, on the whole, getting poorer, no one has yet convincingly demonstrated that improvements in their condition are mainly the result of globalization. In China the poverty trend could instead be attributed to internal factors such as the expansion of infrastructure, the massive 1978 land reforms (in which the Mao-era communes were disbanded), changes in grain procurement prices, and the relaxation of restrictions on rural-to-urban migration.

In poor Asian economies, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, large numbers of women now have work in garment export factories. Their wages are low by world standards but much higher than they would earn in alternative occupations. Advocates who worry about exploitative sweatshops have to appreciate the relative improvement in these women's conditions and status. An Oxfam report in 2002 quoted Rahana Chaudhuri, a 23-year-old mother working in the garment industry in Bangladesh:

This job is hard--and we are not treated fairly. The managers do not respect us women. But life is much harder for those working outside. Back in my village, I would have less money. Outside of the factories, people selling things in the street or carrying bricks on building sites earn less than we do. There are few other options. Of course, I want better conditions. But for me this job means that my children will have enough to eat and that their lives can improve.

While in Cambodia a young girl with no hands begged me for money on a public bus. The guidebooks claim children are sometimes maimed by their masters so they can entice more money from foreigners. Although I do not believe in mulit-nationals running factories in appalling and squalid conditions and reaping stupidly high profits, the grim alternative truly frightens me. Sobering indeed.

In short, the next time you see a pack of anti-globalisation protestors rallying for their cause, remember the issues aren't as clear cut as they claim.

Update: A couple of days after writing this entry I conversed with a PhD student in philosophy who is studying the ethical implications of free trade. She briefly said it's not as bad as the anti-globalisers make out, but there are some concerns. Well, that's what I think she said. I don't understand philosophy students.