Has Globalization Gone Too Far?

Globalization is exposing social fissures between those with the education, skills, and mobility to flourish in an unfettered world market—the apparent "winners"—and those without. Dani Rodrik brings a clear and reasoned voice to these questions. As Rodrik points out.
Table of contents

Search results for 'ti: Access and manage your saved searches from your WorldCat profile page.

Primary Site Navigation

Refine Your Search Author. An error has occurred.


  • The Pluralist Review: Has Globalization Gone too Far? An Analysis of Rodrik’s Introduction.
  • Bestselling Series.
  • Has Globalization Gone Too Far?.
  • The Atheists Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.

Please try your search again later. Results of about Your list has reached the maximum number of items. Please create a new list with a new name; move some items to a new or existing list; or delete some items. Has globalization gone too far?

Has Globalization Gone Too Far?

Send the link below via email or IM Copy. Present to your audience Start remote presentation. Do you really want to delete this prezi? Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

Editorial Reviews

The marginalization of the poor. Comments 0 Please log in to add your comment. More presentations by Jennifer Wanjohi Janelle Monae.

Women's Struggles in Society. And, Polanyi argued, in the long run this undermining of sociological order by the market economy threatened to destroy the social and institutional bases on which the market economy rested. You can disagree with virtually all of Polanyi's argument. You can say that the market for labor offers people opportunities, not constraints.

'+_.x(b)+"

You can point out that the "social norms" and "views about distributive justice" that underlie non-market distributions of income give the most to those with the biggest spears or those who can most effectively perform the confidence trick of convincing their lessers that obedience to the powerful is obedience to God.

Market distributions of income at least have a meritocratic component, as well as a positive entrepreneurial component that makes it possible to do well by doing good. Yet there remains a sense in which Polanyi's argument cannot be dismissed. The distribution of economic welfare produced by the market economy--roughly that one's weight in the social welfare function maximized by the market is approximately proportional to the market value of your endowment--does not fit anyone's conception of the just or the best. We have considerably more confidence in the correctness and appropriateness of political decisions made by democratically-elected representatives than we do of decisions made by those with large spears or large temples.

So there is a powerful place for government to manage the market--in the interest of avoding large depressions, in the interest of providing social insurance to transform the market distribution of income into one that produces higher social welfare, in the interest of avoiding pointless churning of the structure of industry produced by the fads and fashions that sweep the minds of financiers.

Has Globalization Gone Too Far? | PIIE

Post-World War II social democracy in the advanced industrial economies has produced the wealthiest, best, and most just societies the world has ever seen. You can complain that the redistributional and industrial policies of social democracy have been economically inefficient, but they have been--politically--very popular. It seems a good bet that the stable politics of the post-World War II era in the advanced industrial economies owe a good deal to the coexistence of rapidly-growing, dynamic market economies and social democratic polities.

And this is where Dani Rodrik comes in.