As globalization has progressed, living conditions (particularly when measured by broader indicators of well being) have improved significantly in virtually all countries. However, the strongest gains have been made by the advanced countries and only some of the developing countries.
That the income gap between high-income and low-income countries has grown wider is a matter for concern. And the number of the world’s citizens in abject poverty is deeply disturbing. But it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that globalization has caused the divergence, or that nothing can be done to improve the situation. To the contrary: low-income countries have not been able to integrate with the global economy as quickly as others, partly because of their chosen policies and partly because of factors outside their control. No country, least of all the poorest, can afford to remain isolated from the world economy. Every country should seek to reduce poverty. The international community should endeavor—by strengthening the international financial system, through trade, and through aid—to help the poorest countries integrate into the world economy, grow more rapidly, and reduce poverty. That is the way to ensure all people in all countries have access to the benefits of globalization.

The succession of crises in the 1990s—Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, Russia, and Brazil—suggested to some that financial crises are a direct and inevitable result of globalization. Indeed one question that arises in both advanced and emerging market economies is whether globalization makes economic management more difficult.
Does globalization reduce national sovereignty in economic policy-making?
Does increased integration, particularly in the financial sphere make it more difficult for governments to manage economic activity, for instance by limiting governments’ choices of tax rates and tax systems, or their freedom of action on monetary or exchange rate policies? If it is assumed that countries aim to achieve sustainable growth, low inflation and social progress, then the evidence of the past 50 years is that globalization contributes to these objectives in the long term.
In the short-term, as we have seen in the past few years, volatile short-term capital flows can threaten macroeconomic stability. Thus in a world of integrated financial markets, countries will find it increasingly risky to follow policies that do not promote financial stability. This discipline also applies to the private sector, which will find it more difficult to implement wage increases and price markups that would make the country concerned become uncompetitive.
But there is another kind of risk. Sometimes investors—particularly short-term investors—take too sanguine a view of a country’s prospects and capital inflows may continue even when economic policies have become too relaxed. This exposes the country to the risk that when perceptions change, there may be a sudden brutal withdrawal of capital from the country.
In short, globalization does not reduce national sovereignty. It does create a strong incentive for governments to pursue sound economic policies. It should create incentives for the private sector to undertake careful analysis of risk. However, short-term investment flows may be excessively volatile.
Efforts to increase the stability of international capital flows are central to the ongoing work on strengthening the international financial architecture. In this regard, some are concerned that globalization leads to the abolition of rules or constraints on business activities. To the contrary—one of the key goals of the work on the international financial architecture is to develop standards and codes that are based on internationally accepted principles that can be implemented in many different national settings.
Clearly the crises would not have developed as they did without exposure to global capital markets. But nor could these countries have achieved their impressive growth records without those financial flows.
These were complex crises, resulting from an interaction of shortcomings in national policy and the international financial system. Individual governments and the international community as a whole are taking steps to reduce the risk of such crises in future.
At the national level, even though several of the countries had impressive records of economic performance, they were not fully prepared to withstand the potential shocks that could come through the international markets. Macroeconomic stability, financial soundness, open economies, transparency, and good governance are all essential for countries participating in the global markets. Each of the countries came up short in one or more respects.
At the international level, several important lines of defense against crisis were breached. Investors did not appraise risks adequately. Regulators and supervisors in the major financial centers did not monitor developments sufficiently closely. And not enough information was available about some international investors, notably offshore financial institutions. The result was that markets were prone to "herd behavior"— sudden shifts of investor sentiment and the rapid movement of capital, especially short-term finance, into and out of countries.
The international community is responding to the global dimensions of the crisis through a continuing effort to strengthen the architecture of the international monetary and financial system. The broad aim is for markets to operate with more transparency, equity, and efficiency. The IMF has a central role in this process, which is explored further in separate fact sheets

Growth in living standards springs from the accumulation of physical capital (investment) and human capital (labor), and through advances in technology (what economists call total factor productivity). Many factors can help or hinder these processes. The experience of the countries that have increased output most rapidly shows the importance of creating conditions that are conducive to long-run per capita income growth. Economic stability, institution building, and structural reform are at least as important for long-term development as financial transfers, important as they are. What matters is the whole package of policies, financial and technical assistance, and debt relief if necessary.
Components of such a package might include:
Ø Macroeconomic stability to create the right conditions for investment and saving;
Ø Outward oriented policies to promote efficiency through increased trade and investment;
Ø Structural reform to encourage domestic competition;
Ø Strong institutions and an effective government to foster good governance;
Ø Education, training, and research and development to promote productivity;
Ø External debt management to ensure adequate resources for sustainable development.
All these policies should be focussed on country-owned strategies to reduce poverty by promoting pro-poor policies that are properly budgeted—including health, education, and strong social safety nets. A participatory approach, including consultation with civil society, will add greatly to their chances of success.
Advanced economies can make a vital contribution to the low-income countries’ efforts to integrate into the global economy:
Ø By promoting trade. One proposal on the table is to provide unrestricted market access for all exports from the poorest countries. This should help them move beyond specialization on primary commodities to producing processed goods for export.
Ø By encouraging flows of private capital to the lower-income countries, particularly foreign direct investment, with its twin benefits of steady financial flows and technology transfer.
Ø By supplementing more rapid debt relief with an increased level of new financial support. Official development assistance (ODA) has fallen to 0.24 percent of GDP (1998) in advanced countries (compared with a UN target of 0.7 percent). As Michel Camdessus, the former Managing Director of the IMF put it: "The excuse of aid fatigue is not credible—indeed it approaches the level of downright cynicism—at a time when, for the last decade, the advanced countries have had the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the peace dividend."
The IMF supports reform in the poorest countries through its new Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility. It is contributing to debt relief through the initiative for the heavily indebted poor countries.

During the 20th century, global average per capita income rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The most recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing almost 90 percent of world population) for which data are available for the entire 20th century. It reaches the conclusion that output per capita has risen appreciably but that the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century.
But incomes do not tell the whole story; broader measures of welfare that take account of social conditions show that poorer countries have made considerable progress. For instance, some low-income countries, e.g. Sri Lanka, have quite impressive social indicators. One recent paper finds that if countries are compared using the UN’s Human Development Indicators (HDI), which take education and life expectancy into account, then the picture that emerges is quite different from that suggested by the income data alone.
Indeed the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted) income levels of today’s poor countries are still well below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs, today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because medical advances and improved living standards have brought strong increases in life expectancy.
But even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have increased but the quality of life for many has not improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is reducing life expectancy in many countries.
This has brought new urgency to policies specifically designed to alleviate poverty. Countries with a strong growth record, pursuing the right policies, can expect to see a sustained reduction in poverty, since recent evidence suggests that there exists at least a one-to-one correspondence between growth and poverty reduction. And if strongly pro-poor policies—for instance in well-targeted social expenditure—are pursued then there is a better chance that growth will be amplified into more rapid poverty reduction. This is one compelling reason for all economic policy makers, including the IMF, to pay heed more explicitly to the objective of poverty reduction.

Economic "globalization" is a historical process, the result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. The term sometimes also refers to the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders. There are also broader cultural, political and environmental dimensions of globalization that are not covered here.
At its most basic, there is nothing mysterious about globalization. The term has come into common usage since the 1980s, reflecting technological advances that have made it easier and quicker to complete international transactions—both trade and financial flows. It refers to an extension beyond national borders of the same market forces that have operated for centuries at all levels of human economic activity—village markets, urban industries, or financial centers.
Markets promote efficiency through competition and the division of labor—the specialization that allows people and economies to focus on what they do best. Global markets offer greater opportunity for people to tap into more and larger markets around the world. It means that they can have access to more capital flows, technology, cheaper imports, and larger export markets. But markets do not necessarily ensure that the benefits of increased efficiency are shared by all. Countries must be prepared to embrace the policies needed, and in the case of the poorest countries may need the support of the international community as they do so.

The term "globalization" has acquired considerable emotive force. Some view it as a process that is beneficial—a key to future world economic development—and also inevitable and irreversible. Others regard it with hostility, even fear, believing that it increases inequality within and between nations, threatens employment and living standards and thwarts social progress. My reports over the weeks will offer an overview of some aspects of globalization and aims to identify ways in which countries can tap the gains of this process, while remaining realistic about its potential and its risks.
Globalization offers extensive opportunities for truly worldwide development but it is not progressing evenly. Some countries are becoming integrated into the global economy more quickly than others. Countries that have been able to integrate are seeing faster growth and reduced poverty. Outward-oriented policies brought dynamism and greater prosperity to much of East Asia; countries like China and India, transforming it from one of the poorest areas of the world 40 years ago. And as living standards rose, it became possible to make progress on democracy and economic issues such as the environment and work standards.
By contrast, in the 1970s and 1980s when many countries in Latin America and Africa pursued inward-oriented policies, their economies stagnated or declined, poverty increased and high inflation became the norm. In many cases, especially Africa, adverse external developments made the problems worse. As these regions changed their policies, their incomes have begun to rise. An important transformation is underway. Encouraging this trend, not reversing it, is the best course for promoting growth, development and poverty reduction.
The crises in the emerging markets in the 1990s have made it quite evident that the opportunities of globalization do not come without risks—risks arising from volatile capital movements and the risks of social, economic, and environmental degradation created by poverty. This is not a reason to reverse direction, but for all concerned—in developing countries, in the advanced countries, and of course investors—to embrace policy changes to build strong economies and a stronger world financial system that will produce more rapid growth and ensure that poverty is reduced.

christianity originated from the West with the belief of Jesus Christ. According to the New Testament in the religious text, which is the Bible, it is stated that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came down to Earth to pay for the sins of men so that men will not perish to eternal doom. this religion was globalized by the missioners who go to all parts of the world to spread the Word.

however, some parts of the religious text contradicts with scientific theories. according to Science, it is proven that the world was created by a big bang. in the Bible, the world was created by God.

Despite these contradictive statements that can be found, many out there choose to believe in what their instincts tell them to, thus the religion is globalized to all parts of the world with many believers.

Labels: Cultural Expert