Introduction
It shows a significant increase in the number of studies examining global income
inequality in recent years and links this increase to efforts to analyze the effects of
globalization. In addition to the important political debate, it can be said that globalization has
another effect. It makes people aware of the living standards of others and increases public
interest in global inequality. Since the 1970s, Hirsch has argued that economic growth alone
isn’t enough to satisfy people due to the increasingly social nature of consumption, and it is
possible to say that globalization strengthens Hirsch’s argument and adds a new dimension.
However, despite the importance of the issue, it is clear that the latest research on
income inequality in the world has problems to determine the direction and extent of change
in the neoliberal period. This situation is considered unfortunate for two reasons. First,
determining the path of inequality is a very difficult task due to various methodological and
technical data problems and the difficulty of establishing a clear causal relationship between
globalization and equality. Second, and more importantly, while we may disagree on the
direction of inequality, there is a well-known consistent view in the literature: current levels
of global income inequality are very high. Therefore, it is argued that academics should make
more effort to investigate how to solve the problem of global inequality, rather than wasting
their valuable resources on a meaningless debate about globalization and inequality.
With this in mind, the main purpose of this essay is to examine current policy
recommendations for addressing global income inequality. If we examine the relevant
literature, we can see that while the basic liberal paradigm emphasizes the importance of
economic growth, which leads to proposals for political reform, against corruption and
effective international aid, there are conceptually worse strategies. Finally, in the specialized
literature we can find more unusual proposals, such as the right of employees to guarantee a
certain share of the company’s capital income, or the creation of an international organization
capable of collecting taxes from rich people and developed countries. However, before
reviewing these policy proposals to provide an overview of global inequality, the essay also
briefly discusses where global inequality currently exists and why it is considered an
important issue for race and humanity in general.
1
, Similarities and Differences to The Liberal Globalist Perspective
Significant changes are taking place in the liberal international order. The word
“change” here means departure from the liberal order established in the late 2000s and
inevitable change. As this essay will show, this change has three important and interrelated
consequences. The first and most obvious is the collapse of the liberal order, the second is the
distrust of the international system because liberalism is less credible, and the third is the so-
called “new global anarchy” in the international system as globalization. Protectionism is
neutralized by the opposite of racism, nationalism and isolationism, leading to quasi-
governmental institutions, global terrorism, tensions and the growing need for alternative
world governance. These changes contradict traditional liberal ideas, breaking important
aspects of the symbiotic relationship between liberalism and globalization.
Attitudes of International Organizations in Their Relations with Different
Countries
Globalization as a concept means different things to different people. Despite the
widespread use of the term, in addition to the general consensus on how economic activity
spreads across national borders, globalization still doesn’t have a coherent theoretical
framework or a clear definition. There is a very interesting debate among academics and
activists against globalization and certainty. While this debate is interesting, it feeds on the
terminological confusion between globalization, internationalism, and liberalism, which are
often interchangeable, closely related but distinct terms. The confusion arises from the lack of
an exact definition. This vast literature is readable and often misleading. The debate largely
ignores globalization as a historically fundamental structural change in modern capitalism and
tends to reduce it to a repetition of old states against a market debate.
A vivid example comes from Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who said,
“September 11 is synonymous with the conflict between globalization and isolation, free trade
and protectionism.” For him, this means that those who are against globalization should be in
favor of isolationism. Furthermore, globalization is wrongly associated with free trade, and
isolationism is associated with protectionism. Such a simplistic approach to these concepts
differs from the simple dichotomy that even critics of globalization like to admit. In this
chaos, it isn’t unusual for people to see globalization as a myth and unwittingly describe
themselves as “anti-globalization.”
2
It shows a significant increase in the number of studies examining global income
inequality in recent years and links this increase to efforts to analyze the effects of
globalization. In addition to the important political debate, it can be said that globalization has
another effect. It makes people aware of the living standards of others and increases public
interest in global inequality. Since the 1970s, Hirsch has argued that economic growth alone
isn’t enough to satisfy people due to the increasingly social nature of consumption, and it is
possible to say that globalization strengthens Hirsch’s argument and adds a new dimension.
However, despite the importance of the issue, it is clear that the latest research on
income inequality in the world has problems to determine the direction and extent of change
in the neoliberal period. This situation is considered unfortunate for two reasons. First,
determining the path of inequality is a very difficult task due to various methodological and
technical data problems and the difficulty of establishing a clear causal relationship between
globalization and equality. Second, and more importantly, while we may disagree on the
direction of inequality, there is a well-known consistent view in the literature: current levels
of global income inequality are very high. Therefore, it is argued that academics should make
more effort to investigate how to solve the problem of global inequality, rather than wasting
their valuable resources on a meaningless debate about globalization and inequality.
With this in mind, the main purpose of this essay is to examine current policy
recommendations for addressing global income inequality. If we examine the relevant
literature, we can see that while the basic liberal paradigm emphasizes the importance of
economic growth, which leads to proposals for political reform, against corruption and
effective international aid, there are conceptually worse strategies. Finally, in the specialized
literature we can find more unusual proposals, such as the right of employees to guarantee a
certain share of the company’s capital income, or the creation of an international organization
capable of collecting taxes from rich people and developed countries. However, before
reviewing these policy proposals to provide an overview of global inequality, the essay also
briefly discusses where global inequality currently exists and why it is considered an
important issue for race and humanity in general.
1
, Similarities and Differences to The Liberal Globalist Perspective
Significant changes are taking place in the liberal international order. The word
“change” here means departure from the liberal order established in the late 2000s and
inevitable change. As this essay will show, this change has three important and interrelated
consequences. The first and most obvious is the collapse of the liberal order, the second is the
distrust of the international system because liberalism is less credible, and the third is the so-
called “new global anarchy” in the international system as globalization. Protectionism is
neutralized by the opposite of racism, nationalism and isolationism, leading to quasi-
governmental institutions, global terrorism, tensions and the growing need for alternative
world governance. These changes contradict traditional liberal ideas, breaking important
aspects of the symbiotic relationship between liberalism and globalization.
Attitudes of International Organizations in Their Relations with Different
Countries
Globalization as a concept means different things to different people. Despite the
widespread use of the term, in addition to the general consensus on how economic activity
spreads across national borders, globalization still doesn’t have a coherent theoretical
framework or a clear definition. There is a very interesting debate among academics and
activists against globalization and certainty. While this debate is interesting, it feeds on the
terminological confusion between globalization, internationalism, and liberalism, which are
often interchangeable, closely related but distinct terms. The confusion arises from the lack of
an exact definition. This vast literature is readable and often misleading. The debate largely
ignores globalization as a historically fundamental structural change in modern capitalism and
tends to reduce it to a repetition of old states against a market debate.
A vivid example comes from Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who said,
“September 11 is synonymous with the conflict between globalization and isolation, free trade
and protectionism.” For him, this means that those who are against globalization should be in
favor of isolationism. Furthermore, globalization is wrongly associated with free trade, and
isolationism is associated with protectionism. Such a simplistic approach to these concepts
differs from the simple dichotomy that even critics of globalization like to admit. In this
chaos, it isn’t unusual for people to see globalization as a myth and unwittingly describe
themselves as “anti-globalization.”
2
