Does Globalization Represent Capitalism or Democracy?

While I have criticized Globalization throughout these blog posts, I still believe that when the First World nations began this program, it was genuinely out of a desire to help get the Third World out of an economic funk. I doubt any of them expected this many problems to come out of such an idea, but ironically that’s exactly what happened. This got me thinking about something I kept describing Globalization to be: a spread of capitalist beliefs, not democratic ones. With the spread of ideology was a core aspect of the Cold War era, Development and Globalization were used as a means to spread democratic neoliberal capitalism to other countries so that they would not be swayed to the side of Communism. And in a way, Globalization did end up promoting a form of political and economic openness, one that offered a chance to achieve their own economic success without persecution. However, at some point between the Bretton Woods Conference and today, the democratic aspect of Globalization was somewhat diminished, with corporation needs and business ethics replacing it as the primary driving focus. While something of a hypothetical conclusion, I feel like this division of democratic and capitalist ideology ended up playing a larger role in why Globalization went from being viewed as a helpful policy to the go-to source of Third World economic problems.

While capitalism and democracy are compatible with one another, that does not necessarily mean that they are two sides of the same coin. By definition, capitalism is an system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by individual private owners and companies instead of the state as a whole. In this sense, control usually lies in the hands of whomever owns a dominant share of the capital/ assets that a country is dependent on. In contrast to capitalism, which is either political or economic by nature, democracy is strictly political and gathers its strength from the majority of its people, some of whom might not even have a desire for capitalist needs in general (Santos, 2013.) That being said, while their core policies aren’t necessarily similar, combined together they form a symbiotic relationship that is capable of benefitting both sides. Since the market sponsors private property, it can to provide its own citizens with a sphere of autonomy that creates individual liberties reminiscent of democracy’s focus on individual rights. On the other side of this relationship, the spread of democracy through the market, rather than through global warfare, promotes ethnics reminiscent of capitalist policy and the individual’s right to own property in general (Coyne, 2007.) In other words, they are both fully capable of collaboration, but the bond that they share remains fragile throughout it all.

So if globalization was used as a means to spread democratic and capitalist ideas across the world, what has changed to weaken the former’s involvement? I think what happened is that this new form of democracy placed a greater focus on the needs and freedoms of businesses than that of the actual people. As a result of economic conflicts causing state-wide inflation and indebtedness during the 70’s, attempts to solve such problems ended up putting more and more power into the demands of the capital, with those of the people gradually being pushed aside. The end result was a rise in social inequality and a loss of government to enforce economic power over both state autonomy and authority, rendering them pretty much obsolete (Santos, 2013.) For the most part, I agree that the government should not have total authority over the market, lest we end up with a system close to that of communism; however, by leaving such market up for individual grabs, we are essentially opening the doors for large-scale corporations to sink their claws into money designed to be shared amongst the people. As much as the West would like to promote the idea that Globalization can help everyone, the people it helps the most are the multi-national business owners, with everyone else scrambling to collect the remaining scraps. This creates something of a survival-of-the-fittest scenario, in which the individual is much more willing to pursue their own economic interest than be concerned with the needs of the public (Crockett, 2011.) To corporate owners looking to outclass the competition, this maybe a viable strategy, but in terms of creating a strong democratic policy, something heavily focused on the power of the majority, this is not the right way to go.

The solution to this problem, at least in theory, is to put a greater focus on balancing the interests of the people with that of the capital, creating a system that can both deliver on its promises of economic and social equality. This means not just dropping down in a country and exchanging a faulty democracy in exchange for resources, but rather making one that is capable of upholding social needs and withstanding economic consequences. And for that, we need to break some of the most hardcore Capitalist ideologies and do the one thing they loath above all else: include the government. As mentioned earlier, I don’t believe that the government should be involved in every little economic decision a la Big Brother, but if they remain unable to step in and put a stop to corrupt or unfair deals made by the multi-nationals, then this program will truly be one-sided. We need them to not only place a greater focus on what the people need to emerge successful, such as better nutrition value and education, but strive towards creating programs and organizations that can help them achieve such goals. By cutting the government off near-entirely from their involvement amongst the people, we have allowed capitalist Globalization policies to spiral out of control, leaving the rich in luxury and the poor in debt, poverty and inequality, all things that we want to see removed for good (Sachs 2011).

The things I have talked about across this blog might seem pretty generic, discussing the problems that globalization has brought upon the Third World and what needs to be done to stop them, but it is through these simple points that we can learn an awful lot. When I first started writing, my perspective on Globalization was that it was just another broken system that started out good but ended up corrupt and self-serving. Now however, I’m not so sure. The problems that need to be fixed in order to start a new path towards change may seem simple enough on paper, but it’s the human ego and greed/luxury that are the real enemies in this mess, the people who took advantage of such policies and used them to their own personal advantage without thinking about the consequences. Sadly, we cannot rewind the clock back to warn the Bretton Woods Conference about what will eventually happen, and we are too far deep in this mess to scrap everything under the table and pretend it was not our fault. What we can do, however, is take a good look at these policies that most people (understandably) blame for the Third World’s current state and try to figure out what should stay and what needs to go. The process of reforming Globalization, should the world attempt to do so, will be long, challenging and definitely experience opposition, but if there is a chance of making positive progress in the Third World, it’s a solid place to start.

Thanks for listening.



  1. Coyne, Chris. “Capitalism and Democracy: Take Two.” The Economist. August 31, 2007. Accessed April 15, 2016.
  1. Santos, Boaventura De Sousa. “Democracy or Capitalism?” Critical Legal Thinking. June 10, 2013. Accessed April 15, 2016.
  1. Dalpino, Catharin E. “Does Globalization Promote Democracy?: An Early Assessment.” The Brookings Institution. Fall 2001. Accessed April 15, 2016.
  1. Sachs, Jeffrey D. “Globalization’s Government.” Project Syndicate. September 31, 2011. Accessed April 15, 2016. Writing/2011/ProjectSyndicate_2011_Globalization’sGovernment_09_30_11.pdf.
  1. Crockett, Sophie. “Has Globalization Spread Democracy around the World?” EInternational Relations. August 27, 2011. Accessed April 15, 2016.
  1. “Democracy and Capitalism.” Democracy and Capitalism. April 1996. Accessed April 15, 2016.

Can Globalization be Fixed, or is it Already Too Late?

At the end of the day, what really is Globalization? It’s an economic system that attempted to unite the world through one big market and bring everyone closer together, but was not thought out all the way through. In the end, Globalization was unable to provide the Third World with the benefits that they were promised, instead creating a sad legacy of slums, environmental damage and poverty achieved at the expense of development. However, while we are unable to take back the damage done to Third World nations in the past, we can make an attempt at changing the current policies of Globalization for the better, redesigning its core structure to make it humane, effective and equal to everyone who wishes to achieve financial success. Globalization was created as a way to raise the living standards of those in poverty and show them a brighter future, which is most definitely a goal that people can get behind; it’s just how that goal is reached that needs to be adjusted.

We can’t fight Globalization by adding more Globalization to this already massive wound. It’s the equivalent of fighting fire with fire: the consequences of such actions will only affect people caught within the damage radius. Instead, we need to locate the major points of where Globalization went wrong and determine some means of fixing them, starting with the social justice aspect. With the Market Fundamentalist and Neoliberalist policies placing the larger chances of success on the wealthy Capitalist businessmen, it was the middle to lower class workers who suffered in the process, eventually becoming just as much tools for good business as the exports distributed. Therefore, on paper, the answer to this problem should be simple: treat all the employees and workers fairly. However, while there are a large number of businessmen who treat their employees with respect, the problem lies not in the treatment of the workers, but how this change in perspective clashes with the needs of die-hard Capitalists. Ideas of class power, class rule and a survival of the fittest-based competition for wealth, while undoubtedly morally questionable, were ironically seen as necessary measures to achieving the needs of the true Capitalist worker (Gindin, 2002). In a way, this makes sense as to why Globalization and neoliberalism were so compatible with one another, looking out for personal interests and unrestrained by any kind of interference. In other words, as long as the foundation principles of Globalization remain profit-driven and towards goals of production and capital accumulation, any attempt at positive social change will always remain on a fine line between progression and regression (Khasnobis, 2013). Change the principles so that the greater majority are not barred such opportunities, and we can take the right steps towards an equal market that lives up to the name.

Our next step to dealing with this problem is balancing the relationship between productivity and environment so that business can still remain strong without depleting a country’s natural resources. With production and exports reaching greater heights thanks to global distribution, it makes sense that more and more resources were necessary to meet the general quota. However, the changes made to the environment in order to reform them into industrial territory led to major social and economic consequences, introducing harmful chemicals and pollution into formally agricultural territories moving those who formally lived or worked there into unhealthy slums (ISFW 2012). This is discerning, as contrary to what corporations would like to believe, the planet is not an unlimited supply of natural resources that can last for an eternity; there needs to some form of control over how much environment can be used for corporate gain and how much should be left untouched. In order to solve this problem, we need to break away from the traditional Capitalist/neoliberalist mindset that government should stay out of corporate policy and provide them with some degree of policy measure in cases like these. This situation has grown out of hand, and we need the Third World to create a set of laws and policies that would allow them interference in how much property globalized companies can control, with some being reserved for the people and others for preservation similar to our own National Parks. While this does not mean that the Government should be involved in every decision made by the industry, a set of checks and balances must exist between them and the people in order to make sure that such actions don’t continue to have long-reaching consequences.

Perhaps the biggest consequence of Globalization in the Third World has been the impact on global identity, implementing the First World interpretation of modern society into other people’s cultures and then gradually convincing them that this is the true way to go. It may play itself off as a universal goal, but for the most part it simply comes across as a Western/liberal economic reform ideology being paraded around on a silver platter and praised as genius innovation (Lerche III, 1997). In other words, this slightly wholesome decision to unite the world economies into one enormous global market has been undermined by the layers surrounding its core, wrapping that belief in Western ideals and setting up a framework for everyone else must follow in order to achieve Western “perfection.” If the United States and its allies want to bring world’s cultures closer together, that is perfectly fine; however, it cannot achieve something like that through Globalization if such unity comes at the cost of dressing everyone up in their own policies. If Globalization really wants to improve itself and become seen as a benefactor to the world, maybe we need to strip down the parts and rebuild such a philosophy from the ground up. Will it be troublesome? Absolutely, but if we want to solve a problem, might as well dig it up at the roots.




  1. Gindin, Sam. “Social Justice and Globalization: Are They Compatible?” Monthly Review. June 2002. Accessed April 09, 2016.
  1. Khasnobis, H. “20 Years of Globalization Show What Works, What Needs Fixing.” April 21, 2013. Accessed April 09, 2016.
  1. Garfinkle, Adam. “What’s Wrong, and How to Fix It, Part 1: Introduction, and Globalization/Automation.” The American Interest Whats Wrong and How to Fix It Part 1 Introduction and GlobalizationAutomation Comments. 2012. Accessed April 09, 2016.
  1. Newsweek Staff. “HOW TO FIX GLOBALIZATION.” December 30, 2008. Accessed April 09, 2016.
  1. Torres, Rocio Amado. “Globalization: Benefits and Problems.” Voices of Youth. 2015. Accessed April 09, 2016.–benefits-and-problems.
  1. “Globalisation and the Environment.” Globalisation and the Environment. February 23, 2012. Accessed April 09, 2016.
  1. Majidi, Mohammad Reza. “Globalization: Approaches and Solutions.” Globalization: Approaches and Solutions. Accessed April 09, 2016.
  1. Lerche III, Charles O. “THE CONFLICTS OF GLOBALIZATION.” The Conflicts of Globalization. Accessed April 09, 2016.


Is Globalization Evil? If Not, What Went Wrong?

From my previous posts, we’ve learned about the policies of Globalization that, regardless of original intentions, inadvertently led to a rise in social and economic marginalization/inequality. But does this mean that Globalization is the sole culprit of blame in terms of the Third World’s current status? To that argument, I’d argue that Globalization as a whole is not necessarily evil, but when applied to Third World Nations, the system ended up causing more problems than solutions. Yes, in terms of obtaining nation-wide economic growth, Globalization created a way to expand borders and exports with other countries for resources and products. However, unlike with First World nations, Third World attempts to balance this distribution with the needs of their people and environment ended up spiraling out of control, preventing them from obtaining the correct amount of requirements to be listed as a developed nation. It is this inability to provide balance of the corporation needs with that of the population, along with the manipulative policies of neoliberalism, that cause most Third World nations to retain a state of low-income welfare and an inability to distribute that wealth amongst the community.

If we are talking about the impact of globalization specifically amongst First World nations with one another, specifically that of the United States, then an argument could be made that such a concept proved beneficial. While it remained an isolated nation prior to the events of both World Wars, the United States’ self-made agricultural system allowed them to survive for so long on their own without the need of foreign trade. Once the country moved away from isolation and more towards increasing its strength as a global superpower, it now had much more to gain from foreign trade with other nations, as well as the idea of a liberalist economic system (Stubbs/Underhill 1998). Alongside this system were Cold War policies heavily focused on spreading Capitalism to other nations in hopes of combating Soviet influence, prompting events like Bretton Woods to set the stages for both Development and Globalization Programs. While created as a means to increase Capitalist welfare, they were still heavily dedicated to the idea of strengthening the “less fortunate” nations who were struggling to provide for their respective nations. As a result of introducing the Third World to such programs, the First World was able to put together an efficient and sustainable market that all Capitalist businessmen could be a part of, one that spotlighted free trade without fear of government interference, border restrictions or export tariffs. In other words: had the First World not pushed for such a market to exist through globalization, the world would not have it’s current economic system.

However, the issue here lies in the fact that this market was designed to work best for nations who had already adapted themselves into the Capitalist lifestyle and, for the most part, knew how to manage the needs of their corporations with that of the population. Their relationship with the Third World nations however, regardless of original intentions, was very much a case of not discussing what the long-term effects of such a plan would bring upon their way of life. The most notable issue is our growing consumption of products, an action that leads to more resources being removed from the environment and used at a faster productive rate to match a company’s monthly quota. As much as the corporation owners would like to care less about environmental issues and more about their Capitalist welfare, the sad truth is that consumption/production and the environment are linked in a somewhat twisted manner, with each one affecting the overall success of the other. The corporations need these resources to increase the success of their production and exports, they need to take more and more of them from the environment, effectively harming it in the process. In return, the amount of resources out there dictate and impact just how effectively globalization can occur in such a region without consequences to business (Najam/Runnalls/Halle, 2007). This form of supply and demand is one that the First World seems to jump into without really giving much thought about the consequences, gaining what they need for the region while not recognizing how such events will impact everyone else.

This somewhat toxic relationship of environment and production, plus the policies of neoliberalism and market fundamentalism, create a system that works in favor of the people who created it, but less so those who tried to implement it on their own. It may present the First World and Third World corporate owners some profit, but for the other 99% that lives alongside them, it makes for some difficult issues that need to be put in check, but have trouble doing so as it will disrupt the flow of profit. What these nations need to do is to utilize the policies that the First World/United States brought them in a manner that represents how the USA managed to remain apart from everyone else for so long: create their own self-sustaining economy. It is not a major problem to set up a combination of industrialization agricultural production in order to achieve development, but the limited and somewhat corrupt manner that the Third World has been stuck in for the most part has left them without a means of keeping their consumption in check. Both sides of this economic conflict need to recognize that sovereignty of the population and environment must come before the desire to collect natural resources for profit, or if so must have a limit on them so that the nation is not hindered as a result (United Nation University). If such a relationship can be established, then it is possible for the positive aspects of Globalization to shine through all of the negative ones; otherwise, the chances of this consumption-environment correlation will continue to hinder the chance at positive Third World development.



  1. “The Status of Third-world States in International Environmental Legislation and Its Implementation.” The Status of Third-world States in International Environmental Legislation and Its Implementation. Accessed April 02, 2016.
  1. Stubbs, Richard, and Geoffrey R.D. Underhill. “US Responses ToGlobalization.” US Responses ToGlobalization. 1998. Accessed April 02, 2016.
  1. Stubbs, Richard, and Geoffrey R.D. Underhill. “US Responses ToGlobalization.” US Responses ToGlobalization. 1998. Accessed April 02, 2016.
  1. Mourdoukoutas, Panos. “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Side Of Globalization.” Forbes. September 10, 2011. Accessed April 02, 2016.
  1. Mourdoukoutas, Panos. “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Side Of Globalization.” Forbes. September 10, 2011. Accessed April 02, 2016.





Neoliberalism and Globalization: The Source of the Problem

Considering how both the Development Project and Globalization were initiated in order to prevent such things like Third World poverty and debt from occurring, we need to ask the big question: how did a solution with such a universal vision of the future ended up producing poverty and inequality? What about these policies and their relation to the market lead to the creation of the problems they had originally set out to prevent? In my previous post, I mentioned that Globalization and the Development project were based around the central themes of market fundamentalism, a strong belief in laissez-faire and the notion that a free market provides equality for all. However, there exists a second policy centered around laissez-faire and in turn holds some share of the blame: neoliberalism. More than just a belief in free market trade and marginal utility, neoliberalism may be based around economics but has its foot rooted in the center of political ideology. It doesn’t really offer anything new to the table, but the policy’s view of people in relation to the market makes it a philosophy of its own, one that can clearly be seen in the themes of Globalization.

The term liberalism became popular during the Age of Enlightenment, but its influence in economic policy can be traced back to the works of Scottish philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations. In it, he detailed an economic market absolved of any government interference, whose restrictions and tariffs on manufactured products prevented the achievement of “free” enterprise (Martinez/Garcia 1996). To Western economists, this form of belief it rejected the current norms of social and political privilege in favor of the individual thinker his ability to make his worth on the market through Capitalist beliefs. While it was briefly labeled a failure following the events of the Great Depression, liberalism eventually resurfaced itself in between the post-WWII era and the 1970’s, only this time with a new set of beliefs revolving around the old formula. Now titled neoliberalism, the new policy retained the core values of early liberalist principles, such as a strong, unwavering belief in a market free of government interference, but it also shifted a greater focus on expanding that market through means of privatization and increasing business transactions (Treanor, 2005). It may have conflicted to current world beliefs at the time, but to the agencies in created in response to the Development Project, such as the IMF and the World Bank, it represented all the positive changes that they hoped to impose upon the Third World.

While Globalization undoubtedly expanded for the market to new heights following the collapse of the Development Project, the ideas that it promoted were not all that special, with large-scale trade across great distances being a key component of economic development since the dawn of man. What separated Globalization from its predecessors, for better or for worse, was its relationship with neoliberalism and how much of its idealisms were expressed through the idea of a global world market. Even though it still centered around an unwavering belief in government-free economy, neoliberalism took a very literal focus on the role of the individual, as noted by its shift from public to private ownership via privatization. A transaction created in response to the 1980’s debt regime, privatization had governments sell off their public assets of land to privately-owned entities, relieving them of territory that could have added to increasing debt. This means of obtaining land for private interest, along with the idea of a free world market created through competition and governance, presented a way for businessmen to achieve monopolies on a global scale, instead of a national one. Through neoliberalism, Globalization was able to provide all who followed it with a means of expanding their business deals across the globe and receive a large share out of it, all without any political interference whatsoever.

This brings us to the most important question so far: how does these policies and values fit into the economic/ social problems that the Third World population faces? The answer is simple: these same policies inadvertently caused them. Following the debt crises of the 80’s, an inflation of US money stored within Third World, the United States hoped to solve the problem by repurposing the IMF, now purely following neoliberal principles, to repay the loans in exchange for “structural adjustment programs.” (Hickel, 2012) These allowed the First World nations to enforce neoliberal policies onto the nations promoting market liberalism, diminishing the government’s power to expand its economic growth while at the same time handing more power over to multinational corporations capable of profiting from such changes. In other words, the people that benefited the most from such changes were still the rich 1% that run such corporations, with the middle and lower classes feeling like resources to help their success instead of the ones truly in need of help. Maybe to the wealthy Capitalists with much to gain, neoliberal policies proved useful, but to those in need of actual economic assistance, these policies ended up doing the very thing they were supposed to prevent.




  1. David, Kumar. “The Origins Of Neoliberalism.” Colombo Telegraph. February 16, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. Martinez, Elizabeth, and Arnoldo Garcia. “CorpWatch : What Is Neoliberalism?” CorpWatch : What Is Neoliberalism? July/ August 1996. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. Treanor, Paul. “Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition.” December 2, 2005. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. Hickel, Jason. “A Short History of Neoliberalism (And How We Can Fix It).” A List Apart The Full. April 9, 2012. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. Makwana, Rajesh. “Neoliberalism and Economic Globalization.” Neoliberalism and Economic Globalization. November 23, 2006. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. George, Susan. “A Short History of Neo-liberalism | Global Exchange.” A Short History of Neo-liberalism | Global Exchange. March 24-26, 1999. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. “Neoliberalism – Effects Of Neoliberal Policies.” – Social, Countries, Economics, and Policy. Accessed March 25, 2016.
  1. Smith, Candace. “Neoliberalism and Inequality: A Recipe for Interpersonal Violence? – Sociology Lens.” Sociology Lens Neoliberalism and Inequality A Recipe for Interpersonal Violence Comments. November 6, 2012. Accessed March 25, 2016.

How Much of Social Inequality is the result of Globalization?

With the Development Project coming to an end, the path of Globalization seemed like the most natural course of effects, elevating development from nationwide to worldwide progression. That, along with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, left western Capitalism as the dominant form of economic progress in the world. As a result, Communism and the Development State were eventually replaced with a neoliberal form of free-trade market, one that advocated businesses to balance the rights and interests of both the individual and the community. However, as economic progress became more profound, it was paralleled by a decline in class structure and social inequality amongst the Third World population that the economy is supposed to represent. Through this blog, I will take a look at both the helpful and harmful aspects of Globalization and its impact on the Third World in order to determine just how much about it has led to the current state of its social and economic issues.


The sad fact of the matter is that in the world market, there can never be equal winners amongst those seeking to further their nation’s economic power. This is basic human nature, with competition driving us to work harder against one another in order to prevail. However, unlike First World nations, whose large economies allow them to purchase better assets for success, Third World governments are usually less fortunate, carrying resources and manpower but unable to balance this with the ability to cater to their people’s needs. As a result of weak incomes and poor education for the lower/middle classes, only the small percentage of rich citizens are left with the ability to make and exploit economic opportunities. The rest of the country is left in a state of poverty and forced to work for low pay in the same industries meant to “benefit” the country. Does that mean that every Third World government is falling under this category? Not entirely, but their desire to match the economic ranks of their western counterparts tends to leave them indifferent to the issues of their own population, should they not reside within the upper class minority.


Ironically, despite failing to support the communities dependent on its economic success, at the very root of Globalization is an ideology centered around an idea that the market is capable of resolving just about anything. Known as market fundamentalism, this ideology persists that a free market is capable of solving any social and economic problems that a nation may face, and that growth through deregulation and privatization will be able to increase everyone’s welfare. Any form of interference against this belief and the market in general should be seen as a threat to the social well being of everyone involved, and thus must be avoided altogether (Mander/Baker/Korten 2001). Furthermore, market fundamentalism believes that increasing foreign investment in Third World countries will lead to an increase in productive capacities and development, something that should benefit the well being of lower class citizens. Unfortunately, the reality remains that this ideology is ridiculously naïve, with the only people benefitting from it being the companies and corporations that produce the nation’s exports.


Now is globalization always the direct cause behind social inequality in developing nations? That is hard to say, as despite a lot of problems understandably being traced back to Globalization, there are still some good things that have come out of the process. After all, similar to the Development Project, the idea of Globalization was created with genuine intentions of expanding the market to everyone who wanted to be a part of it, even if it was partially to benefit the economic power of the West. According to notes recorded on the effects of Globalization in India and China, globalization has not only opened up numerous job opportunities for workers struggling for employment, due to the restructuring of the economy from agricultural to industrial workforce (Bardhan 2007). In a weird way, Globalization led to a reduction in Third World poverty, even if the treatment of its workers is not usually the best. While it’s hard to separate the negative effects of Globalization from the positive ones, it would be wrong to assume that everything about Globalization is one hundred percent awful.


Bardhan, Pranab. “Inequality in India and China: Is Globalization to Blame?” Inequality In India And China: Is Globalization To Blame? October 15, 2007. Accessed March 19, 2016.

Birdsall, Nancy. “Global Policy Forum.” Globalization Will Increase Inequality. February 28, 2006. Accessed March 19, 2016.

Mander, Jerry, Debi Baker, and David Korten. “Does Globalization Help the Poor?” Http:// 2001. Accessed March 19, 2016.

Pologeorgis, Nicolas. “How Globalization Affects Developed Countries | Investopedia.” Investopedia. 2010. Accessed March 19, 2016.