Globalization is one of these words can has been made to mean any and everything. If we see it as a process, as most sociologists tend to do (Robertson, Waters, Lash, Featherstone, etc), then this question becomes a little more interesting.

Since neoliberalism gained popularity and became a driving force in policy instruments for transnational institutions such as the IMF or World Bank in the 70s, there have been dozens of interventions in Africa, South America and Europe. They mostly consisted of the usual mix of measures intended on promoting growth and deregulating markets. The great majority of these cases failed miserably...

Besides these experiments, there have also been the cyclical crisis since 1973, who tend to be addressed by employing neoliberal approaches, like state withdrawal, deregulating labour and financial laws, promoting open trade and reducing public debt.

While these measures cannot be called "bad" in abstract, the results have seldom been positive. What we do know is that in the last years, economic inequalities have been growing, especially in developed countries (c.f. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/world-social-report/2020-2.html).

In simpler terms, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and for all the talk about promoting inclusion and growth, one question that is always left out is how benefits from that growth? Tickle-down economics, another belief held very deer by advocates of neoliberalism, has failed miserably. Otherwise how can we explain that the richest human beings keep getting richer, even during crisis, while middle and lower classes lose income and the inequality gap grows?

Just because there is a nominal growth of GDP that does not mean that the population overall benefits from that growth. If one of the 10 richest individuals on earth moved to my town, the GDP per capita would skyrocket, but how would that many our lives better? There is a reason why such indicators have became quite useless for researchers, as GDP tells us very little about the quality of life and overall improvement of ordinary people. It's not a question of growth, but rather of improvement. Have inequalities diminished? Has the average income of middle and lower class citizens risen? And if so, have the fixed expenses risen as well, in the sense of them having a positive income growth? These tend to be the questions that matter the most, although there are many more (quality of life, gini index, happiness index, etc).

So, my answer is: no, not really. Neoliberalism has been the go-to solution for half a century and things managed to get worse. Plus: every country is a case in itself. Germany has one of the world's most solid economies by relying heavily on regulation and State intervention, while the US deregulate everything they can on principle. What works in one case might not work in another case. Policies are supposed to be based on data and facts, and not on beliefs. When individuals cling to policies like beliefs and ignore what reality tells them, then we are approaching fanaticism and not rational governance. And, unfortunately, many still fail to realize this.

Exploitative globalization is not a given: but, fueled by capitalism, some contemporary patterns have been viewed—paraphrasing Clausewitz—as a continuation of colonization through other means. Without doubt, globalization created fresh opportunities for hundreds of millions of people: but, the gap between high-income and low-income countries has widened and inequality within many countries has increased. If globalization is to benefit all equally there assuredly is a need for what is termed "glocalization", viz., the practice of conducting business according to both local and global considerations. Piketty (2014) pronounced inequality to be a social phenomenon that is driven by institutions. Powerful questions need answering. Who is to prosper? Who is to suffer? Who is to decide?

Article Development of Critical Psychology

First, lets define Economic Globalization. The concept suggests to me that the international barriers to the flow of value are being dismantled, so that there is a unburdened flow of capital around the world, to investments that can pay the highest interest.

If the world were entirely operating in a surplus (eg, Ecological Footprint was less than the Biocapacity, for every biome, in every country/region), then this is fine. But as it isn't, and by a lot in specific cases, there will be areas that have debt payments to make that has to come from both ecological interest and ecological capital. By decreasing the quantity of ecological capital, the local ecosystem, and thus the society and economy, becomes more at risk of collapse.

Poverty, as I understand it, is a state where it is not possible for all needs of the individual, family, or community to be met, regardless of how effectively people are able to use their time to meet their needs. The obstructions that prevent them from meeting their needs can not be surmounted, and people in poverty will always have some combination of needs that are unmet. In many cases, having access to a small amount of additional resources will make a huge difference (the relationship between resource availability and quality of life is very steep at low levels of consumption). Some inter-regional trade can be enough, in specific cases, to reduce or even eliminate the worst effects of poverty.

But often, the locally produced goods and services are shipped abroad without increasing local access to critical resources and ecological functions, and/or without considering whether what is being shipped away is truly surplus. This may increase economic activity locally, but it doesn't mean that there will be less inequity or that welfare is improved. Famines have happened because grains for local use were replaced with coffee for export - strong governance would be required to prevent such failures in planning, and that's hard to get when there is high disparity.

So, in the end, I would say no, but with caveats. I think local and regional efforts at poverty reduction will ultimately lead to understanding what critical resources have to be imported, and after that is established locally, the surplus resources can be exported into a global economy. But the locals have to be allowed to be stewards of the land first. And that's not how business likes to run.

In general - not. Surely, neoliberalism and economic globalization generates inequalities. But in certain Asian countries - yes, they can. And - to some extent - in such European countries as Switzerland in the West or Estonia - in the East, which prefer more neoliberal policies. And not talking about inequalities, but reducing poverty. Each case has to be studied carefully.

I think the question cannot be answered with a YES or NO . The question must be narrowed to apply to specific circumstances. For example when in the early 1980s President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher launched neoliberal policies, along with free trade policies (globalization) and financial and economic deregulation, this led other countries to follow. The net effect was millions of people everywhere especially in developing countries to find employment in areas that did not exist before. So in this sense the answer is yes unemployment and poverty were reduced tremendously; this was a huge positive aspect of globalization and of neoliberal policies. But income inequality is not the same thing. As a matter of fact income inequality increased because businesses in general and multinationals invest in countries if the rate of return is high favoring capital.

Similarly in Europe neoliberal policies and financial and labor market liberalization with the Lisbon Agenda 2010

reduced unemployment and induced economic growth but at the expense of workers. Such policies created precarious employment instead of decent work. This increased income inequality in Europe.

In a similar manner neoliberal policies, bank reregulation accompanied with international financial deregulation led to the US Subprime Mortgage Crisis in the US (2007-2009) and to the Global Financial Crisis (2010-2013). Millions of people lost their home in the US and millions of people lost their savings and jobs in many countries in the World. These negative effects are attributed to globalization and financial deregulation and to neoliberal policies that allowed massive flows of capital movements.

Impossible, this social economic model is defined to strengthen those who possess economic power.

An idea to contribute to reduce inequality.

Article Introducing the Investment Redistributive Incentive Model (I...