Is the “or” exclusive (one or the other, but not both)? Or inclusive (both outcomes can coexist)? If the former is true, my answer is that the question needs to be reformulated. If you meant an inclusive “or”,I suspect the answer is in Kuznets.

Economic globalization has been widely debated regarding its impact on prosperity and social inequality. Its effects are not uniform and largely depend on the economic, political, and institutional context of each region. From a Latin American perspective, globalization has had a dual effect: on one hand, it has driven growth through market access, foreign investment, and technological advancements; on the other, it has increased economic dependence and wealth concentration in certain sectors.

From welfare and development theories, different approaches help analyze this issue. The welfare state and human development perspectives suggest that globalization can be beneficial when accompanied by redistributive policies, investment in human capital, and strong regulatory frameworks. Models like Solow-Swan explain economic growth in terms of capital and technological investment, while the Human Development Index (HDI) assesses whether that growth translates into improvements in health, education, and quality of life.

In contrast, Latin American structuralism (Prebisch) and dependency theory (Cardoso & Faletto) argue that globalization perpetuates an unequal economic structure, where peripheral countries remain subordinate to economic power centers. This is reflected in phenomena such as the deterioration of terms of trade and the concentration of capital in multinational corporations. Indicators like the Gini Index help measure globalization’s impact on inequality, while the Kuznets Curve analyzes the relationship between economic growth and income distribution.

Ultimately, globalization is not a homogeneous process; its impact varies depending on local conditions. The key challenge is implementing policies that balance economic growth with social equity and sustainable development.

Both situations are presented

It does increase prosperity

The structure of world trade is shaped by several key aspects that frequently disadvantage developing countries. Trade agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral, aim to promote economic integration through reduced tariffs and increased cooperation; however, they often benefit wealthier nations and direct foreign investment into low-value-added sectors within developing countries. This is concerning because such investments typically do not result in job creation or provide meaningful technology transfers that could aid in building local capacity. To improve their standing, developing countries could adopt strategies such as diversifying their economies, targeting sectors with higher value addition, and fostering partnerships that encourage the transfer of technology and know-how. Investing in education and skills development can also better prepare the workforce for emerging industries. Additionally, strengthening domestic markets and promoting local entrepreneurship can enhance economic resilience. Furthermore, many developing nations currently rely on a narrow range of commodities for exports, making them vulnerable to global market fluctuations. Addressing trade imbalances and advocating for more equitable trade agreements could also help reduce tensions and inequalities. Finally, as technology and e-commerce reshape trade access, leveraging digital platforms to support local businesses could open up new markets. Collectively, these strategies could empower developing countries to enhance their position in the global trade landscape and mitigate the pressures of social inequality.

Prosperity in what sense? Prosperity, per se, is a vague term. First, it needs to define prosperity and later on social inequality. In my view, globalization was made for institutionalizing the slavery. For instance, core nations are master and peripheral nations are wotker.

What the search for a social unicorn tells us about scaling impact

Do social unicorns exist? Kieron Boyle sets out the ambition of the 100x Impact Accelerator to impact hundreds of millions of lives and discusses what this project can teach us about scaling research and social impact...

"At LSE we are committed to “understanding the causes of things.” For decades, research has contributed to understanding the root causes of global challenges like inequality, poverty and climate change. But understanding alone isn’t enough. Real change happens when knowledge meets action. This is the rationale of the 100x Impact Accelerator at LSE: to turn bold initiatives into scalable solutions and explore the next generation of social unicorns...

Over the next decade, we are building data on a globally significant set of impact-first organisations and identifying insights that can inform decision-making within governments, development institutions, investors and enterprises. This is all part of our mission of advancing social science knowledge to improve society, and all areas that we would like to collaborate widely on.

So, do (social) unicorns exist? The answer is rarely. But they can. And, perhaps more importantly, the ambition to pursue them tells us a great deal about what is practically needed to address the sheer scale of the world’s challenges."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/03/19/what-the-search-for-a-social-unicorn-tells-us-about-scaling-impact/

A very pertinent and multidimensional question, one that sits at the heart of global political economy discourse.

I would say, the answer lies in nuance i.e. globalisation is both an engine of prosperity and a catalyst of inequality. It has undoubtedly enabled technological diffusion, capital mobility, and economic growth, lifting millions out of poverty, particularly in emerging economies like China, India, and Southeast Asia. Global value chains have optimized production efficiency and expanded consumer choices worldwide.

However, this prosperity has been asymmetrically distributed. Transnational corporations (TNCs) have consolidated economic power, often bypassing domestic accountability, exploiting wage differentials, and reshaping labour markets. The result? Rising income inequality, labour precarity, and weakened bargaining power of workers, especially in the Global South and post-industrial economies of the West.

Moreover, economic dependence on foreign capital and FDI-driven growth has made developing economies vulnerable to external shocks, speculative capital flows, and policy conditionalities. Meanwhile, developed nations face deindustrialization and job offshoring, fuelling social discontent and populist backlashes.

What we need is a globalisation 2.0 that is rooted in inclusive growth, fair trade, stronger labour protections, and economic sovereignty. Countries must adopt calibrated industrial policies, reinvest in human capital, and reassert regulatory control over corporate excesses. Globalisation need not be reversed but restructured to ensure equity, dignity, and sustainability.

here are some recommended readings for the readers' reference:

In sum, what can be said is, globalisation is not inherently good or bad, rather it is a process whose outcomes depend on who governs it and how wisely nations respond to it.

Globalization can both increase prosperity and contribute to social inequality. It often boosts economic growth by expanding trade, increasing access to markets, and fostering innovation. However, the benefits are not evenly distributed—while some regions and sectors thrive, others may face job losses, wage stagnation, or economic displacement. As a result, globalization can exacerbate social inequality, particularly when wealth and opportunities are concentrated in specific regions or among certain groups.

Dear Researchers, Scientists, Friends,

The research question concerning the impact of economic globalization on the promotion of welfare versus the increase in social inequalities and the dependence of economies on multinational corporations is extremely complex and multidimensional. The presented text accurately identifies the dual nature of globalization, pointing to both the potential for welfare growth and efficiency, and the risk of increased inequality and dependence. However, it is worth expanding this discussion to include new research questions, such as the analysis of the impact of different forms of globalization (e.g., trade, investment, capital flows) on particular social groups and economic sectors, the study of the role of national policies in shaping the effects of globalization (e.g., social policies, labor market regulations, tax policy), the analysis of the impact of global value chains on economic sovereignty and supply chain security, the study of the role of international institutions in managing globalization processes, and the search for compensatory mechanisms for the negative effects of globalization, such as support programs for regions and professional groups affected by international competition. Future research could also focus on the analysis of long-term globalization trends in the context of changing geopolitics and the development of new technologies. I sincerely thank everyone for their past contributions to this crucial debate. I am open to scientific cooperation in this important area and invite you to continue this significant discussion, which is of fundamental importance for shaping a just and sustainable global economy.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The Guidelines for Reporting Intersectional Analysis in Science and Technology (GRIST)

"A recent article in Nature, "Intersectional Analysis for Science and Technology", underscores the critical role of intersectional analysis in science and technology as a means to inform more effective social and environmental policies that promote global equity and sustainability. The paper illustrates how quantitative intersectional analysis can be embedded throughout the research process — from setting strategic research priorities and shaping research questions to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The outcome is a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to support researchers, peer-reviewed journals, and funding bodies in systematically incorporating intersectional perspectives. These recommendations are formalized in the Guidelines for Reporting Intersectional Analysis in Science and Technology (GRIST) and are endorsed by the European Association of Scientific Editors (EASE)...

Plenty of people have the skill to create interesting interactive online courses that begin to teach researchers how best to do this type of research. These types of measures are necessary until sophisticated methods of intersectional analysis are taught, as a matter of course, in natural scientists, medical researchers, and engineers’ professional, graduate training."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08774-w.epdf?sharing_token=XUx_vcd9dDTglQ8VWBlhG9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oc887SDPY4s9oVlG7H9wE3u7CrU4POvNvP041J4SibJzDhQUgu8oDAqJ3g1x-nmPbvAPXMwsLB3Io_N7pUqCnTdhRLqaP0BU1pQWbXhafVzh9shyQZJseQ7JWWkkDFS64xXM2CJxs1lM5tLgm3Ol05HXpqZtVJc0lZelcKmqw_UP8W5mqSCM8QtX11yaQL5UI%3D&tracking_referrer=scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/05/22/guest-post-the-guidelines-for-reporting-intersectional-analysis-in-science-and-technology-grist-an-interview-with-londa-schiebinger/?informz=1&nbd=&nbd_source=informz

Globalisation has increased overall prosperity by expanding markets, lowering prices, and fostering innovation, but it has also widened inequality within and between countries by disproportionately benefiting capital over labor and skilled over unskilled workers.