While Some See Globalization as the Avenue to the Development of Poor Nations, Others See It Intensifying Misery and Inequalities. Critically Examine the Above Statement in Today's Context.

Given the increasing interrelationships between countries, globalization necessitates a shift in the framework of poverty analysis so that poverty at the household, community, and national level is analysed in a global context. By all standards, poverty qualifies as a global issue, which has the capacity of engendering conflict if not seriously addressed.
Furthermore, poverty has never been an isolated problem manifesting in a particular pocket, region, nation or continent. Poverty is of global significance because the phenomenon has assumed a global character. Poverty, a perennial and complex multi-dimensional problem, has therefore become a global challenge. The compendia on this subject provide a revelatory insight into the situation. A quarter of the world’s population, that is 1.3 billion, lives in severe poverty. Nearly 800 million people do not get enough food, and about 500 million are chronically malnourished. More than a third of the children of this world are malnourished. More than 840 million adults are illiterates of who 538 million are women and about 1.2 billion people live without access to safe drinking water.

Pursuant to the foregoing, poverty amid plenty has become the world’s greatest challenge. Poverty is now a global phenomenon, which poses danger to the survival of humanity. It therefore follows that no country of the world is completely insured from the scourge of poverty though with varying degrees. From the poverty indicators identified by Maxwell, which include income or consumption poverty, human (under)development, social exclusion, ill-being, (lack of) capability and functioning, vulnerability, livelihood unsustainability and lack of basic needs; the poorest people in a developed nation may well be richer than the average citizen of a less developed country. The point being made is that the scourge of poverty is a common denominator in the global community, but with a higher degree of entrenchment in the developing world.

Does globalization lack the control mechanism that should propel the same level of economic growth across regions to keep the poverty profile in the developing world low, in tandem with the general situation in the developed world?

While the anti-globalization forces strongly articulate the negative connection, the neoliberal proponents articulate the poverty reducing effect of globalization. This division describes the parallel dynamics in the interface between globalization and poverty.

What appears to be real, however, is that the developing world is not on the same pedestal as the developed world with reference to the gains accruing from globalization. It appears that the negative relationship, put forward by the anti-globalization forces, best explains the practical realities in developing countries. If this argument holds, then it means that the current globalization regime is defective both in scope and principle. To address the precarious situation in the developing world, the paper recommends that the global order must tend toward the poor and vulnerable through a more equitable and robust relationship, while also agitating greatly for the need to promote State capacities in the developing world

The Miseries
In order not to lose touch with reality, the approach here transcends the cosmetic nature of theories by focusing on the practical experiences of the developing world. From the historical period to the contemporary, using world development indicators, the Global South has repeatedly been the most miserable pole. As demonstrated in the previous sections, regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America have devastating poverty statistics. Going by recent development dynamics, the only exceptions are probably china and India. With 38 per cent of the world’s population, China and India shape world trends in poverty and inequality. They have grown very fast over the past decades. Poverty figures for the developing world would have been worst had China and India grown more slowly. If the prevalence of poverty in developing countries has been blamed on Globalization, how then does globalization affect the poor in Asia, Latin America and Africa? Although Asia is a region regarded as having benefited most from the growth effect of the recent wave of globalization, but developing countries in the region are still trapped by poverty. This is as a result of weak economic terrains occasioned by the ‘inequality increasing’ effect of globalization. In Latin America, the intermediate position in its Integration experience, the history of natural resource-based economy in its linkage to the Global economy, its susceptibility to the ‘global development cycle’ dominated by external Shocks, have all aggravated the poverty situation in the region. Globalization has therefore not delivered the promised benefits of sustained economic growth to these economies. The few exceptions here are Chile, Brazil and Mexico. They are the best performers in terms of growth and poverty alleviation.

Inadequate domestic economic capacity to boost the continent’s productivity, mono-cultural economic orientation and unfavorable terms of trade, have all hampered the growth potentials of the continent. Again, high demand for foreign exchange to pay for imports diverts available revenue for social service. Also, high imports of food have resulted in low incomes for domestic farmers, thus forcing them to explore other avenues for sustaining their livelihoods. It is a tale of woe that Nigeria, which is supposed to push the development agenda for the region, still has over 70 per cent of her population living in abject poverty.
Therefore, given the practical realities above, the argument that poverty is all pervasive and increasing in the least developed countries, particularly in Africa, because they are failing to share in global economic growth does not hold. The fact remains that many developing countries were ill-prepared for the globalization wave. Experiences have shown that there exists a minimum condition to be an active member of the global system. The developed world has already met this condition of economic industrialization before the Intensification of the current international diffusion, although it is correct to argue that the Feat was achieved in part by the historical exploitation of developing economies. Instead of these economies to benefit from the purported fortunes of globalization, they have been

At the first level, the major constraints that the self-employed face are in credit, marketing, extension services for new technology, infrastructure and government regulations. With these situations, it is difficult for them to withstand competition from large agribusiness or firms (foreign or domestic). Even when small producers are involved in export , the tradition of protectionism and subsidization of farm and food products as well as manufactures like textile and clothing has severely restricted the export prospects for poor countries. At the other level, trade liberalization, even when increasing the mean incomes of the poor, may heighten their vulnerability, particularly by increasing variance of prices on income sources.

As users of common property resources, the poor in low income countries experience short supply of environmental resources. This does not mean that the poor countries are not naturally endowed, but the forces of globalization appear to be contracting the available environmental resources. The resources are declining due to trade liberalization, which damages the poor by encouraging over-exploitation of the fragile environmental resources such as forestry, fishery, surface and ground water irrigation, grazing lands, etc, on which the daily livelihoods of particularly the rural poor crucially depend.

A common charge against multinational companies is that they flock to developing countries to take advantage of lax environmental standards. Until these environmental issues are addressed, the poverty profile in developing nations will continue to rise.

To a greater extent, therefore, the assertion that globalization doles out misery to the poor in the developing world is far from being farcical. What is more worrisome, however, is the lack of capability on the part of national governments in the developing world to effectively address the issues raised above. To be sure, the forces unleashed by the Globalization wave have rendered several developing states incapacitated. This is why it is Important to promote the ‘capable State’ agenda in the developing world. Haven juxtaposed the connection between globalization and the appalling poverty situation in developing economies, the emphasis is now placed on the fortunes or opportunities that globalization may accommodate against poverty and how effective are these therapies.

The Fortunes

In what appears to be a seeming awareness that poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere, the globalizes are pushing the assertion that the strategies for Tackling poverty has a universal applicability. These strategies are rooted in the processes that give impetus to the globalization wave. The dynamics of globalization have naturally Unleashed certain forces, which are potentially believed to dole out fortunes to the poor. What then are these fortunes and how do they apply to the present framework of poverty?
The Limitations of these therapies are equally explored. The canons or the tripartite forces of globalization have been identified to include Technology (including information technology), economic liberalization and democracy. If we explore so deeply into the canons of the new order, we can see that what exist have been roundly classified as the propeller of fortunes, lack of which reveal damning poverty. Even though the main communication systems are operating among the more developed countries, these mechanisms are already spreading in their use to the less developed nations. This fact will increase the possibility that marginal groups in poor countries can communicate and interact within a global context using new the new technology and therefore can integrate themselves with the global village. No doubt, the cyberspace confers enormous power on its beneficiaries.

How many poor people in low income countries are technologically informed? If by chance the number is significant, I doubt that the number of poor people economically empowered by information and communication technology will be anywhere close to that. This is a pressing area where empirical studies will need to be carried out. Surprisingly, a situation that appears to be spreading across developing economies is the phenomenon of cyber-crime. With the Internet’s rapid diffusion and the digitization of economic activities, cyber-crime has gained momentum in the developing world. Many people in developing economies are attracted into cyber-crime because of high unemployment and low wages.

Therefore, the orientation basically from the advanced world that the internet impacts positively on poverty will need to be re-rationalized.
Again, economic liberalization as a canon of globalization is said to enhance competition and positive growth. Economic liberalization promotes exposure to new ideas and products, greater specialization and expanded opportunities for mergers and acquisitions, leading to growth in size of corporations. In addition to the huge capital that expansive market ideology will make available to combat poverty, private companies can help speed economic, provide better jobs for the poor, and provide education and development of human potential. In the area of trade, the liberalization of markets offers developing countries ample opportunity to integrate them more fully into the world economy. The sustained growth of international trade and the strengthening of multilateral rules and dispute settlement mechanisms within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are promising signs in this regard.