The developed countries are not ready to concede benefits of 'protectionism in trade' to the developing countries, although this advantage contributed immensely to the economic development of nearly all the developed countries. In the name of intellectual property right also, the developed world has been obstructing progress of these countries, whereas MNCs like Phillips and Unilever, for example, still bear the legacy of gross violation of intellectual property right by the present developed countries in not-so-distant past. Thus, the trade policy, followed by the developed world, has been minimising the chances, of the developing world, of reaping the advantages of globalisation. Of course, there are many other reasons -- like poor law and order situation, lack of infrastructural facilities, and corruption -- for the lack of progress of these countries.

One may debate whether the trade policies of the developed countries are more or less responsible than the other reasons or equally responsible, for the not-so-palatable condition of the developing world. One may cite the instance of China or Malaysia, too, to argue that if they can prosper, why cannot other developing countries. Without going into the controversies, it can be said that the developing countries are not fairly getting benefits of 'globalisation'.

It is true that while it took United Kingdom some 60 years to double its per capita income in the 19th century, in a much more 'globalised' world, countries, with population ranging from millions to a billion, e.g., China, Japan, and Korea, could double their per capita income in a decade. The share of the population in poverty is also declining for the developing countries. But, inequality, between the rich and the poor, is increasing. Otherwise, why is the gap, between the developing and the developed world, keeping on widening? Why is there no inverted-U relationship between growth and inequality, as suggested by Kuznets?

'Globalization' must go hand in hand with democratisation to make it, i.e., 'globalisation', worth its nomenclature. However, the reality is just the reverse. World Bank and IMF, the behemoths of global finance and trade, are not democratic in nature, as 'one country, one vote' system is not operating there. Rather, the voting rights are determined there according to the amount of donations offered by the member states, resulting in the majority of the votes in the hands of less than 10 per cent of the countries of the world. United States alone enjoys more than 15 per cent vote at the Bretton Woods institutions. The 'one dollar, one vote' system of these institutions gives power highly disproportionately, contrary to the core of democratic norms, to the USA, as 85 per cent vote is required to amend any fundamental policy at World Bank and IMF.

So, is it not natural that the biased equation of power is only accentuating the unjust polarisation between the rich and the poor in the 'globalised' world?

Ahbab Aziz is a research professional.