Publicação
The debate on the relationship between globalization, poverty and inequality: a critical overview
| Resumo: | On this theoretical article, I critically present the ongoing debate on the relationship between globalization, poverty and inequality. To do so, I rely on the typology put forward by Held & McGrew (2007), which divides scholars between two main approaches: the globalists and the skeptics. Among the first approach, one can then distinguish between neoliberal globalists and transformationalist globalists. Among the second one, one can distinguish between realist skeptics and Marxist skeptics. I go through the most important thinkers of each of these four perspectives, summing up the most influential arguments put forward to support their view. By grouping the views of these scholars, I show similarities and differences between the four perspectives and thus contribute to making the debate more clear. In a further section, I critically assess these arguments, identifying some of their strengths and shortcomings. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Valentim, V. |
| Assunto: | Globalization Inequality Poverty Globalism Skepticism |
| Ano: | 2016 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | ISCTE |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório ISCTE |
| Resumo: | On this theoretical article, I critically present the ongoing debate on the relationship between globalization, poverty and inequality. To do so, I rely on the typology put forward by Held & McGrew (2007), which divides scholars between two main approaches: the globalists and the skeptics. Among the first approach, one can then distinguish between neoliberal globalists and transformationalist globalists. Among the second one, one can distinguish between realist skeptics and Marxist skeptics. I go through the most important thinkers of each of these four perspectives, summing up the most influential arguments put forward to support their view. By grouping the views of these scholars, I show similarities and differences between the four perspectives and thus contribute to making the debate more clear. In a further section, I critically assess these arguments, identifying some of their strengths and shortcomings. |
|---|