But what of the fear that global capitalism is making progress at the expense of the poor The true figures would probably be quite reassuring on this-but even if the more pessimistic official figures were correct, it would be worth questioning the conclusions that the anti-globalists draw from them If poverty was proving as tenacious in the face of growth as the Banks estimates say, would it make sense to blame global capitalism for that? Hardly. On any estimate, poverty is at its most impervious in sub-Saharan Africa. Look again at charts 1 and 2. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa are represented by the white circles. These are not just the poorest countries in the world but also the slowest-growing. Can it be plausibly claimed that these countries are the victims of globalisation That would be an odd conclusion, given that sub-Saharan Africa's economies are so comparatively isolated from the rest of the world economy-by force of history circumstance and to a large extent the policies of their own and other governments. Sub-Saharan Africa plainly suffers not from globalisation, but from lack of it the focus of attention should be on how to extend the benefits of international economic linkages to the region Removing every rich-country barrier to trade with thes countries would be an excellent place to start y contrast, India and China are showing how great the benefits of international economic integration can be Neither country is an exemplar of free-market capitalism -far from it. But it is undeniable that both countries have consciously chosen to seize the opportunities afforded by the global economy through both trade and foreign investment. As incomes surge, while the iving standards of the poorest improve more modestly if at all, inequality within both countries may well be rising The gaps between urban and rural incomes especially, have widened lately This may prove a temporary phenomenon. But suppose otherwise: suppose the problem persists. Would any such worsening of inequality entitle one to conclude that India and china had taken a wrong turn these past 20 years? Of course not. Look at Africa to understand that there are worse things than inequality *"Measuring Poverty in a growing World (or Measuring growth in a poor World", revised February Angus Deaton (included extensive further references); "The World Distribution of Ir by Xavier Sala-i-Martin International Economics:" How Well Did the Worlds poorest Fare in the 1990s? by shaohua Chen rtin Ravallion Review of Income and wealth 47( 3) ality Among world citizens: 1820-1992 by Francois Bourguignon and christian Morrison, American Economic Review 92 (4) Copyright 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The ist Group. All rights reservedBut what of the fear that global capitalism is making progress at the expense of the poor? The true figures would probably be quite reassuring on this—but even if the more pessimistic official figures were correct, it would be worth questioning the conclusions that the anti-globalists draw from them. If poverty was proving as tenacious in the face of growth as the Bank's estimates say, would it make sense to blame global capitalism for that? Hardly. On any estimate, poverty is at its most impervious in sub-Saharan Africa. Look again at charts 1 and 2. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa are represented by the white circles. These are not just the poorest countries in the world, but also the slowest-growing. Can it be plausibly claimed that these countries are the victims of globalisation? That would be an odd conclusion, given that sub-Saharan Africa's economies are so comparatively isolated from the rest of the world economy—by force of history, circumstance and, to a large extent, the policies of their own and other governments. Sub-Saharan Africa plainly suffers not from globalisation, but from lack of it. The focus of attention should be on how to extend the benefits of international economic linkages to the region. Removing every rich-country barrier to trade with these countries would be an excellent place to start. By contrast, India and China are showing how great the benefits of international economic integration can be. Neither country is an exemplar of free-market capitalism—far from it. But it is undeniable that both countries have consciously chosen to seize the opportunities afforded by the global economy, through both trade and foreign investment. As incomes surge, while the living standards of the poorest improve more modestly, if at all, inequality within both countries may well be rising. The gaps between urban and rural incomes, especially, have widened lately. This may prove a temporary phenomenon. But suppose otherwise; suppose the problem persists. Would any such worsening of inequality entitle one to conclude that India and China had taken a wrong turn these past 20 years? Of course not. Look at Africa to understand that there are worse things than inequality. * “Measuring Poverty in a Growing World (or Measuring Growth in a Poor World)”, revised February 2004, by Angus Deaton (included extensive further references); “The World Distribution of Income” by Xavier Sala-i-Martin; NBER Working Paper 8933; “Imagine There Is No Country: Poverty, Inequality and Growth in the Era of Globalisation” by Surjit Bhalla, Institute for International Economics; “How Well Did the World's Poorest Fare in the 1990s?” by Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, Review of Income and Wealth 47 (3); “Inequality Among World Citizens: 1820-1992” by Francois Bourguignon and Christian Morrison, American Economic Review 92 (4). Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved