An alternative view O Sub-Saharan Africa Growth in GDP per head 15 GDP per bead, 1980 5000 Growth in GDP per head, proportional to population in 198( :: G0 Pper head1980°,000 Sources: Penn World Tables: Stanley Fischer If it were true, on average, that incomes in poor countries grew faster between 1980 and 2000 than incomes in rich countries then the points in chart 1 would tend to lie on a downward sloping line. In that case, one would say that the poor countries were on average catching up- and that global inequality measured across countries was trending downwards. In fact, as the first chart shows, poor countries are not on average catching up a line of best fit drawn through the points actually slopes upwards, implying that the poor are falling behind, and that cross-country inequality is getting worse to population. India and China stand out, both by virtue of their vast populations and alsoon But now look at chart 2. This plots the same countries as circles with areas drawn in proporti because their growth record in the 1980s and 1990s was so much better than the poor-country slope downwards, implying both catch-up and narrowing inequaliy econd chart would indeed average. a population-weighted line of best fit drawn through this se In short, once you take account of the fact that China and India have performed so well since 1980, and especially since 1990, together with the fact that these two countries account for such a big share of all the world's poor, it is difficult to stay as pessimistic about global trends in poverty and inequality as the critics of global capitalism wish to be. In effect, these criticsIf it were true, on average, that incomes in poor countries grew faster between 1980 and 2000 than incomes in rich countries, then the points in chart 1 would tend to lie on a downward￾sloping line. In that case, one would say that the poor countries were on average catching up— and that global inequality measured across countries was trending downwards. In fact, as the first chart shows, poor countries are not on average catching up. A line of best fit drawn through the points actually slopes upwards, implying that the poor are falling behind, and that cross-country inequality is getting worse. But now look at chart 2. This plots the same countries as circles with areas drawn in proportion to population. India and China stand out, both by virtue of their vast populations and also because their growth record in the 1980s and 1990s was so much better than the poor-country average. A population-weighted line of best fit drawn through this second chart would indeed slope downwards, implying both catch-up and narrowing inequality. In short, once you take account of the fact that China and India have performed so well since 1980, and especially since 1990, together with the fact that these two countries account for such a big share of all the world's poor, it is difficult to stay as pessimistic about global trends in poverty and inequality as the critics of global capitalism wish to be. In effect, these critics