3/14/2014

www.eguaglianzaeliberta.it/stampaArticolo.asp?id=306

Stampa Dal Mondo Globalism's Discontents
Ittzoifnnireitrainl,noerchzeenoepvrài u sgi siuin iazai nenzoai uv icez uv oet n n ago dlNbl e oe

Pubblichiamo l'articolo, comparso su "American Prospect" all'inizio del 2002 di Joseph E. Stiglitz, premio Nobel per l'economia e profondo conoscitore dei meccanismi economico-finanziari internazionali, dal titolo "Globalism's Discontents". Questo articolo è la base del libro di Stiglitz pubblicato in ottobre in italiano dall'editore Einaudi col titolo "La globalizzazione e i suoi oppositori". Few subjects have polarized people throughout the world as much as globalization. Some see it as the way of the future, bringing unprecedented prosperity to everyone, everywhere. Others, symbolized by the Seattle protestors of December 1999, fault globalization as the source of untold problems, from the destruction of native cultures to increasing poverty and immiseration. In this article, I want to sort out the different meanings of globalization. In many countries, globalization has brought huge benefits to a few with few benefits to the many. But in the case of a few countries, it has brought enormous benefit to the many. Why have there been these huge differences in experiences? The answer is that globalization has meant different things in different places. The countries that have managed globalization on their own, such as those in East Asia, have, by and large, ensured that they reaped huge benefits and that those benefits were equitably shared; they were able substantially to control the terms on which they engaged with the global economy. By contrast, the countries that have, by and large, had globalization managed for them by the International Monetary Fund and other international economic institutions have not done so well. The problem is thus not with