Globalization and Inequality: Neoliberalism Debate Review
This paper critically compares two contrasting perspectives on globalization and economic inequality: Martin Hart-Landsberg's (2006) anti-neoliberal argument that free-market capitalism harms the global working class, and Johan Norberg's (2004) pro-globalization claim that liberal trade policies raise living standards and strengthen democratic institutions. Drawing on Coleman and Kerbo's (2009) framing of global inequalities as complex and multifaceted, the paper evaluates the methodological strengths and weaknesses of both authors, examines their use of evidence and tone, and ultimately concludes that Norberg's position is more logically coherent and practically viable, despite sharing common ground with Hart-Landsberg on the ultimate goal of global prosperity.
- Introduction: The Globalization and Inequality Debate: Frames the neoliberalism debate and introduces key authors
- Hart-Landsberg's Anti-Globalization Perspective: Evaluates Hart-Landsberg's critique of neoliberal capitalism
- Norberg's Pro-Globalization Argument: Examines Norberg's case for free trade benefits
- Comparing the Two Perspectives: Contrasts feasibility and logic of both authors' positions
- Conclusion: Toward Global Prosperity: Favors pro-globalization view as more practical and viable
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear evaluative framework early on, setting up a head-to-head comparison of two distinct ideological positions before analyzing each in turn.
- It maintains intellectual balance by acknowledging weaknesses in both authors' methodologies—neither side is treated as beyond criticism—which strengthens the paper's credibility before ultimately taking a position.
- Specific textual evidence, including direct quotations with page numbers, grounds the argument in the primary sources rather than relying solely on paraphrase.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative critical analysis: rather than summarizing each source independently, it consistently holds the two arguments against each other, identifying shared assumptions (both authors want global equality), parallel methodological flaws (neither offers original quantitative research), and divergent conclusions. This technique produces a nuanced evaluative synthesis rather than a simple report of what each author says.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a literature-grounded introduction that frames the debate and introduces both authors. Two body paragraphs evaluate Hart-Landsberg and Norberg respectively on their evidence and argumentative tone. A third body paragraph directly compares the two, highlighting Norberg's greater logical flexibility and Hart-Landsberg's failure to propose alternatives. The conclusion resolves the comparison with a clear, qualified position in favor of pro-globalization policy while conceding the legitimacy of anti-globalization principles.
Introduction: The Globalization and Inequality Debate
In Social Problems, Coleman and Kerbo (2009) discuss ways in which globalization and neoliberalism have impacted global inequalities and disparities. Global inequalities are not caused by singular policies but are tremendously complex, requiring nuanced perspectives and points of view. Economists, sociologists, and scholars frequently debate whether neoliberalism and global capitalism are causing or exacerbating global inequalities, or whether the ideologies and practices of the free market may be used to promote global equality instead.
Martin Hart-Landsberg (2006) and Norberg (2004) weigh in on this debate. In "Neoliberalism: Myths and Reality," Hart-Landsberg (2006) claims that globalization and the neoliberal policies that support unbridled capitalism worldwide are harmful to the working classes — the majority of people worldwide. In short, Hart-Landsberg (2006) argues that neoliberalism and globalization increase global inequalities. Norberg (2004), on the other hand, claims that globalization is leading to less inequality. In "Three Cheers for Global Capitalism," Norberg (2004) argues that free enterprise and deregulation lead to higher standards and quality of life for people around the globe, as well as more robust democratic institutions. Both authors make a strong case for their respective points of view.
Hart-Landsberg's Anti-Globalization Perspective
The anti-globalization perspective espoused by Hart-Landsberg (2006) rests on the assumption that "corporate profit making opportunities" have a deleterious effect on the working class (p. 1). However, Hart-Landsberg (2006) fails to provide adequate empirical evidence to support this claim, instead offering the reader an abundance of theory. An angry tone and a lack of concessions detract from the author's overall argument, though he does make some sound points.
The main points of the anti-globalization perspective center on the notion that almost all neoliberal policies sustaining globalization and free trade are designed to benefit corporations and centralize capital accumulation, rather than distribute profits equitably in pursuit of global equality. Capitalism and neoliberalism also undermine the power of governments to provide sustainable growth policies domestically, as governments collude with multinational corporations and international financing institutions such as the World Bank. Hart-Landsberg (2006) offers specific examples from China, India, and Southeast Asia, and provides some quantitative measures to substantiate his primary claims.
Norberg's Pro-Globalization Argument
In "Three Cheers for Global Capitalism," Norberg (2004) takes the polar opposite approach to the globalization debate, focusing on the net benefits of neoliberalism. As optimistic as Hart-Landsberg (2006) is pessimistic, Norberg's (2004) article has roughly the same methodological weaknesses as Hart-Landsberg's (2006): neither offers original quantitative research, and both are biased toward their own point of view. Nevertheless, Norberg's (2004) focus on the positive impacts of globalization does include statistics and data demonstrating that countries with liberal trade agreements tend to enjoy higher standards of living compared to those with anti-globalization policies.
Just as Hart-Landsberg (2006) does, Norberg refutes opposing points of view both in theory and by citing different statistics — which ultimately illustrates that data can be marshaled both for and against globalization. Interestingly, Hart-Landsberg (2006) concedes that globalization initially profits the wealthy to a greater degree than the poor, a concession that ends up bolstering the overall argument in favor of neoliberalism as a means of achieving greater global equality over time. One of the most notable points Norberg (2004) makes is that globalization will take time to benefit the poor. While this view echoes trickle-down economics, Norberg (2004) effectively demonstrates how individual purchasing power has increased alongside macro-level indicators such as GDP.
Conclusion: Toward Global Prosperity
Globalization is inevitable, and it is time to start working together with the entire planet to promote prosperity. Liberal trade policies do lead to some messy outcomes in places, but over generations, also lead to increased prosperity and empowerment. The anti-globalization debate rests on strong principles, as Coleman and Kerbo (2009) also point out. Yet the pro-globalization position is logically stronger and, in the end, more likely to yield the desirable outcome of improving the quality of life for as many people around the world as possible.
References
Coleman, J. W. & Kerbo, H. R. (2009). Social Problems (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hart-Landsberg, M. (2006). Neoliberalism: Myths and reality. Monthly Review (April 2006).
Norberg, J. (2004). Three cheers for global capitalism. The American Enterprise, 15 (June), 20–27.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.