Globalization and income disparity: intrinsically related

Amartya Sen writes in "How to Judge Globalism" (published in The Globalization Reader, Frank J. Lechner and John Boli, ed.) that globalization is tied to income inequality in this century, but may also present a way to start fixing it. Sen discusses two opposing views of globalization: as "a gift from the West to the world" that benefits all other nations by introducing them to economic policies that increase standard of living; and as a form of Western imperialism that subjugates other cultures, forcing them to bend to alien norms. Under both interpretations, the West benefits, but only under the former do the poorer nations. Sen suggests that given globalization's reality and permanence, it is something that will have to become mutually beneficial for both rich and poor nations. But does that distinction ever go away? Should it? And will it be because of or in spite of globalism?

Sen says that "global capitalism is much more concerned with expanding the domain of market relations than with, say, establishing democracy, expanding elementary education, or enhancing the social opportunities of society's underdogs." Perhaps, but a rich country is a lot more likely to have those things occur as "side effects" than a poor one. However, she (he?) also asserts that globalization is not an effective mechanism for capitalizing poor countries, and doesn't lead to prosperity, so the point is kind of moot.

The main relevant thing about this article was that the author basically says that globalization is here to stay but there needs to be some mechanism that allows the poor to get what they need. "Globalization deserves a reasoned defense, but it also needs reform." It would be interesting if someone could provide that, wouldn't it, Mr. (Ms.?) Sen? I guess that's my job.