Kot navajam v sosednjem postu, je eden izmed negativnih učinkov globalizacije povečevanje neenakosti znotraj držav v razvoju. Nobelovec Eric Maskin je prejšnji teden na srečanju nobelovcev “Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences” predstavil članek, ki pravi, da je problem globalizacije, da polarizira delovno silo znotraj držav zaradi nepopolnega “matchinga” med visoko in nizko kvalificiranimi. V državah v razvoju ni veliko lastnega razvoja v smislu R&R, pač pa običajno multinacionalke pripeljejo vso znanje in tehnologijo, pri tem pa zaposlijo nekaj visoko izobraženih lokalnih menedžerjev ter veliko nizko kvalificirane delovne sile. Prvi dobijo visoke plače, drugi pa izjemno nizke, pri čemer je interes države, da plače ostanejo nizke zaradi ohranjanja konkurenčnosti. Zaradi tega se neenakost znotraj držav povečuje. Kot opozarja Richard Baldwin (2012), je tovrstna globalizacija prek globalnih verig vrednosti lahko problematična, ker ni domačega razvoja, multinacionalke pa se lahko umaknejo kadarkoli in za njimi ne ostane nič.

Ta Maskinova teorija je zanimiva in je v skladu s stiliziranimi dejstvi glede učinkov delovanja globalnih verig vrednosti. Seveda pa jo bo treba bolj robustno preveriti na podatkih. Na tem projektu trenutno dela naša skupina z Ekonomske fakultete.

Defenders of globalisation often say that, whatever distress it may cause for rich-world workers, it has been good for poor countries. Between 1988 and 2008, global inequality, as measured by the distribution of income between rich and poor countries, has narrowed, according to the World Bank. But within each country, the story is less rosy: globalisation has resulted in widening inequality in many poor places.

This can be seen in the behaviour of the Gini index, a measure of inequality. (If the index is one, a country’s entire income goes to one person; if zero, the spoils are equally divided.) Sub-Saharan Africa saw its Gini index rise by 9% between 1993 and 2008. China’s soared by 34% over 20 years. In few places has it fallen.

Economists are puzzled: the data contradict the predictions of David Ricardo, one of the founding fathers of their discipline. […]Comparative advantage predicts that when a poor country starts to trade globally, demand for low-skilled workers will rise disproportionately. That, in turn, should boost their wages relative to those of higher-skilled locals, and so push down income inequality within that country. The theory neatly explains the impact of the first wave of globalisation.

…

But growing inequality in developing countries leaves Ricardo’s disciples befuddled and suggests the theory needs updating. Eric Maskin of Harvard University has attempted just this at the Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences […] Mr Maskin’s theory relies on what he calls worker “matching”. Unskilled workers can be more productive when matched with skilled ones—that is, when they work together.

…

Globalisation, though, does not boost wages for all. The least skilled cannot “match” with skilled workers in rich countries; worse, they have lost access to skilled workers in their own economies. The result is growing income inequality.

Mr Maskin’s approach is not entirely satisfying. He does not offer data to back up his theory (such is the privilege of the Nobel laureate). “We need micro-data on matches between firms in developing countries to examine whether skilled workers benefit through the mechanism Mr Maskin suggests,” says Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale University. But if he is right, he poses a challenge to globalisation’s advocates: figuring out how to reap its rewards without leaving the least-skilled in poor countries behind.

Vir: The Economist