Why Are We Still Arguing about Globalisation

This paper addresses the following question: why are we still arguing about globalisation? It analyses the recent evolution of debates relating to the impact of globalisation on poverty and economic growth in developing countries. A stock-take of selected cross-country econometric research is made and the ‘battle- lines’ drawn between globalisation ‘rampants’ or ‘spikeys’ - those who are unequivocally proglobalisation and globalisation ‘sceptics’ or ‘fluffies’ - those who find little or no evidence of the benefits of globalisation and are concerned about adverse impacts. Features of the literature are noted to inform the following section that focuses on how two large bodies of opposing ‘evidence’ can co-exist. Finally, in light of conceptual and methodological muddles, the historical experience of development in East Asia - a major ‘battleground’ in globalisation debates - is revisited.