The answer to the question, “has globalization harmed developing countries?,” is “No!” Quite the contrary, in fact. Trade and globalization have improved the lives of billions of people in developing countries. For example, in the short span of 1990 through 1998, the number of people living in extreme poverty in East Asia and the Pacific decreased 41 percent-one of the largest and most rapid reductions in history.

Today, 24 developing countries representing about 3 billion people, including China, India and Mexico, have adopted policies enabling their citizens to take advantage of globalization. The net result is that their economies are catching up with rich ones.

Over the last two decades, according to the World Bank, these 24 countries achieved higher growth in incomes, longer life expectancy and better schooling. The incomes of the least globalized countries during this same period, including Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, dropped or remained static. What distinguishes the fastest growing developing countries from the slowest is clear: their openness to trade.

For many of the world's poorest countries, the primary problem is not too much globalization, but their inability to participate in it. Study after study corroborate this. For example, the WTO report, Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty, says, “Trade liberalization helps poor countries catch up with rich ones,“ and concludes that trade liberalization “is essential if poor people are to have any hope of a brighter future.”

Globalization, Poverty and Inequality, published by the Progressive Policy Institute, contends that less globalization is generally associated with less development, and concludes that no country has managed to lift itself out of poverty without integrating into the global economy.

And who would know this better than former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, who said, “In every case where a poor nation has significantly overcome its poverty, this has been achieved while engaging in production for export markets and opening itself to the influx of foreign goods, investment and technology-that is, by participating in globalization.”

Even former sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who spoke out against aspects of global dependence, promoted-not resisted-globalization as president of Brazil.

Developing countries with open economies grew by 4.5 percent a year in the 1970s and 1980s, while those with closed economies grew by 0.7 percent a year, concludes the National Bureau of Economic Research report, Economic Convergence and Economic Policies. At this rate, open economies double in size every 16 years, while closed economies double every 100 years.

Globalization may not be a panacea for all economic ills, but it certainly helps alleviate them. However, it has had negative consequences on some developing countries with distorted economies or a lack of sound legal or financial systems. As a result, anti-globalists with good intentions but bad policy recommendations often make globalization the scapegoat for many of the world's problems.

In the end, the facts don't lie. Since the 1970s-when policies supporting globalization got traction-through 2001, world infant mortality rates decreased by almost half, adult literacy increased more than a third, primary school enrollment rose and the average life span shot up 11 years. Looking forward, from 2002 through 2025, life expectancy is projected to rise from 62 years to 68 years in less developed countries, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

The World Bank report, Globalization, Growth and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy, suggests that globalization must be better harnessed to help the world's poorest, most marginalized countries improve the lives of their citizens-an especially important effort in the wake of September 11. Agreed. But how to achieve this is not yet known.

In the meantime consider this. If remaining world merchandise trade barriers are eliminated, potential gains are estimated at $250 to $650 billion annually, according to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. About one-third to one-half of these gains would accrue in developing countries. Removal of agricultural supports would raise global economic welfare by an additional $128 billion annually, with some $30 billion going to developing countries. WT