Page "Anti-globalization movement" Paragraph 58

Members of the anti-globalization movement argue that positive data from countries which largely ignored neoliberal prescriptions, notably China, discredits the evidence that pro-globalists present.

For example, concerning the parameter of per capita income growth, development economist Ha-Joon Chang writes that considering the record of the last two decades the argument for continuing neo-liberal policy prescriptions are " simply untenable.

" Noting that " It depends on the data we use, but roughly speaking, per capita income in developing countries grew at 3 % per year between 1960 and 1980, but has grown only at about 1. 5 % between 1980 and 2000.

And even this 1. 5 % will be reduced to 1 %, if we take out India and China, which have not pursued liberal trade and industrial policies recommended by the developed countries.

" Jagdish Bhagwati argues that reforms that opened up the economies of China and India contributed to their higher growth in 1980s and 1990s.

From 1980 to 2000 their GDP grew at average rate of 10 and 6 percent respectively.

This was accompanied by reduction of poverty from 28 percent in 1978 to 9 percent in 1998 in China, and from 51 percent in 1978 to 26 percent in 2000 in India.

Likewise, Joseph E. Stiglitz, speaking not only on China but East Asia in general, comments " The countries that have managed globalization ... such as those in East Asia, have, by and large, ensured that they reaped huge benefits ..." According to The Heritage Foundation, development in China was anticipated by Milton Friedman, who predicted that even a small progress towards economic liberalization would produce dramatic and positive effects.

China's economy had grown together with its economic freedom.

Critics of corporate-led globalization have expressed concern about the methodology used in arriving at the World Bank's statistics and argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research ( CEPR ), the period from 1980 – 2005 has seen diminished progress in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and to a lesser extent education.