Hannah Angel A.

Bartolata BSA 1
GE 4 Contemporary World
Assignment 1 - Essay

How can a globalizing world of differing countries – rich and poor, democratic
and authoritarian – best promote inclusive growth and human security by
meeting the challenges of inequality, climate change, and rising populism, and
global disease?

Inequality has been increasingly important on the global agenda in the two
decades leading up to the global financial crisis. Inequalities in wealth, income, and
security have risen to the fore, both within and between countries. Though there may
have been some improvement in income inequality trends in some countries or among
certain segments of the global population, it is unclear if there have been reductions in
other measures of inequality or in the underpinning wealth imbalances. The political
culture of many countries around the world is one of the most contentious changes it
has brought about.
An authoritarian country submits to a worldwide regime in exchange for some
benefit, usually economic, but is compelled to endure the political implications, such as
increased public pressure for democracy. While it may be possible to isolate local
populations during the early phases of change, the repercussions of trade liberalization
and marketization will eventually force the regime to take a more comprehensive
approach. However, economic liberalization can exacerbate issues that appear to
outstrip legislative reform attempts and even foster public support for authoritarian or
semi-authoritarian leadership. Globalization is a difficult and contentious process. It has
influenced the world in numerous ways and brought several nations together. However,
while it has brought countries closer together in some respects, it has also pushed them
apart in others.
Despite what the often-flawed facts on inequality reflect, the notion of inequality's
merciless expansion has been unleashed, with enormous political ramifications within
and across states. Politicians and economists alike cannot afford to ignore this part of
our global reality. Many of those who see themselves as victims of globalization have
rallied behind a range of increasingly populist, nationalist, and protectionist political
counter-responses in the face of very non-inclusive growth.While many proponents of
globalization believe that the cross-border flows of products, capital, and people it has
facilitated have considerably enhanced and improved the lives of many people around
the world, post-crisis resentment politics has increasingly identified these flows as the
cause of its discontent. In addition, globalization is acknowledged as a major contributor
to environmental degradation and climate change. Advocates of globalization are
increasingly aware that, in order to be defended, it must be made, and shown to be
made, fairer and more environmentally sustainable.
Although it may not be obvious, reducing economic disparity may be the best
strategy to improve adaptability to the effects of climate change. This is because the
poor are disproportionately affected by climate change's severe storms and droughts,
and boosting their access to assets, opportunities, and institutional capacity would help
them better respond and cope. To put it another way, reacting to climate change
necessitates reducing inequality since the repercussions of climate change are skewed
towards those with the least economic capacity to cope, and the poor typically fall
further behind as a result of environmental shocks. To be sure, climate change affects
everyone. And eliminating economic inequity is neither the most important nor the only
way to address its consequences. However, efforts to make economic growth more
equitable are undermined by these two defining concerns of our time: rising inequality
and increased climate change dangers. Worse, the two causes threaten to reverse
decades of poverty reduction and push the inclusive growth plan more out of reach.
However, at this moment, the tremendous erosion of popular faith in elite leaders,
policymakers, and specialists makes inclusive growth one of our epoch's most pressing
political concerns. To understand how this connects to the argument over inclusive
growth, we must move beyond the idea of narrow economic advantage and explore a
larger conception of human wellbeing. People observe the populist shift to nationalist
and anti-global politics precisely because exclusionary, globalized growth has been
experienced by citizens across a wide range of things that matter to their wellbeing
including their identity, security, and feeling of self-worth.
 The existing inclusive growth model is both philosophically and politically
unworkable, leading to a compositional fallacy in which advances in a limited set of
inclusivity indicators at the national level are misinterpreted as evidence of global
inclusivity growth. It must consider all of the ways in which individuals are barred from
participating in and benefiting from economic growth and development. Some of these
exclusionary mechanisms are market-based, but many are not; some are
national-specific, but many are global in nature. One of the most important aspects of
multilateral interdependence is how we interact with and utilize the planet's natural
resources in an equitable and sustainable manner. We make a case for a vision of
inclusive development that focuses on improving human well-being and takes into
account the interaction of economic growth and societal changes that result in
ecologically sustainable improvements in men, women, and children's life chances
wherever they live.