What do you think?
Rate this book
[(Why Globalization Works )] [Author: Martin Wolf] [Jun-2005]
The debate on globalization has reached a level of passionate intensity that inhibits rational discussion. In this book, one of the world's foremost economic commentators explains how globalization works and why it makes sense. Martin Wolf confronts the charges against globalization, delivers a devastating critique of each and outlines a more hopeful future.
Unknown Binding
First published July 11, 2004
32 people are currently reading
669 people want to read
About the author
Martin Wolf
67 books124 followersMartin Wolf is associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, London. He was awarded the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) in 2000 for services to financial journalism. Wolf won the Overseas Press Club of America’s prize for Best Commentary in 2013 and the 2019 Lifetime Achievement Award at the Gerald Loeb Awards. He was a member of the UK’s Independent Commission on Banking in 2010-11. Wolf is the author of The Shifts and The Shocks: What We’ve Learned— and Have Still to Learn—from the Financial Crisis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
May 3, 2012
I really tried to read this book and listen to what Wolf was saying, but I struggled with it too much. And when I say 'struggled' I don't mean I had a hard time understanding it (this book was a further reading rec for an economics module that I completed, so most of the material and groundwork had already been covered etc). I had a hard time getting past the author's irritating and arrogant tone, as well as the sheer amount of repetitiveness that he uses, which is why I ended up skimming some parts.
If you're going to advocate that globalization is the best thing since sliced bread and that free markets lead to happy and free societies, then at least write your book in a way that doesn't make you come across as a self-righteous, arrogant economist who has his enormous ego shoved up his ass.
If you're going to advocate that globalization is the best thing since sliced bread and that free markets lead to happy and free societies, then at least write your book in a way that doesn't make you come across as a self-righteous, arrogant economist who has his enormous ego shoved up his ass.
September 27, 2020
Okay. I knew going in I wasn’t going to agree with a lot in this book, but he does have a few good arguments. However he spoils it entirely with his arrogance and unbelievable snide and nasty tone.
He refers to those presenting arguments and concerns about the impacts of globalization as hysterical, uninformed and just stupid. While he complains about exaggeration among critics he is constantly guilty of it himself, not to mention what has to be deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection.
He allows no moderation in his characterization of opposition. Either you’re for globalization or you’re a communist/fascist/anarchist.
He makes numerous firm statements, presented as fact, without citation, although his notes and references go on for pages and pages.
If he didn’t have his back up so high, if he wasn’t quite so horrified and distraught, he might find quite a few very reasonable people who aren’t asking him to completely dismantle his lovely little system but want to make it work for more people and for the planet. The whole time I’m reading this I’m thinking, why is he so angry? Why is he so rude? Why is he so condescending?
The book is also quite repetitive, the sign of a writer too closely wedded to his schema and who thinks those reading this probably don’t understand anything as well as he does so he’d better repeat it a few times.
If you’ve read this far, you may be asking, why in the world did you read this, why did you bother to finish it? One, my son had read it in a university course and wanted to know my thoughts and two, I learned a lot while scribbling rebuttals in the margins. You shouldn’t read just those you agree with.
He refers to those presenting arguments and concerns about the impacts of globalization as hysterical, uninformed and just stupid. While he complains about exaggeration among critics he is constantly guilty of it himself, not to mention what has to be deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection.
He allows no moderation in his characterization of opposition. Either you’re for globalization or you’re a communist/fascist/anarchist.
He makes numerous firm statements, presented as fact, without citation, although his notes and references go on for pages and pages.
If he didn’t have his back up so high, if he wasn’t quite so horrified and distraught, he might find quite a few very reasonable people who aren’t asking him to completely dismantle his lovely little system but want to make it work for more people and for the planet. The whole time I’m reading this I’m thinking, why is he so angry? Why is he so rude? Why is he so condescending?
The book is also quite repetitive, the sign of a writer too closely wedded to his schema and who thinks those reading this probably don’t understand anything as well as he does so he’d better repeat it a few times.
If you’ve read this far, you may be asking, why in the world did you read this, why did you bother to finish it? One, my son had read it in a university course and wanted to know my thoughts and two, I learned a lot while scribbling rebuttals in the margins. You shouldn’t read just those you agree with.
November 19, 2008
Wolf has a lot of good and bad points.
Good:
Often uses data to back up beliefs
Tries to pre emptively argue against his detractors
Bad:
He is incredibly arrogant
He writing and thought oozes with confirmation bias and unintellectual thought
Most of the "arguments" he refutes are straw men arguments that aren't taken seriously by anyone
He dismisses many genuine arguments because they "obviously" aren't the case or are "irrelevant"
Opinion: Wolf thinks he is more insightful/intelligent than he is and would do much better if his book was honest and inquisitive because he does make some great points
Good:
Often uses data to back up beliefs
Tries to pre emptively argue against his detractors
Bad:
He is incredibly arrogant
He writing and thought oozes with confirmation bias and unintellectual thought
Most of the "arguments" he refutes are straw men arguments that aren't taken seriously by anyone
He dismisses many genuine arguments because they "obviously" aren't the case or are "irrelevant"
Opinion: Wolf thinks he is more insightful/intelligent than he is and would do much better if his book was honest and inquisitive because he does make some great points
July 8, 2007
I tend to disagree with worship at the altar of economic liberalism, however, there are far better books deifying globalization. The book seemed slapped together and overly repetitive. I try not to judge books on the basis of whether or not I agree with their core themes; however, the lack of evidence throughout the book just makes Wolf seem like a big globalization apologist.
July 7, 2008
Unfortunately, this book is nowhere near as good as it needed to be. That globalization works, meaning that it helps raise the wealth of a majority of people (including poor countries; China would not be where it is today, and likely much nastier, without globalization), is a fact that needs far more voice today. The problem with this book is that it preaches to the choir instead of trying to convince the people who actually need convincing.
The main issue I have is that the author treats his opponents as children. Admittedly, it's hard not to with all those yahoos in sea turle outfits showing up at damn near every protest (sea turtle against the Iraq war is a stretch; focus, people). But it doesn't help his case.
And what the author tends to gloss over, that there are some losers with globalization, is what hurts globalization's case with many people. Yes, comparatively the loss is minimal; a handful of basis points against huge increases in GDP. But even one basis point over, say, 150 million employed people means 15,000 people get the shaft. Some of that nice GDP increase could be spread around to ease their pain.
A change in tone, and a little more sympathy, could have really helped this book.
The main issue I have is that the author treats his opponents as children. Admittedly, it's hard not to with all those yahoos in sea turle outfits showing up at damn near every protest (sea turtle against the Iraq war is a stretch; focus, people). But it doesn't help his case.
And what the author tends to gloss over, that there are some losers with globalization, is what hurts globalization's case with many people. Yes, comparatively the loss is minimal; a handful of basis points against huge increases in GDP. But even one basis point over, say, 150 million employed people means 15,000 people get the shaft. Some of that nice GDP increase could be spread around to ease their pain.
A change in tone, and a little more sympathy, could have really helped this book.
April 15, 2010
Summary: Free markets lead to free societies. Cool.
The only problem (that the author glosses over) is that the rich countries are in the business of holding down poor countries with tariffs, subsidies, the WTO, the IMF and all kinds of other impediments. The solution is more regional economic integration a la the EU. Except the EU is vulnerable to destruction right now because Germans don't like to bail out Greeks (at least when I bailed out Citigroup, I still bailed out Americans) and because Britons don't want Poles taking the jobs in the plumbing sector.
This is the world we live in, Phil Collins
The only problem (that the author glosses over) is that the rich countries are in the business of holding down poor countries with tariffs, subsidies, the WTO, the IMF and all kinds of other impediments. The solution is more regional economic integration a la the EU. Except the EU is vulnerable to destruction right now because Germans don't like to bail out Greeks (at least when I bailed out Citigroup, I still bailed out Americans) and because Britons don't want Poles taking the jobs in the plumbing sector.
This is the world we live in, Phil Collins
July 11, 2009
This book addresses globalization almost exclusively from an economic standpoint. Viewed within those bounds, it seems pretty good, though I had a hard time telling how much to take at face value since I didn’t feel like I had enough of a grasp of macroeconomics, trade, and finance to really engage and argue with it. He seemed to be making every effort to be even-handed, in that sober British-empiricist sort of way, but it’s hard to tell if that’s genuine or just a rhetorical strategy.
But, I’ve also not had much doubt that globalization has been an economic boon, if a somewhat fraught and unstable one, for most people and countries involved, or that the lack of integration with global markets is what’s really killing the poorest of the poor countries, which is the best and most compelling argument he makes. The problem is that he refuses to engage the argument that there might be other values that aren’t strictly economic but are nonetheless requirements for human health and happiness. Economic growth is of course incredibly important, but it’s necessary-but-not-sufficient, and economists can never seem to grasp that simple fact. He also blatantly caricatures those who would make arguments against a solely economic valuation of human happiness, almost always picking his putative opponents from the dumbest and most flamboyant 5% of people who question the costs of globalization, etc. The old “dirty hippies” kneejerk thing, which I would have thought he was above based on the soberness of much of his argument. Whenever he argues against fellow economists, he’s always evenhanded and fair, but anytime a non-economic concern comes up, he quickly gets dismissive and petulant.
So, if you want a look at globalization as an economic phenomenon from a market fundamentalist who at least seems fairly even-handed and willing to acknowledge and critique the errors and injustices that have happened in a strictly economic context, this is your book. If you want a broad-based argument for or critical examination of globalization that really addresses environmental, social, cultural, and the myriad other associated concerns, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Definitely worth reading as part of a broad survey, which is sort of what I’m gradually doing on the topic, but I wouldn’t read it as a sole source.
But, I’ve also not had much doubt that globalization has been an economic boon, if a somewhat fraught and unstable one, for most people and countries involved, or that the lack of integration with global markets is what’s really killing the poorest of the poor countries, which is the best and most compelling argument he makes. The problem is that he refuses to engage the argument that there might be other values that aren’t strictly economic but are nonetheless requirements for human health and happiness. Economic growth is of course incredibly important, but it’s necessary-but-not-sufficient, and economists can never seem to grasp that simple fact. He also blatantly caricatures those who would make arguments against a solely economic valuation of human happiness, almost always picking his putative opponents from the dumbest and most flamboyant 5% of people who question the costs of globalization, etc. The old “dirty hippies” kneejerk thing, which I would have thought he was above based on the soberness of much of his argument. Whenever he argues against fellow economists, he’s always evenhanded and fair, but anytime a non-economic concern comes up, he quickly gets dismissive and petulant.
So, if you want a look at globalization as an economic phenomenon from a market fundamentalist who at least seems fairly even-handed and willing to acknowledge and critique the errors and injustices that have happened in a strictly economic context, this is your book. If you want a broad-based argument for or critical examination of globalization that really addresses environmental, social, cultural, and the myriad other associated concerns, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Definitely worth reading as part of a broad survey, which is sort of what I’m gradually doing on the topic, but I wouldn’t read it as a sole source.
September 1, 2007
I was being ironic with the recommendations bit, by and by. Wolf, I reckon, is a classical economist: it's the invisible hand - and if the economy/market isn't working, blame the interference of politics. This is a writer after Ben's heart: he argues that the very existence of the nation-state prevents progress - not that it is a complex argument, anyone could have told you that a truly integrated economy is made impossible by the concept of territorial integrity and sovereignty.
For all my political misgivings, Wolf is however most erudite on the need to prevent protectionism. He swung me over on that point. This is a decent book for any civil servant (we are born to be defenders of globalisation), anyone who is tired of Stiglitz (and his many books of the same subject) and anyone who wants to understand globalisation without the economic mumbo-jumbo.
For all my political misgivings, Wolf is however most erudite on the need to prevent protectionism. He swung me over on that point. This is a decent book for any civil servant (we are born to be defenders of globalisation), anyone who is tired of Stiglitz (and his many books of the same subject) and anyone who wants to understand globalisation without the economic mumbo-jumbo.
December 30, 2018
My MBA professor used the book as a companion to the class lectures with the intent of showing all the points of views regarding Globalization. It's a bit dated as it was released in 2004, but that's what actually made it valuable for our sessions. The graphs and tables helped the younger students grasp the valuable lessons of the late 20th century and the landscape of the early 2000s.
It is a very well written book with thoughtful insight on the good, bad and ugly of the modern markets and international trade scene. Good starter book for those interesting in learning more about the subject matter.
It is a very well written book with thoughtful insight on the good, bad and ugly of the modern markets and international trade scene. Good starter book for those interesting in learning more about the subject matter.
March 5, 2020
Martin Wolf signed and presented me his book Why Globalization Works during a business meeting in North America in 2005. I did read it during my frequent business trips for many times. I share all the ideas, presented by Martin Wolf in his interesting book. Great book to read for everyone!!!
January 23, 2024
get a load of this guy!
July 21, 2020
Martin Wolf's "Why Globalization Works" is a liberal (in the traditional sense) defense of modern globalization. The book is divided into five parts.
Part one lays out the nature of the debate over globalization and presents some general definitions of what globalization is.
Part two is Wolf's own defense of globalization. His defense includes the argument that free markets work, and that they are the only mode of economic organization consistent with well-functioning democracies. (The same argument, essentially, made by Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom" Capitalism and Freedom. Although Wolf extols the values of the free market, he does not negate the importance of robust and active governments. The state must provide public goods, remedy market failures, and provide for the least fortunate in society (61). (More on this in my criticism below).
Part three is a brief history of globalization. It is here that I think Wolf makes his most significant contribution to the discussion: globalization is not a twentieth century phenomenon. Rather, the 19th century saw the rise of liberal globalization that brought many benefits to the world. For the first time in human history, the vast majority of individuals began to experience a better life. (A case made more strongly by Deidre McCloskey in "Bourgeois Dignity" Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World). This progress of globalization was halted by the European disaster that was 1914-1945. Globalization today is therefore less a new event in human history, and more a recovery of a good thing stopped by communism, nationalism, fascism, and other enemies of progress.
In Part Four, Wolf addresses specific objections to globalization. He clearly grasps the arguments made against global capitalism, and in my mind provides sufficient refutation to each of them. This section is the best to read for critics of globalization, but it is also the most challenging, as Wolf dives deep into the nitty-gritty of technical economic issues.
Part Five is Wolf's lackluster conclusion about where we go from here (that is, the 2004 "here").
The rise of economic nationalism in 2016 around the globe makes Wolf's book important reading. While most of the objections addressed come from the left, they are equally effective in rooting out the economic ignorance of the nationalist right. Those in rich countries who reject globalism in many ways are biting the hand that feeds them. A global market economy is a good thing, and Wolf deserves commendation for his defense of it.
So why not five stars? The book suffers from the same flaw Wolf accuses many antiglobalists of harboring: inconsistency. While it provides a defense of the global market economy, it largely takes for granted the desirability of heavy handed regulations within nations. The market may work abroad, but not at home. At times, Wolf's dismissal of the validity of the market at home is condescending ("In the case of health, for example, it is impossible for the ordinary consumer to know what he or she needs" (63). Really? Why should a government thousands of miles away know better about my health needs than I do?). His book is no defense of laissez-faire, but rather of a market welfare state along Scandinavian lines. (By the way- none of these countries are socialist). And therein lies the rub: If the market works as well as Wolf claims, why regulate it away at home? The fact that he has proved the former ought to lead to a rejection of the latter.
Part one lays out the nature of the debate over globalization and presents some general definitions of what globalization is.
Part two is Wolf's own defense of globalization. His defense includes the argument that free markets work, and that they are the only mode of economic organization consistent with well-functioning democracies. (The same argument, essentially, made by Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom" Capitalism and Freedom. Although Wolf extols the values of the free market, he does not negate the importance of robust and active governments. The state must provide public goods, remedy market failures, and provide for the least fortunate in society (61). (More on this in my criticism below).
Part three is a brief history of globalization. It is here that I think Wolf makes his most significant contribution to the discussion: globalization is not a twentieth century phenomenon. Rather, the 19th century saw the rise of liberal globalization that brought many benefits to the world. For the first time in human history, the vast majority of individuals began to experience a better life. (A case made more strongly by Deidre McCloskey in "Bourgeois Dignity" Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World). This progress of globalization was halted by the European disaster that was 1914-1945. Globalization today is therefore less a new event in human history, and more a recovery of a good thing stopped by communism, nationalism, fascism, and other enemies of progress.
In Part Four, Wolf addresses specific objections to globalization. He clearly grasps the arguments made against global capitalism, and in my mind provides sufficient refutation to each of them. This section is the best to read for critics of globalization, but it is also the most challenging, as Wolf dives deep into the nitty-gritty of technical economic issues.
Part Five is Wolf's lackluster conclusion about where we go from here (that is, the 2004 "here").
The rise of economic nationalism in 2016 around the globe makes Wolf's book important reading. While most of the objections addressed come from the left, they are equally effective in rooting out the economic ignorance of the nationalist right. Those in rich countries who reject globalism in many ways are biting the hand that feeds them. A global market economy is a good thing, and Wolf deserves commendation for his defense of it.
So why not five stars? The book suffers from the same flaw Wolf accuses many antiglobalists of harboring: inconsistency. While it provides a defense of the global market economy, it largely takes for granted the desirability of heavy handed regulations within nations. The market may work abroad, but not at home. At times, Wolf's dismissal of the validity of the market at home is condescending ("In the case of health, for example, it is impossible for the ordinary consumer to know what he or she needs" (63). Really? Why should a government thousands of miles away know better about my health needs than I do?). His book is no defense of laissez-faire, but rather of a market welfare state along Scandinavian lines. (By the way- none of these countries are socialist). And therein lies the rub: If the market works as well as Wolf claims, why regulate it away at home? The fact that he has proved the former ought to lead to a rejection of the latter.
to-buy
February 21, 2017Recommended by Larry Summers former US treasury secretary and Harvard professor on 5books.com
January 4, 2012
I bought this when it came out, as a counterpoint to books by Joe Stieglitz and Jean Ziegler I had just read. I only got to it now, and I'm sorry I waited. It is a remarkable book, deeply researched, comprehensive in its scope, unafraid to address all arguments in the debate, whether it's a pro- or anti-globalization, coming from the right or from the left. Very highly recommended. (As, by the way, is Stieglitz's "Globalization and its discontents".) The section on finance is especially prescient considering it was written years before the 2008 crisis.
July 27, 2007
The author is somewhat narrow-minded in his view of environmental protection and "comparative advantage", but overall, the case he makes for globalization is enough to convince a fervent liberal.
If you don't have a background in econ and you don't want to have to read sentence three or four times, this may not be the book for you.
If you don't have a background in econ and you don't want to have to read sentence three or four times, this may not be the book for you.
February 15, 2009
A laborious and detached endorsement of neoliberal policies and strict adherence to free market ideals. Insulting in its generalizations and short on acknowledgment of the shades of gray that define our world, Wolf's book is a good reason to be repulsed by economic liberals and unregulated markets.
October 27, 2012
according to my pol. econ. professor, this is the most well-articulated argument FO globalization out there. that tells you something, because its terrible. i recommend reading it, however, to get a taste for the counterargument. that way you can look smarter at cocktail parties.
March 15, 2009
Globalization
December 17, 2019
When I first read this in 2004 as an economic neophyte, I rated it 5 stars.
June 28, 2013
Clear and compelling data and analysis of the net positive impacts of globalization. Concise and intriguing, especially relevant to 21st century global affairs.
October 17, 2013
A Powerful argument!
June 29, 2008
Kind of a slog, as you would expect with a title like that, but excellent analysis. Go Wal-Mart!
October 27, 2008
Made me less fearful of world trade.
Read
May 1, 2017Edition: 2nd
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews