There is little about In defense of globalization that can be described in less than superlative terms. This book by super-distinguished economist, Jagdish Bhagwati, should be on every policy makers table, and especially those who argue about the need for a “human face” to economic reforms. What Bhagwati demonstrates clinically, but with oodles of wit, is that globalization has brought development and unprecedented rates of growth to the poor countries, and the poor peoples, of the world. The guys with the ugly faces are those that have argued against globalization. These hapless types are the target of Bhagwati’s scalpel, and at the end of the marshalling of logic, facts, and figures, the human face is no longer recognizable.

The reason why globalization has been under attack is a subject more for psychiatrists than social scientists. Especially if the presumed losers of globalization are the poor of the world. Did poor countries grow slower with globalization? No. Bhagwati convincingly demonstrates that they grew faster. Did such growth "trickle down" to the poor members of developing societies? Yes, so much so that world inequality actually began to improve, reversing a century old trend. Within the poor countries, did globalization accelerate the wages of the poor? Yes. Was such acceleration faster than that of rich individuals in developing societies? Yes.

Woman does not live by bread alone. Did gender equality in schooling improve in the globalization years? Yes. Did mean wages of women rise faster than men? Yes, and in both parts of the world, developing and developed.

It is these facts, which Bhagwati marshals in his witty and authoritative style, which makes the contest with the globalization attackers so one-sided. Bhagwati has theory, he has evidence, and he has logic. The book is likely to become the ultimate reference to putdown any crazy notion possessed by the anti-globalizers; growth, inequality, discrimination, social justice, gender, pollution, environment, agricultural subsidies in the rich countries. Indeed, reading the evidence makes one wonder about the intellectiual possessions off those who have attacked globalization - did they do so merely on the basis of poetry? How could that be, since among the distinguished lieutenants in David's army were (are) reputed academics and distinguished left-wing NGOs, among them Oxfam and the World Bank. But the evidence marshaled by Bhagwati, on every empirical issue and more, suggests that even the poetry was not very good. It is the subject of another book, perhaps by a psychiatrist, about the antecedents of the anti- globalization movement.

But even economics sheds some light on why Goliath has been indulging in fictitious poetry. The plain simple reality is that the rich countries are relatively losing out - to globalization. The average wage in the rich, developed, Western countries has stayed constant, or declined, over the last quarter century, the period of globalization. Growth in average incomes has come about mostly through a large increase in the labor force participation rates of women. This is in complete contrast to not only what had happened in the previous twenty-five years, but the previous two hundred and fifty. This is a shock to the system, and to the peoples of the developed world. The people leading the anti- globalization movement are likely to belong to the large, educated, and to-be-perennially middle class societies of Europe and North America. They are articulate, they are angry, and they are unabashedly supported by the unionized right and the hippie left. (Both groups have always believed that the work ethic is for other, lesser, mortals). It is this support that gives the anti-globalization movement its color and its reliance on hysterical poetry to make their empirical observations. Which is why the match between Bhagwati and the anti-globalizers is akin to a WWF match.

What is it about globalization that allows such desirable outcomes to occur? From Adam Smith to Bhagwati, economists, and especially trade economists, have argued about the merits of trade for growth, development, and trend towards equality in incomes. Bhagwati's distinguished scholarship awaits a Nobel prize (parenthetically, and not unlike Naipaul, this Indian economist's prize is way, way, overdue and the pattern suggests that ideology of a particular color rather than merit holds sway in these ostensibly objective decisions on merit). Trade is what makes the world go around, and exploitation of trade opportunities is what makes countries grow faster. Our new, technocratic, Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh, wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the benefits of open trade for India.

The fact that the future belongs to the presently poor suggests that the most important issue for world development in this century is not going to be why globalization is bad, but how it can be managed to deliver welfare gains to all people, both the presently rich and the poor who are on their long way to becoming rich. That book awaits to be written - but is unfair to expect one book to answer all the important questions!