加入 getAbstract 阅读摘要

Globalization has left people behind. This is what we should do about it.

加入 getAbstract 阅读摘要

Globalization has left people behind. This is what we should do about it.

World Economic Forum,

5 分钟阅读
5 个要点速记
音频和文本

看看什么内容？

Now is the time to acknowledge globalization’s losers.

自动生成的音频
  • 0.5×
  • 0.75×
  • 1×
  • 1.25×
  • 1.5×
  • 1.75×
1×
自动生成的音频

Editorial Rating

7

Qualities

  • Analytical
  • Eye Opening
  • Well Structured

Recommendation

Brexit and the rapid rise of populism in Western societies are symptoms of a problem decades in the making: Globalization has left many people worse off. Diane Coyle, an economics professor at the University of Manchester, sees the current political crisis as a window of opportunity for policy change. Failure to address the economic discrepancies that globalization causes, she warns, can have disastrous political consequences. Her suggestions remain superficial, but – while always politically neutral – getAbstract recommends her timely wake-up call to policy makers and concerned citizens.

Summary

The process of globalization and automation has been changing the economic and social structure of Western societies since the 1980s. The disappearance of traditional jobs in small towns has left entire communities less prosperous and their residents increasingly resentful. Although enough data documented these changes, hardly anybody paid attention. The rise of populism and the 2016 Brexit vote in the United Kingdom served as wake-up calls for cosmopolitan big-city dwellers and policy makers, who now worry about the erosion of democracy in Western societies.

About the Author

Diane Coyle is a professor of economics at the University of Manchester and founder of Enlightenment Economics, a consultancy specializing in economic issues related to new technologies, innovation and competition policy.

Comment on this summary

  • Avatar
    Sign in to share your opinion
  • Avatar
    A. A. 8 years ago
    Any public initiative that leaves a swath of people behind is a 'loosing' initiative to start with. Makes one wonder - who really did benefit from such Globalization - the 1% few, or the article makes an incorrect presumption?