The fact that I am writing this column on a website is a small example of how I and you the reader are both beneficiaries of globalisation. In fact, for someone who has made it far enough in life to use a browser to reach this website, it would be impossible to imagine a world without internet, international trade, travel, foreign direct investment and financial transfers.

There have been many waves of globalisation. If we focus merely on the current phase, it is obvious that export-oriented policies of the East Asian and Latin American countries in the 1960s and oil exports and import of labour by the West Asian countries since the 1970s have helped millions of people to move out of poverty. Egyptian or Indian workers could have never imagined buying property and hosting lavish wedding ceremonies before they found construction jobs in the Gulf. In the last two decades, Chinese workers, managers, businessmen and Indian engineers and entrepreneurs have discovered new life in shopping malls and overseas holidays.

As construction workers in the Middle East and Asia, factory workers in China, software workers in India spend their extra income, new income and employment opportunities develop for traders, taxi drivers and temple priests. Their spending in turn enhances demand for housing, furniture, cars, television sets, and all kinds of other goods that generate jobs and more income.

Despite the obvious benefits why is there so much opposition to globalisation? Is it because globalisation is bad or is it simply inadequate and will always be inadequate?

If trade is an important indicator of globalisation, global economy is meant for few nations and a small number of elite within these nations. Only 10 countries account for 60% of global merchandise trade. Another 40 countries account for 30% of it. The remaining 150 odd nations of the world share the 10% of world trade. Thus, so called globalisation is not global at all. It is a game with 10 first class players, some marginal players and the majority of spectators.

This game is further concentrated in the hands of a few percentage of people within countries �€“ certainly the poor ones but also the rich nations.

The United States has a GDP of around $13,000 billion. More than a third of the population, comprising of households earning less than $30,000 accounts for only $650 billion or 5% of the national income. A recent article in Businessweek pointed out that people in this bracket have accumulated debt of almost $700 billion, or more than their collective annual income. Thus, the great American dream driven by globalisation is neither great nor a dream. It is the unfortunate reality of a miserable life for 40 million households living under heaps of debt, now trying to seek succour in fundamentalist religions.

China has moved at least 300 million people out of poverty thanks to globalisation. But it still leaves almost 1 billion relatively deprived. In the last five years, India moved 75 million from its bullock cart economy to a segment where you can participate in global economy. During the same period 75 million Indian children were born. The net national balance between those who can and cannot benefit from globalisation remains unchanged.

South Africa, Brazil, Russia, Vietnam have improved living conditions of 10-20% of their people. However, large chunks of the population of all these favourite countries of the students of globalisation remain in poverty. The result is there to see for all. Russia and South Africa compete with each other to emerge as major centres of crime. Brazil already has a lot of it in its favelas. If this is the story of the successful nations in the globalisation game, we don�€™t need to say much about those who are completely out in any case.

It is simply impossible for substantial portions of people to participate in the global economy simply because population is increasing at a much faster space than opportunities. In 1825, the world reached its first 1 billion mark of population. It took almost 150 years for population to treble by 1960. It has since doubled to cross 6 billion. Thus, in 50 years to 2010 the world population will have increased by 4 billion. During the same period almost 800 million people will have improved their life. Thus globalisation can help a maximum of 20% of people to change their life. Even today out of 6.6 billion people living on the earth less than 1/5th or l.1 billion have access to internet.

The big question of our time is therefore not whether globalisation is good or bad. It obviously helps 20% of us. It carries with it some anomalies that can be corrected. The big question is about the remaining 80%. Since it is unrealistic to expect globalisation to help them come up in life, what kind of economic policies can we conceive for uplifting them? Unfortunately, this is a question that draws very inadequate attention in the global policy discourse.