Th is paper examines data on economic growth and various social indicators and compares the past 25 years with the prior two decades . Th e paper fi nds that the past 25 years in low-and middle-income countries have seen a sharp slowdown in the rate of economic growth, as well as a decline in the rate of progress on major social indicators including life expectancy and infant and child mortality. Th e authors conclude that economists and policy-makers should devote more eff ort to determining the causes of the economic and development failure of the last quarter-century. JEL Classifi cation: O10, O40, O11

The era of globalization has brought substantially less progress than was achieved in the preceding 20 years. This study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research concludes that the data provide no evidence that the policies associated with globalization have improved outcomes for developing countries, and its findings challenge economists and policymakers who cite globalization as an engine of growth while pressing for policies that strengthen the trend. The study also served as a backdrop to the release of the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report on July 11, 2001. Using standard measures of economic growth, health outcomes, education, and literacy, the CEPR study compares the progress achieved during the period preceding globalization, 1960-80, with the period from 1980 to 2000, which was characterized by the reduction of tariff and nontariff barriers to trade, the removal of restrictions on international investment flows, and increasing intervention by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank on a wide range of economic and policy issues. While the evidence presented here does not prove that the policies associated with globalization were responsible for the deterioration in economic performance, it does present a very strong prima facie case that some structural and policy changes implemented during the last two decades are at least partly responsible for these declines.

The amount of shift work has increased dramatically in all industrialized nations during the past 30 years. In the United States, more than one-quarter of workers do shift work. The proportion of shift workers is highest in service and large-scale, capital-intensive industries. Shift work has spread subsequent to the rise of industrialization and the development of large corporations. It is used primarily to maximize the profits of the owners of these industries. On the other hand, it has substantial social and economic costs in terms of the ill health of shift workers. They suffer significantly more sleeping disturbances, nervous troubles, and disturbances of the alimentary tract. They also report disruptions in their family and social lives. The adverse consequences of shift work could be decreased by designing physiologically and socially appropriate shift schedules and by providing necessary additional services for shift workers. Unfortunately, these changes will be inadequate unless they are accompanied by efforts on the national level to restrict the use of shift work. Workers must push for laws restricting shift work to industries where it is technically necessary. Since shift work is really only one manifestation of the increasingly complex social and technical organization of work forced on workers in the drive to maximize profits, they must ultimately act together to gain control over their working conditions.

The relevant question is not whether there has been income growth and social progress, but the rate of such progress as compared with what has been feasible in the past. Conclusion: What Went Wrong? The Scorecard on Development ! 24

No abstract