INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, world output has been expanding and many countries are

benefiting from increased cross-border trade and investments. Many others suffer because

economic regimes are inefficiently managed, and this weakness reduces their capacity to

successfully compete globally (Schneider and Enste, 2002). International mobility of capital,

resulting from advances in communications technology and liberalization of financial

markets has intensified as the world economy witnesses the unleashing of market forces.

Deregulation of domestic markets, their opening to competition, privatization and the retreat

of the state from economic management are also features of the current global order.

However, this same process encourages rising inequality among nations. The liberalization of

the world economy, for instance, has proceeded in such a way that the growth prospects of

developing countries are being undermined. Thus, while restrictions have been lifted on the

freedom of capital and skilled labour to move to areas of high returns, the restrictions on the

mobility of unskilled labour remain. Moreover, as developing countries have increased their

capacity to produce and export manufactures, the developed countries have become active in

promoting tariff peaks and escalations (UNCTAD, 2001a). Such measures can neither solve

the South’s development problems nor allow for a narrowing of the North– South divide.

CONCEPT OF GLOBALIZATION

The word ‘globalization’ was first employed in 1930, according to the Oxford English

Dictionary, to denote a holistic view of human experience in education. An early description

of globalization was authored by the American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze

Russell who coined the term ‘corporate giants’ in 1897. This term, however, was not widely

used by economists and social scientists until the 1960s. Since its inception, the concept of

globalization has inspired numerous competing definitions and interpretations, with

antecedent dating back to the great movements of trade and empire across Asia and the

Indian Ocean from the 15th century onwards.

Globalization (or globalisation), in Wikipedia, describes a process by which regional

economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of

communication, transportation, and trade. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to

economic globalization, that is, the integration of national economies into the international

economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of

technology. However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination

of economic, technological, socio-cultural, political, and biological factors.

Globalization is the term used to describe the growing worldwide integration of the people

and countries. According to Paulo (1998) the process of increasing global integration has

accelerated dramatically in the technology. Peter (2002) views globalization as a process of

integrating economic decision-making such as consumption, investment and saving all across

the world. This means that globalization is a process of creating global market place in which

increasingly, all nations are forced to participate. Among the features that characterize

globalization include interconnection of sovereign countries through trade and capital flow;

harmonization of the economic rules that govern the interaction or relationship between these

sovereign nations; creating structures to support and facilitate dependence and inter

connection; and creation of a global market place (David 1997).

The process of globalization is not restricted to the economic sphere only. The advancement

in information technology has resulted in the opening and exposure of the people of the world

to more than ever before, different and alternative views and as a consequence influences

almost all aspects of human life. This may influence the stand of Salimono (1999) when he

maintains that globalization is a process of harmonization of different culture and beliefs of

the world in to one. In the like manner, Garry (1998) views globalization as the

harmonization of political system and enthronement of the culture of west. It is observed that

decisions taken by countries operating under separate, sovereign and autonomous

environment has bearing on others. The emergence of global market is increasingly

weakening these autonomous units. Globalization is a multi-dimensional concept with

political, socio-economic transnational and business undertones. It is simply the integration

of national economics leading to near free movement of goods, services, capital, skill among

companies which regards everywhere as their “home” market and serving customer with

“globalized” tastes and preferences, using the same or slightly different projects and

strategies (Orunmoluyi, 2000). In other words, globalization is a process of increased

integration of national economy with the rest of the world to create a more coherent global

economy. This can be achieved through the creation of a global market place in which free

markets; investment flows, trade and information are integrated.

According to Awake (2002) globalization will heighten the level of interconnectedness

between and among nations through a systematic integration of autonomous economies into a

global system of production and distribution. It should be noted that globalization seek to

eliminate trade barriers through unfitted integration and interaction of global capital and

labour thereby leading to an unhindered exchange of goods and service across border.

Globalization is a process that affects firms, industries, economies and nations. (Bayo, 2000).

But the mere fact that a firm operates in a global world does not quality it a global company.

In order to measure the globaliness of a company, it should have the following attributes as

posited by Francis (2000):

1. Possessing a standard product that is marketed uniformly across the world;

2. Sourcing out all assets (not just product) on an optional basis, i.e, from wherever and

whoever provided it is competitive;

3. Achieving market access in line with break-even volume of needed infrastructure;

4. The ability to contest the asset as much as products when circumstance requires, i.e.

neutralizing the assets and competencies of global competitors; and

5. Providing all functions (or competencies) with global orientation even when they are

primarily local in scope.

The key elements of globalization involve the inter connection of sovereign nations through

trade and capital flows; harmonization of economic rules governing relationship between

these nation; creating structures to support and facilities dependence and interconnection;

global configuration and co-ordination of business activities with local responsiveness; and

creating a global market place (Salimono, 1999).

CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT

Development means different thing to different people. This may be the reason for Idode

(1989) to describe development a problematic concept. According to him, development has

been used in many different ways including political, economic and social. In other words,

development is a construct of many applications

In a view expressed by Okobiah (1984), development involves a process of economic,

political and social change in a progress direction towards a better social well being for the

member of the society. According to Nwana (1998) development involves harnessing of the

resources for the realization of their major objectives, solving their major problems. This

means that, development from the foregoing consists of activities required in improving the

attitudes and potentials of people. Probably, this justifies the view of Boateng (1990), which

describes development as the process aimed at improving the living conditions and

circumstances of human beings both directly and indirectly. Considering the various views,

national development encompasses social, economic, cultural and political development. In

other words, the components of national development include social development, economic

development, political development and cultural development.

Social development refers to positive social change. According to Adeniyi (1995) social

change is the process through which the patterned network rules and institutions are modified

in the course of time. In other words it refers to the process of transformation of the ways of

life and structures of society over-time. The transformation or modification should lead to

new behaviour which reflects improvement on the old attitude. The term economic

development refers to the improvement in the general standard of living of the people of the

society. Falodun, et al (1997) observed that economic development is the attainment of ideals

of modernization such as the rise in productivity, social and economic equity, improved

institution and values. This means that economic development is concerned with the

improvement in the quality of life of the people.

Political development refers to the process of evolving an acceptable political behaviour that

would facilitate the achievement of the national objective such as a free and democratic

society. It is also the attainment of a just and egalitarian society. In other words, there is the

development of civilized and refined political culture that corresponds with the objective of

the country. Culture refers to the total way of life of the people. Cultural development

involves a process of improving the culture of the society. Since culture is dynamic, it is

expected that the culture of the society should reflect the socioeconomic requirement of the

people from time to time. Adeniyi (1995) noted that improvement in culture of the people

involves making the culture relevant and in line with the present and future interests, values,

aspiration, and needs of the society.

DISCUSSION ON TRENDS IN GLOBALIZATION

The world is fast becoming a global village, a metaphor that is often invoked to depict global

interdependence and the increasing interaction among and the integration of economic

activities of human societies around the world (Ajayi, 2001). In concrete terms, globalization

is the intensification of cross-border trade and increased financial and foreign direct

investment flows among nations, promoted by rapid advances in and liberalization of

communication and information technology (Islam, 1999 and Aninat, 2002). Thus,

globalization conjures the picture of a borderless world with greater economic integration that

enhances the living standards of people across the globe.

Even then, globalization is not a novelty in the development process. On the contrary, the late

19th century was a period of dramatic integration of the world economy as evidenced by the

rapid expansion in world trade, the founding of the Latin Monetary Union in 1865 and the

emergence of the gold standard in 1878 (Onwuka, 1998 and O’Rourke and Williamson,

1999). Although the retreat into managed trade by the major trading countries between the

first and second world wars dampened the outlook of global economic intercourse, the post–

1945 multilateralism has virtually permeated all corners of the globe.

Since 1990, increased economic cooperation has lifted the ratio of the growth of world export

volume to the growth of gross world product to a range of 2.5-3 from an average of below 2

in the 1970s and 1980s (United Nations, 2001). Other benefits of globalization, which include

exposure to new ideas and products, greater specialization and expanded opportunities for

mergers and acquisitions, leading to growth in size and power of corporations, their increased

competitiveness and efficiency in the utilization of productive resources and major

improvements in social development and human welfare are well documented in the literature

(see, for example, Ayorinde, et. al. 1998; Rodrik, 1999; Sachs, 2000; Crafts, 2000; Masson,

2001; IMF, 2002 and Ocampo, 2003). The transnational corporations (TNC) with their

intensive integration of production, distribution and services globally provide the impetus for

this process. Between 1990 and 2001, for instance, their stock of outward foreign direct

investments (FDI) increased from 1.7 trillion dollars to 6.6 trillion dollars and in 2001 alone

their sales of 19 trillion dollars were more than twice as high as world exports that year

(UNCTAD, 2002a). No doubt, increased trade and investment flows help countries to

develop more quickly as trade generates income and the flows enable them to increase their

stock of productive capital without compromising their level of consumption. And when such

flows are in the form of FDI, they often improve access to international best practices in

terms of managerial, marketing and technical know-how, skill acquisition and institutional

deepening. Moreover, the intangible assets of TNC such as knowledge, technology,

management know–how and access to market serve not only as essential link between

national and enterprise competitiveness but as well as complements to domestic development

resources in recipient countries (UNCTAD, 2001b). Technology, policy and competition are

the forces driving globalization. This is attested to, for example, by advances in computing

technology, which enable traders to meet demand for financial instruments such as swaps and

futures with relative ease, thus allowing them to better manage their risks. In addition,

improved transportation such as the advent of containerization in land–and sea–based

shipping has reduced both the handling requirements and transit time by more than two

thirds. The second force is policy liberalization. With this, most governments have removed

barriers to trade and controls on the movement of capital and services, thereby allowing

market forces to play themselves out. The third force, which is heightened competition,

compels firms to explore new ways of increasing their efficiency, including shifting some of

their activities abroad to reduce costs (UNCTAD, 2002a). However, not every nation is a full

member of the global village. The developed countries use their competitive advantage to

boost their share of world trade and finance, and so largely benefit from globalization (Khor,

2001 and UNCTAD, 2003a). On the other hand, developing countries are losing out as they

experience a worsening of existing imbalances and distortions in the global economy (Collier

and Dollar, 2001). This view is shared by Zuma (2003) who argues that the unequal

distribution of political, economic and military power has meant that whilst globalization

created immense opportunities of wealth for some, it has produced two contrasting global

villages: one which is indeed prosperous, rich and democratic for a few who live in it, and the

other, in which the majority are poor, alienated and marginalized with hardly any voice to

determine their own destiny. The data on tables 1 and 2 clearly show that there are actually

two villages in the global economy. Table 1 reveals that developing countries are mainly

primary commodity producers and exporters. In 1985, they accounted for 61.2 per cent of

primary products traded globally. Although this dropped to 56 per cent in 2000, this drop

cannot compensate for the 68.2 per cent of manufactures based on natural resources or 66.8

per cent of manufacturers not based on natural resources that developed countries exported

that year. The shares of developing countries in these categories of manufactures that same

year were 26.6 per cent and 30.8 per cent respectively. In the case of FDI inflows (Table 2),

developed nations increased their share from 64.4 per cent during 1990-1995 to 68.4 per cent

in 2001, whereas the share of developing countries fell from 33 per cent to 27.9 per cent

during the same period. Moreover, industrial countries protect their markets, particularly in

sectors in which developing countries have a recognized comparative advantage like textiles,

clothing and footwear. Agriculture is also heavily protected usually in the form of subsidies,

driving world prices down and hurting farmers in developing countries the more. The

estimate of economic losses from agricultural protection in developed countries is around 150

billion dollars yearly, about 50 billion dollars of it in lost exports for developing countries

(for details, see McGuirk, 2002 and Lankas, 2002).While responsibility for global economic

reform is ceded to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development (IMF/World Bank), the policies of these agents of

globalization, controlled by the highly industrialized countries, have failed to narrow the gap

between the richest 20 per cent of humanity and the poorest 20 per cent, which doubled

between 1950 and 2000 (O’ Rourke, 2002). Free trade and market forces, canvassed by

globalization, are not closing this gap. Instead, they have contributed to widening it because

after the Tokyo and Uruguay Rounds of trade liberalization in the 1980s and 1990s, the

developing countries have ended up with 3 per cent more trade deficits and 2 per cent less

economic growth in 2000 in comparison with the 1970s (Erb-Leoncarallo, 2000). The

economic internationalization process while not removing national sovereignty subordinates

domestic economies to global market conditions (Kwanashie, 1998). The transmission of

shocks this entails can alter the prospects of growth particularly in uncompetitive economies.

In this respect, the economic fortunes of developing countries are hostage to the forces of

globalization. The East Asian financial crisis of 1997/1998 testifies to this assertion as the

contagion, which followed affected the growthof many of them (UNCTAD, 1999; Bresciani

et al.,2002). As we acknowledge the peculiar economic circumstances of developing

countries, we also share the view canvassed by Onimode (2003) that the desirable policies for

them even in the context of globalization are those that promote selfreliance. This becomes

imperative after the fact that globalization increases their dependence on foreign capital and

the attendant exploitation impedes their growth, aggravates their poverty and intensifies their

marginalization in the global economy. The message from these concerns is that globalization

is more than the free interplay of market forces since economic questions cannot be divorced

from social issues. That being the case, the foundation of globalization has to be strengthened

with broadly shared values and practices that would also reflect the needs of developing

regions, so that all countries could benefit from the globalization process.

IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF

NIGERIA: A DEVELOPING COUNTRY.

Bayo (2000) and Salimono (1999) observed that globalization offers developing countries

like Nigeria the opportunities to create wealth through the export-led growth, to expand

international trade in goods and services and to gain access to new ideas, technologies and

institutional designs. This means that globalization affects all aspects of Nigeria development

including her economy. In essence, globalization offers many opportunities to Nigeria and

other developing countries as well as other actors in the global economy.

Salimono (1999), opined that globalization has reduced barrier existing in international trade.

The reduction in those barriers has opened the door for export led growth. For instance,

Phillips (1991) noted that Nigerian economy has been mono-cultural since independence and

has so much depended on the western countries for its survival. Bayo (2000) and

Evbuomwan (1996) observed that in the 1960s, Nigeria depended on agriculture for her

revenue, which in turn, was used to provide life sustaining goods for the citizen. Then,

Nigeria and other less developed economies exported raw-materials in form of cash crop such

as Cocoa, Coffee, palm-produce Groundnut etc. The discovery of petroleum by Nigeria

marked the turning point for the country and by the turn of 1970, agriculture has been pushed

to a distant background.

Onwioduokit and Ashinze (1996) observed that it was in the 1970s when Nigeria witnessed

oil boom that brought about major shift from agriculture to petroleum. The bulk of the

revenue of Nigeria now comes from petroleum. Since then, Nigeria has depended heavily on

crude oil and this has cause instability in the economy due to fluctuations in the price of

crude oil in the world market. Oputa (1996) and Salimono (1999) stated that since

globalization entails trade liberalization, it is therefore imperative that there is free and

unrestricted movement of trade, finance and investment across the international border. The

advantage here is that globalization allows Nigeria to export and import goods, capital and

investment without restriction. It is probably because of this advantage that Salimono (1999)

asserted that for small and medium-size economy with limited internal market, the

possibilities of economic growth lie, to a large extent, in production oriented towards

international market. To buttress his point, he stated that the experience of the last four

decades shows that countries like China, Chile, Ivory coast, Botswana that have managed to

grow at very rapid rate of 7%, 8% or more per year, have relied on strong export growth, with

export expanding at a faster rate than Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nigeria can and should

borrow a leave from these countries experience. Globalization promotes the rapid output

growth that will increase national income and as a consequence enhance higher standard of

living of developing countries including Nigeria. Globalization, according to Awake (2002)

has enriched the world economically, scientifically and culturally. This is due to the fact that

globalization opens the economies to a wide variety of consumption of goods, new

technology and knowledge. Salimono (1999) opined that globalization offers economies with

potentials of eradicating poverty. The reason for this belief may not be unconnected with the

dramatic increase in prosperity that globalization has brought in its wake especially in South

Korea, India and South Africa. To buttress this reason, Awake (2002) noted that family’s

income has increased three times more than it did 50years ago .However, the situation is

different in Nigeria where real income is decreasing.

Through the Internet, globalization allows the access to ideas on new things and best

practices in all areas of human endeavour. For instance, new design, production technology,

new managerial practice etc are made available to people, thereby enabling them to change

their old practices. These may lead to acquisition or imitation of foreign products,

technologies and cultural practices, which would have been made impossible without

globalization. This means that Nigeria now has access to opportunities to acquire new things,

ideas and technologies.

Globalization is a process of intensified and broadened interdependence among nations.

According to Peter (2002), globalization creates global market place, which, with the

development in communication technology, can be accessed by virtually any one from any

location. Thus, it opens up a world of opportunities for business and also link them to market,

which was hitherto unknown to them. In this process, there is decrease the possibility of wars

among nations. Awake (2002) noted that interaction among people has the potential for

improving global solidarity. It maintained that some human right organizations have been

able to tap the resources of the people to promote their effectiveness. For instance, in 1997

international treaty banning land mines was achieved through mobilization of the people of

the world through Internet. Despite these positive effects many people are still of the opinion

that globalization poses tension and dilemma to countries integrated to the economy. The

greatest concern about globalization expressed by Awake (2002) is the ever-increasing gap

between the haves and the have-nots. It is observed that while the global wealth has

increased, it has become concentrated in the hands of the few privileged individuals and few

countries.

It was also noted in Awake that the net worth of the 200 richest people on earth exceeded the

combined income of 40% of the people who live on the planet. It continued further that while

wages continued to rise in wealthy countries, 80 impoverished countries have actually seen a

decline in average income over the past ten years. Nigeria was among these eighty countries.

The distribution of global wealth has never been fair. But economic globalization as widened

the gap between the rich and poor nations. However, some developing counties, as observed

by Salimono (1999), have benefited from integration into the global economy. For example,

India and Asia as a whole have seen improvement. He also noted that, only 15% of the East

Asian population lived on US$1 a day compared with 27% ten years earlier.

In an interdependent world economy, any adverse global shock affects other countries. For

example, the oil glut of 1982 and 1998 according to Salimono (1999) was more rapidly

propagated. The propagation mechanism at work could be a decline in the import volume and

change in the real price of commodities (oil). Nigeria depends heavily on crude oil as the

main source of income or foreign exchange earnings such that the country’s revenue is

always hit hard by these shocks (Doguwa and Englana, 2002).

Furthermore, highly integrated financial market tends to transmit global, regional, national or

local shock much more rapidly than in past decades when financial markets were less

integrated. It has been observed by CBN (2002) that portfolio shift affect the exchange and

interest rates including other economic activities. As a consequence, the volumes of financial

intermediation and currency transactions are enormous nowadays. The shocks are greatly

amplified in more or less synchronized fashion with destabilizing effects on Nigeria

economy. This financial volatility was largely unknown in the 1950s, 1960s early 1970s

when multilateral lending aids and foreign direct investment dominated global capital

investment (CBN, 2000).

The effect of globalization is the fear of uncertainty and volatility on capital formation and

productivity growth with its negative consequence on economic growth. CBN (2000) viewed

the instability on the economy as tax on growth and prosperity. It should be noted that this

problem of uncertainty is not from within but external generated. Nigeria as a developing

country has not evolved a mechanism that can absorb the shocks generated by the effects of

globalization. The types of domestic policy response put in place by the government have

increased the negative impact of these shocks in Nigeria and the people are worse off. The

income of the people of Nigeria is low and they are living below poverty line.

The social effect of globalization is another fear entertained by Dani (1997), when he states

that since globalization is associated with instability of output and employment, the effects

among other things job security. Majority of the people in Nigeria derived their income from

labour. In Nigeria anything that affects their job is socially disrupted and thus bring tension to

the fabric of the society. This may create industrial conflicts. Furthermore, it is observed that

the unskilled and the uneducated workers as well as the marginalised agrarian population

benefit less than the people with sophisticated skills and high level of education. As noted by

David (1997), the highly educated people and people with sophisticated skills are better and

more equipped to meet challenges of the competitive world.

One other area of globalization is that it tends to transmit the cultural pattern of developed

countries to the rest of the world. For instance, Nigeria Youth have been culturally colonized.

This is because they now imitate the European’s consumption patterns, modes of transport,

method of communication including their music, without regard for the local culture.

Though, it is noticed that this problem does not affect Nigerians only. It is a worldwide

phenomenon. This trend would, eventually, lead to homogenization of economic values,

thereby eliminating or reducing Nigerian economy to nothing.

CONCLUSION

The merit of globalization for a developing economy like Nigeria lies in the capacity for

wealth creation through export-led growth and the benefit of expanded international trade of

goods, services, and access to new products and designed in the global markets.

However, it has been observed that globalization, despite the opportunities provided, is

associated with serious problem that has to be managed in appropriate ways using appropriate

fiscal policies.

Globalization gives rise to macro-economy instability that had characterized Nigeria

government. This problem shows that Nigerian economic development may remain only a

dream and difficult to actualise. A highly globalise and integrated financial market spread

rapidly across counties financial shocks and loss of confidence that affect exchange rate,

interest rate, assets prices with the resultant effect on output and employment and ultimately

adverse social effects.

It is therefore, suggested by Annan (2000), that if globalization is to succeed, it must improve

the life of every inhabitant of global neighbourhood without excluding Nigerians.

Furthermore, for globalization to succeed it must also deliver right no less than riches and

provides social justice and equity no less than economic prosperity and enhanced

communication. This is why Yakubu (1999) observes that much as we are enthused about

then technological and economic wonder of globalization, we must not as Nigerians, forget

that vast areas of our continent still remain excluded and invisible. In spite of globalization

for example, Africa is the only continent, according to Yakubu (1999), in which poverty has

increased since the 1970s, and in which government use up 70% of their GNP to service

debts.

Economic globalization should not be driven by desire to make money. This is because profit

motive rarely takes into account the poor and the disadvantage or the long term need of the

planet. The global economy should be regulated and should not be dominated by corporations

that recognize money as their only value.

It should be noted that unregulated global economy is inherently unstable. Also an

unregulated economy dominated by corporation having the desire to make profit will only

increase poverty. Finally, collective action is needed to safeguard global ethic that will

regulate globalization. Nigerian government should see globalization as a challenge and

should find means to counter the deleterious effects of globalization.

REFERENCESAjayi, S.I. 2001. “What Africa Needs to Do to Benefit From Globalization.” Finance and Development, 38 (4): 6 - 8.Aninat, E. 2002. “Surmounting the Challenges of Globalization.” Finance and Development, 39 (1): 4-7.Ayorinde, F.O., O. Adenikinju and A. Adenikinju. 1998. “The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Technological Acquisition in Nigerian Manufacturing Sector.” Journal of Economic Management, 5 (2): 89-122.Collier, P. and D. Dollar. 2001. Globalization, Growth and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Crafts, N. 2000. “Globalization and Growth in the Twentieth Century.” IMF Working Paper No. 44, Washington: International Monetary Fund.Debt Management Office 2001. Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the year Ended 2001. Abuja: Debt Management Office.Erb-Leoncarallo, A.M. 2000. “The Road From Seattle,” in United Nations Chronicle Vol. XXXVII, No. 1, New York: Department of Public Information, United Nations.IMF 2002. Globalization: Threat or Opportunity? Issues Briefs. Washington: International Monetary Fund.Islam, A. 1999. “Globalization and Development Revisited in the Light of Asian Experience.” Asia - Pacific Development Journal, 6(2): 1 - 21.Khor, M. 2001. Globalization and the South: Some Critical Issues. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.Kwanashie, M. 1998. “The Concept and Process of Globalization.” Central Bank of Nigeria Economic and Financial Review, 36(4): 340 - 351.Lankas, H.P. 2002. “Market Access for Developing Countries.” Finance and Development, 39(3): 8-13.Masson, P. 2001. “Globalisation: Facts and Figures.” IMF Policy Discussion Paper No. 4, Washington: International Monetary Fund.McGuirk, A. 2002. “The Doha Development Agenda.” Finance and Development, 39(3): 4 7.Obadan, M. I. 1998. “Managing the Nigerian Economy into the Next Millennium: Strategies and Policies.” Journal of Economic Management, 5(1): 1 - 38.Obadan, M. I. 2001. “Africa and the Challenge of Globalization: How Should the Continent Respond?” Nigerian Journal of Economic and Financial Review, 6(2): 35-42.Ocampo, J. O. 2003. Globalization and Development, Washington: The World Bank.Onimode, B. 2003. “Unequal Exchange, External Debt and Capacity for Development–Oriented Policies in African Countries”, (pp. 39-56) in A. Garba (ed.), Development Thought, Policy Advice and Economic Development in Africa in the 20th Century: Lessons for the 21st Century: Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.Onwuka, E.C. 1998. Contemporary International Economic Relations, Benin: Razjel Interbiz O’Rourke, K. H. 2002. “Globalization and Inequality: Historical Trends”, (pp. 39-67) in B. Pleskovic and N. Stern. (ed.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2002: Washington: The World Bank.Rodrik, D. 1999. “The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work.” Policy Essay No. 24, Washington: Overseas Development Council.Sachs, J. 2000. “A New Global Consensus of Helping the Poorest of the Poor”, (pp. 39-47) in B. Pleskovic and N. Stern, (eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2000: Washington: The World Bank.

Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. “Development Thinking at the Millennium”, (pp. 13-38) in B. Pleskovic and N. Stern (eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2000: Washington: The World Bank.UNCTAD. 1999. “International Monetary and Financial Issues for the 1990s.” Research Papers for the Group of Twenty-Four, Vol. XI, Geneva: United Nations.UNCTAD. 2001a. Post–Uruguay Round Market Access Barriers for Industrial Products, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series No. 12. Geneva: United Nations.UNCTAD. 2001b. World Investment Report 2001: Promoting Linkages. Geneva: UnitedNations.UNCTAD. 2002a. World Investment Report 2002: Transnational Corporations and ExportCompetitiveness. Geneva: United Nations.UNCTAD. 2002b. UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics 2002. Geneva: United Nations.UNCTAD. 2003a. Trade and Development Report 2003: Capital Accumulation, Growth and Structural Change. Geneva: United Nations.UNCTAD. 2003b. World Investment Report 2003: FDI Policies for Development - National and International Perspectives. Geneva: United Nations.United Nations. 2001. World Economic and Social Survey 2001: Trends and Policies in the World Economy. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.World Bank 2002. World Development Indicators 2002. Washington: The World Bank.