Despite many years of argument, globalization’s defenders and attackers seem no closer to a meeting of minds. Paul Krugman, in a foreword to a recent book about globalization, writes: “I don’t expect this book to settle the debate over globalization . . . there are too many people firmly committed to their views to be shaken by any argument or evidence.”4 Opposing positions continue to be pushed beyond what the evidence will support: Conway’s review of IMF performance during the financial crises of the 1990s, for example, concludes that on many of the important issues, “both (Stanley) Fischer and the IMF’s critics made logically consistent arguments with little empirical support.”5 Similarly, a recent study of trade and globalization by Stiglitz and Charlton notes that:

The weakness of the evidence in favor of a direct relationship between trade liberalization on economic growth has not prevented some economists from pursuing free trade at full throttle. . . . It is difficult to identify the evidentiary source of the bullishness for unqualified trade liberalization. . . . The theoretical and empirical evidence . . . rules out extreme positions on both sides. It is therefore worth asking why these extreme positions have proved so enduring.6