One of the questions about the impact of globalization is its impact on inequality? Does it aggravate it or lessen it? How should a State deal with pursuing a globalized agenda as well as addressing the inequities it breeds? Is there a path to find that equilibrium or are they incompatible goals?
Dani Rodrik in a not so recent interview asserted that globalization does lead to increasing inequality but also alluded to a possibility of open economies reducing inequality.
"There is no question that globalization has aggravated inequality within countries. But we need to think of globalization in this context as part of a cluster of developments: new technologies, greater emphasis on markets, decline in unionization, and fiscal paralysis of many states. All these have had the consequence of raising the returns to skills and talents and reducing the bargaining power of blue collar workers and those who are unable to move across national borders with the same ease as capital.
But there are exceptions too. One of the most encouraging trends in the last couple of decades is the decline in inequality in Brazil, Chile, and many other Latin American countries, which have traditionally been among the most unequal in the world. This shows that broad social programs as well as more narrowly targeted anti-poverty programs can still be pursued and are effective in open economies."
A welfare state pursuing globalization is a distinct possibility? If one does not seek extremities, there is perhaps a way which seeks an open economy based on a strong interventionist state to address poverty alleviation and inequality. How this balance is sought and implemented is where the problem lies. the devil is normally int he details and the path to finding that balance often leads to excesses. One would have to understand and contextualize the roles of the State and market to find this balance.