Analysis Of A World On The Edge By Amy Chua

“A World on the Edge” by Amy Chua discusses in depth the link between globalization and ethnic violence in several countries. Chua, a Yale Law professor, published her article in 2002 to the Wilson Quarterly and updated it in 2014. She has many crucial points throughout her article, but her core argument would be the effects that market-dominant minorities have on developing countries. Market-dominant minorities would be considered any ethnic group that is not the majority, but are the leading source of revenue and the wealthiest group in that specific country. Chua follows up this argument by stating that globalization is powered by markets and democracy. She also states that capitalism is the best economic system devised because it is a major

She does admit that capitalism and democracy separately are great systems, but squishing them together and throwing them to a young, developing country is inevitably going to lead to disaster. Globalization enthusiasts strongly believe in this strategy because it is a straight-forward and plan devised of two positive systems. However, Chua believes “that the global spread of markets and democracy is a principal aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western world” (Chua, 2014, page 13). Rather than becoming angry with the systems that are being implemented, impoverished minorities “backlash” against democracy that favors the market-dominant minority (Chua, 2014, page 15). This type of behavior is extremely common and doesn’t seem to get much attention from the Western world. Chua summarizes her final premise by stating: “In the numerous countries around the world that have pervasive poverty and a market-dominant minority, democracy and markets – at least in the raw, unrestrained forms in which they are currently being promoted – can proceed only in deep tension with each other” (Chua, 2014, page

I was saddened to read about some of the statistics about the United States. In an economics review by Steven Pearlstein of Dani Rodrik’s article, “The Globalization Paradox”, he takes a neutral position on the argument at hand. However, his argument against globalization shows that the United States needs to realize that we aren’t even as established as we want developing countries to be. “The reality is, however, that most countries are unwilling to give up their sovereignty, their distinctive institutions and their freedom to manage their economies in their own best interests. Not China. Not India. Not the members of the European Union, as they are now discovering. Not even the United States” (Rodrik, 2011, page