case that migrant workers are from the poorest segment of society. This indicates a need to create opportunities for the poorest to work abroad and receive more benefits from remittances. In other words, we need to target the two lowest quintiles.

These results should be understood together with our earlier study, which provides a literature survey and empirical stocktaking of the impact of globalization (Hirano & Otsubo, 2012). Out of these empirical analyses using medium-term growth spells and quintile income share data spanning 98 countries over the period of 1978-2010, the most relevant results to this current study are reproduced in Appendix 4.<sup>31</sup> The results include a) the impact of globalization on growth, b) the impact of globalization on inequality (on the poor), and c) the impact of globalization on inequality (on the Gini Index).

In the past couple of decades, FDI, and therefore the activities of multi-national corporations, have been driving the process of globalization. As the representative results in Appendix 4 (Columns 3, 6, & 9) show, FDI has promoted growth with statistical significance, while widening inequality. This study suggests that both economic and social aid could make opportunities created by FDI more accessible to the poorer segments of FDI-recipient countries.

The impacts of international trade have been mixed (Columns 1, 2, 5, & 8). Trade promotes growth if it is complemented with proper macroeconomic policies and institutions, as many earlier studies pointed out. Trade has been largely neutral in domestic income distribution, again on average and with wide variation. Therefore, the impact of trade on poverty reduction has been ambiguous. It depends on many factors.

The impacts of rapidly expanding flows of remittances as a result of labor market integration have been consistently positive on growth, inequality (i.e., reducing income inequality), and poverty reduction. Additionally, the direction of impacts has been rather robust, and the impact tends to be positive, regardless of the time period or countries sampled. However, given the current small size of remittances relative to GDP (or Gross National Income) of the developing countries, statistical significance has not yet been found; expansion would suggest auspicious results. International cooperation that facilitates labor-market integration (i.e. that supports migrant workers from developing countries) could have a large impact on the poverty picture in developing countries.

In short, there is no single factor of globalization that significantly benefits the poor more than the growth globalization spurs for all. The results laid out in this study suggest that aid could be utilized to enable the poor to benefit more from globalization-derived development.

# **_Impact of Other Factors_**

We further examined the systematic effects of the factors that were plausibly considered pro-poor:

> 31 For further details, see Hirano, Y. & Otsubo, S. (2012). Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle under Globalization: Time Dimensions and the Control Factors of the Impacts of Integration. (GSID Discussion Paper No.191). Japan: GSID, Nagoya University and Otsubo, S. & Hirano, Y. Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle under Globalization: What do we really know about the pro-poor/anti-poor impacts of economic integration? (Ch. 2) In Otsubo. S. (Ed.). _Globalization and Development_ Vol.1 _: Leading Issues in Development with Globalization_ . Singapore: Routledge ( _forthcoming_ ).

21