Dani Rodrik is the Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He has published widely in the areas of international economics, economic development, and political economy. His research focuses on what constitutes good economic policy and why some governments are better than others in adopting it.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/drodrik/

Globalization is exposing social fissures between those with the education, skills, and mobility to flourish in an unfettered world market梩he apparent "winners"梐nd those without. These apparent "losers" are increasingly anxious about their standards of living and their precarious place in an integrated world economy. The result is severe tension between the market and broad sectors of society, with governments caught in the middle. Compounding the very real problems that need to be addressed by all involved, the kneejerk rhetoric of both sides threatens to crowd out rational debate. From the United States to Europe to Asia, positions are hardening. Author Dani Rodrik brings a clear and reasoned voice to these questions.Has Globalization Gone Too Far? takes an unblinking and objective look at the benefits梐nd risks梠f international economic integration, and criticizes mainstream economists for downplaying its dangers. It also makes a unique and persuasive case that the "winners" have as much at stake from the possible consequences of social instability as the "losers." As Rodrik points out, ". . . social disintegration is not a spectator sport梩hose on the sidelines also get splashed with mud from the field. Ultimately, the deepening of social fissures can harm all." President Clinton read the book and it provided the conceptual basis for the trade/IMF portions of his State of the Union message in January 1998.

Globalization is "the next great foreign policy debate," Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote, and he found Has Globalization Gone Too Far? "provocative" on the subject. This book provides a critical definition梐nd welcome clarity梩o that debate.