We have found two additional knowledge that can help design and provide this type of guidance. First, the reduction of the Gini index has no significant effect on the right end of distribution and large traders are not threatened. Second, the report of improvement without regional restrictions follows a square pattern. Even small actions can reduce inequality by focusing on the extremely poor node group. AG: International trade is essential to support growth, development and the fight against poverty. Despite recent weaknesses, the share of world trade and commerce in GDP has increased significantly since 1950. In 2015, world merchandise trade amounted to 16.4 trillion in value, more than three times as much as in 1990 in terms of volume; Foreign direct investment, which is increasingly intertwined in trade, has increased almost seven-fold during this period. Developing countries have increased their participation in trade and investment flows, experienced sustained and sustained growth, and halved the number of people living in extreme poverty. These results, which are impressive despite many exceptional challenges, are an increasingly integrated economy linked to technological progress. These results highlight a great heterogeneity of the impact of trade policy, both in different countries and within countries.
Not everyone benefits from trade and some households lose significantly. The results also raise a mystery, as they suggest that countries would be better off if they liberalized. Instead, however, they opt for trade defence measures. Why, why, is an important topic for future research. Over the past quarter century, the demand for labour with different levels of qualification has changed dramatically. Employment opportunities for low-skilled workers have been reduced and the relative wages of unskilled and skilled workers have declined. But these trends are not contrary to trade in goods. They also occur in sectors such as construction and retail, where international trade is a minor problem.
International trade, it seems, has not been the determining factor in the trend towards greater income inequality. Other developments have been at least as influential, if not more so. Overall, income inequality increased more sharply in the 1990s than in the past decade. The difference is that everyone in America has done less well in the last decade than in the 1990s. And the people at the bottom of the income distribution have completely worsened since 2006. Let me conclude by comparing the decade of the 1990s (when trade in the United States really began) with the last decade (2006-2015). In the 1990s, inequality in the United States increased dramatically. But people in all parts of the income distribution have done better in absolute numbers. Many people are responsible for the increase in income inequality in the growing importance of trade, especially trade with developing countries over the past quarter century. In The Trap, a bestseller in Western Europe, Sir James Goldsmith argues that free trade with low-wage countries has harmed low-skilled workers and middle classes in advanced industrialized countries and risks impoverishment. A similar argument was made by Ross Perot and other U.S. opponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement, who warned that freer trade with Mexico would eliminate industrial jobs and reduce semi-skilled U.S.