Globalization has, for better or for worse, modified the economic arena of all countries in the world. For many less developed countries, globalization has leveled the playing field, so that their economies can compete with those of larger, more developed countries like the United States and other major Western economies. For example, technical engineers in India and China are now as qualified as American engineers, but at half the price. The once large and thriving service sector in the United States, along with telemarketing services, have largely been exported to India, as a large exodus of American multinational corporations finds cheaper, higher-quality workers comparable. So this seems to be the essence of globalization: companies will go where it is cheaper and more profitable to do business, but without sacrificing the quality of the product, service or experience. It follows that developed countries would be at a significant disadvantage compared to developing countries because most businesses, in terms of labor costs, are too expensive to conduct in developed countries rather than in in development. However, international political economy scholar Dani Rodrick makes the contradictory claim that globalization has brought only good news to those who possess the globally marketable products, skills and resources of developing countries. . He points out that for most developing countries, “the 1990s were a decade of frustration and disappointment. … Most former socialist economies ended the decade with lower levels of per capita income than at the start – and even in the rare successes, like Poland, poverty rates remained higher than under communism. East Asian economies such as South Korea, Thailand...... middle of paper...... ted in the world. China's money markets were not unified until 1994. China has steadfastly refused to open its financial markets to foreigners, again until very recently. Most strikingly, China achieved its transformation without adopting private property rights, let alone privatizing its state-owned enterprises” (Rodrick). China's central government and its leaders were pragmatic enough to understand the role that private incentives and market liberalization could play in producing results. However, "they were also smart enough to realize that the solution to their problems lay in institutional innovations adapted to local conditions – the household responsibility system, communal and village enterprises, special economic zones, partial liberalization of the agriculture and industry – rather than in institutional innovations adapted to local conditions. commercially available models and Western rules of good conduct” (Rodrick).