To the uninitiated, such discourse is not easy to make sense. As World Bank economist Martin Ravallion has argued, the protagonists in this debate often do not clarify the implicit value judgements that are embedded in the evidence.

It turns out that there are at least two ways of measuring disparities across nations. In one approach, all countries are treated equally, a case of "one country, one vote." Thus, tiny Chad in this framework gets the same weight as gigantic China. The resulting inequality index of real per capita income across nations is a so-called "unweighted" measure. It typically yields a disturbing trend of what Harvard economist Lant Pritchett has called a case of "divergence, big time." Poor countries, with some notable exceptions, have progressively fallen behind rich countries.

The alternative is to allow for variations in population size across nations when measuring global inequality, a case of "one person, one vote." This engenders a so-called "population-weighted" inequality index of real per capita income across nations. It yields a rather optimistic picture of declining global inequality. Why?

The reason is not difficult to fathom. Two of the world's most populous economies -- China and India -- have grown rapidly in recent years, with the former managing this feat over a much longer period and in a much more visible fashion than the latter. Not surprisingly, as Branko Milanovic points out, China's per capita real GDP (measured in 1995 purchasing power parity or PPP dollars) has increased from 17 per cent of the world average to 60 per cent between 1980 and 2000. India's progress has been much less dramatic, but is still noticeable, with its per capita real GDP (also measured in 1995 PPP dollars) rising from 16 per cent of the world mean to 25 per cent over the same period. Scholars who highlight these undeniably positive developments -- such as Sala-i-Martin and Surjit Bhalla -- thus question the credibility of those who wring their hands in anguish at the "disturbing" rise in global disparities.

Critics have seized on the "China effect" in contesting the evidence of declining global inequality. When China is taken out of the available estimates, the outcome of a sharp decline in world inequality dissipates. Growth has blessed some countries in the age of globalisation far more than others. As the 2003 Human Development Report published by the UNDP has shown, the 1990s witnessed negative growth in 54 of the world's more than 180 countries in the 1990s, a large number of which are in Africa. Thus, even as one celebrates the rise of China, should one forget less fortunate nations? Indeed, Sala-i-Martin recognises the tragedy of Africa and has argued that, if current regional trends continue, one would see a resurgence of global inequality in the 21st century.

The rather different value judgements that are reflected in different measures of global inequality have not been satisfactorily resolved. Those who defend the "one country, one vote" could, for example, argue that this is a time-honoured convention enshrined in the UN system. Yet, the "one person, one vote" principle is intrinsically democratic and its reflection in measures of inequality is able to incorporate the rising economic fortunes of populous economies in Asia.

Some scholars, such as Nancy Birdsall and Glen Firebraugh, argue that the preoccupation with inequality between nations overlooks the important issue of inequality within nations. One is struck by the irony that disparities within China and India have actually gone up in the 1990s even though they are held as distinguished exemplars that have contributed to the decline in global inequality. Perceptions of growing inequality within nations can cause major political upheavals, as the stunning electoral defeat of the ruling BJP and its allies in India has demonstrated recently. Seduced by a smug strategy of celebrating the victors of recent economic growth while conveniently forgetting its victims, the architects of the BJP appear to have paid a heavy political price.

There is a growing consensus among economists that the interaction between growth, inequality and poverty represents the "eternal triangle." Growth reduces poverty, but such gains can be offset by rising inequality. Furthermore, rising inequality may retard growth through multiple channels. Examples include the way in which inequities in society can constrain the capacity of the poor to invest in health and education and undermine social and political stability.

Some scholars, such as Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, the Princeton-based Australian philosopher Peter Singer, and Columbia University's Thomas Pogge, emphasise that the concern for global inequality lies at the core of developing a system of global ethics.

Sen argues that one should always reject the "comforting conservatism" that leads the international community to quietly accept the grotesque inequities that characterise the world today. To Pogge, concern about inequality is an integral component of global citizenship. Compassion, Singer adds, should not be limited to fellow citizens within nation states. When the world at large decides to embrace the view that the welfare of a fellow citizen who lives 10 kilometres away matter as much as the welfare of someone living 10,000 kilometres away, it can lay the basis for the emergence of a truly global community. Only then can we say that we are living in a less unequal world.

Iyanatul Islam is Professor, Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Australia, and one of the founding editors of the Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy.