On face value, the research seems reasonably well done?
However, on face value, the conclusions reached and relied on, are not?
Simply put, when just 10% of the global population own 50% of all available wealth, that simple fact just screams out, huge inequality and or, extreme exploitation.
Indeed, as does a basic wage that remained locked into $5.00 lousy dollars an hour; for literally thirty years; and then only recently moved up to an incredibly generous $7.00 an hour, in the land of the dollar bill!
I mean, and seriously folks, who among you can see a $600.00 an hour silk, settling for that hourly rate, or indeed, the often extremely onerous workload, it's expected to actually pay for!
And only made actually possible by an extremely flawed mindset, and economic rationalization!
Consequently, we've come a long way down since a post war period of unprecedented (win/win) prosperity; or the very "liberated" discretionary spending, that created it!
The failed occupy wall street ought to be replaced with commercial boycotts!
Imagine the lowest ever price of liquid energy and all that relies on it, if we but refused to buy any of Dutch shells products for say six months, then did exactly the same with BP/Caltex/etc?
Now that's how you protest!
Rhrosty.

This article contains some interesting ideas and arguments, but I question some of the data. Since the 1980s, at least, the share of global GDP of the rich economies (North America, Europe, Australia/NZ and Japan) has fallen steadily. Asia's share has growin rapidly due to China's growth. The global inequality picutrure is no black and white.

Biggest load of cr#p I've read in along time. The world is consumed by contrived debt created by our central banking parasites. They want to have absolute control via their concept of a "New World Order".

Nature finds strength in diversity and Globalisation is all about a few elites having absolute power over us.

"A wholehearted embrace of globalisation necessarily includes the free movement of labour. Such free migration would not only optimise production, but also equalise wages across the globe."

That might conceivably occur if there were a uniform employment and industrial regime across the world, i.e. if a 'level playing field' prevailed, however it doesn't. The free movement of labour is a neoliberal fantasy, it requires potential employees to be well informed in regard to international labor markets. Probably the result would be a downward pressure on wages and conditions everywhere and the taxpayers would be expected to pay the bill for the social costs.

"globalisation only benefits countries that actually globalise."

"Globalisation", is a rather ambiguous term, many of those countries that have been described as globalising, the East Asian "tigers", have in fact, usually followed mercantilist policies, under initially authoritarian regimes. In other words, those economies only globalised partially when and if, there were specific advantages.