We have waited a long time. But at last a good book on globalisation has appeared. Philippe Legrain - once a journalist for The Economist and speech writer for Mike Moore, former director general of the World Trade Organisation - has skewered globalisation's opponents.

Legrain's audience is the well-intentioned reader with concerns about the poor, the environment and democracy. His target is those who blame corporate power and global economic integration for poverty, environmental degradation and the frailty of democracy. His aim is to convince the former that the latter are wrong. In this lucid and persuasive book, he succeeds.

Legrain's argument can be summarised in two quotations. First, "the claims that companies are taking over the world, that global competition prevents governments from taxing, spending and regulating, that globalisation harms the poor, and that our democracy is at risk are not only untrue. They are also dangerous. Convincing people that they are powerless and that governments can no longer intervene for the collective good encourages apathy, frustration and, worse still, anger. It spurs people to take to the streets destructively rather than to engage in a creative debate about what kind of globalisation we want."

Second, "once you make the crucial step and accept that we can still shape our destiny, globalisation's opportunities are all the more apparent, its threats suddenly less menacing. The future of our open world is in our hands - we are free to make the best of it or to waste it."

How, the unconvinced might respond, can Legrain argue this when trade with poor countries is causing vast job losses in rich countries? The answer is simple: it is not. The reduction in demand for workers in manufacturing, particularly low-skilled workers, is driven much more by technological change than trade.

Yet is not globalisation increasing global inequality and impoverishment? Again, no. Economic integration promotes growth, which benefits the poor. A study of global inequality over the long term suggests it reached its peak in 1980 and has fallen since then, for the first time in 200 years. More important, "the people who are being left behind are victims not of globalisation, but of a lack of globalisation."

Legrain points to Vietnam, where people's lives have been transformed by opportunities to work in export-oriented factories. There he visits a subcontractor for Nike. Its employees turn out to be paid more than mid-level government officials. But how can that be when everybody knows workers in developing countries are exploited by malevolent multinational corporations? The answer is that everybody is wrong: the worst factories are locally owned.

Why do multinationals pay more and treat their workers better than almost all local competitors? One answer is that they are better and more profitable companies. Another is that they have brands to protect. But has not the Canadian journalist, Naomi Klein, told us that brands are synonyms for corporate exploitation? So she has. But her charge is patronising, because she believes she is free from the serfdom imposed on lesser mortals by "feudal brandlords". It is also ridiculous because brands are both a sign and a source of weakness. Companies create brands to signal quality in competitive markets. For this reason, they are desperate to avoid adverse publicity.

That is why Shell surrendered to the irresponsible Greenpeace campaign against the plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform in the ocean. Such weakness will puzzle those who believe companies, not governments, rule the world. But this, insists Legrain, is another paranoid delusion. Companies are far smaller than critics claim: the value-added of the 50 biggest companies is just 4.5 per cent of the value-added of the 50 biggest countries. They are also much weaker. They live by their ability to compete. Moreover, open borders do not strengthen companies, but weaken their market power.

Yet are not governments being forced by mobile companies, capital and people into a desperate race to the bottom on taxation and regulation? No, yet again. Governments still rule. Shares of taxes in gross domestic product have risen in rich countries over the past 35 years. The countries with the highest taxes - Sweden and Denmark - are also among the most open to trade. Rich countries gain the same share of their revenue from corporate taxation as they did in 1965. There is also no evidence of a lowering of environmental standards to dissuade companies from moving elsewhere. Environmental laws are much tougher than two decades ago.

Governments can impose trade barriers, too, if they want. How can that be if the World Trade Organisation is a proto world government, dictating to governments, as critics allege? The answer is that it is not. The WTO is a tiny body whose function is to oversee agreements reached and ratified - by governments. Its dispute settlement merely interprets what governments have agreed. If a country loses a case, the WTO can only authorise retaliation by the offended party. If that does not change the guilty party's behaviour, that is the end of the matter. This is no world government. It is the whipping boy of governments and protesters.

Yet is all this trade liberalisation not doing terrible damage to the environment? Again, the answer is no. In the case of farming, protection has done more damage, by encouraging intensive-farming practices. Trade restrictions are, Legrain notes, a blunt and costly way of tackling environmental problems. They do nothing, for example, about domestic activities. Nor does the WTO prevent countries from adopting environmental regulations. It says only that they cannot discriminate arbitrarily against foreigners.

Legrain concludes that globalisation is a powerful force for human betterment. But countries can choose whether to participate. We can also improve on how it works, by liberalising barriers to imports, controlling the growth of regional trade agreements, strengthening the global financial architecture, weakening the intellectual property protection imposed on poor countries, creating a world environment organisation with teeth and increasing aid. We should stop bleating about the plight of the poor and do something about it, instead.

©Financial Times