 My name is Anna Katerina-Kaisler and I'm a development studies PhD student at Technical University of Lisbon and is supposed to summarize some of our main findings in our research about defects of globalization on income inequality in less developed countries. In literature discussion about the benefits and costs of globalization and the effects of this phenomenon on inequality and poverty in developing countries leads us to conclude that using different measurement units, different data sources, different countries or group of countries and diverse periods of time leads empirical work to contradictory results. Some authors argue that globalization has negative effects on income inequality, other point to positive effects while others find no statistical evidence of any effect. To contribute to this discussion an econometrical model was developed establishing a matrix with 35 countries considered by the World Bank as the least developed ones. In data covers 16 years period since 1995 to 2010. Our dependent variable, we used the Gini from the suite, which is the standardized income inequality database developed by Frederick Salt. And for the measurement of globalization and to test if similar results could be found using simple indicators and composite ones, we used both simple and composite. Simple indicators that we use are trade openness reflected by the total weighting of exports as a percentage of GDP and foreign direct investment. The composite indicators that we used, the multidimensional, we used the coffee indicator that was developed by Dr. Gaston and Martens. And besides globalization indicators and because there are other variables that affect inequality, we also used the GDP per capita and its square measurement to test the Kuznetz hypothesis as also the inflation rate, the economical freedom index, the level of education, the employment rate, international aid, the level of urbanization and also the aging and growth of the population were considered. The estimates were carried out through resource to panel data and a fixed effect estimator. After the selection of the variables, we estimate four equations. The two equations, the first two equations are equal, similar. The only difference is the first one uses simple indicators, globalization indicators and the second one uses the coffee index divided in the three components, economical, political and social. The third and fourth equations are similar as well, having the same differences, open trade and foreign direct investment in the third equation and in the fourth coffee index but here in global terms. But the explanatory variables differ from the two firsts. So, the findings suggest that as theoretically expected globalization measured by the openness of the economies will lead to a decrease in inequality according to the etch-a-rolling model and Stopper-Samuelson theorem. As foreign direct investment is concerned, the results are different from the ones theoretically expected. So, we didn't confirm the Mundell theory about decreasing inequality, but foreign direct investment has to be different time because there are costs of implementation that are not, that we can't see in this model. So, in further research we left that into account. Contrary to prevailing expectations, the coffee indicator measured in global terms suggests that globalization leads to rising inequality. The political and the social component of the indicator also brings higher levels of inequality. That means that globalization has more effects than economical ones. The other signals, almost all the variables had the same theoretically expected sign like in previous studies. The only ones that didn't had was the enrollter, which is the number of persons in tertiary education and also the growth of population. They lead to decreases in inequality instead of increases as was theoretically expected. The Kuznet hypothesis, the only equation that shows the Kuznet's hypothesis that confirm is the third equation, so our results remain contradictory. Thank you for your attention.