All what matters is the income of the lower middle class. "Neo-liberalism" has survived thus no wonder the liberals, or most of them, find a reason for defending globalisation and capitalism in general.
Putting the blame on local institutions is pervasive. Before that the defenders of the status quo had used "the cultural backwardness" of Africa and the Middle East, for example, as the cause of underdevelopment. For them local institutions are isolated from the global institutions and the main powers control of finance, trade, terms and conditions, military power, etc as well as their interests in tacitly supporting local regimes. For "the masters of the universe" the law of combined and uneven development is non-existent.
The authors of this article ignore that the country which elevated more poor people out of poverty than any other (see UN reports on China) has done and that because the state controls the main levers of the economy and investment (see the Economist on China and the commanding heights). No, I am not a supporter of the Chinese regime!
The approach used in the article clearly excludes any criminal role of the regimes and the multinational capitalists, who advocated and excuted globalisation, in causing the wars and social dislocation because, according to them, that is also something to blame on local institutions. Are we supposed to ask the authors and the FT to have a dialectical approach to such issues? God forbid, that's the outdated argument of finance capital and imperialism.
The biggest plunder ever by governments and banks? Austerity? Fundamentalist drive in privatising everything? Corruption and tax havens? Media monopolization? Wars (globalisation has nothing to with wars so they do not deserve a mention)? Corporatization of education and undermining academic freedom? Destruction of the environment (globalisation has nothing to do with what has happened to earth and its ecosystem)?
No, all can be justified because the lower middle class has done better than we thought. That the same FT, by the way, which tried to refute Picketty's data on inequality.