This long essay will discuss the relative change in global inequality since 1800 and consider whether globalisation has affected or changed relative global inequality. In order to achieve this, this essay will argue that past historiography has split definitions of inequality into inequality between the wealth of different countries across the globe and income inequality of workers within nations. Indeed, this essay will argue that while the wealth of nations has converged in the globalised world, income inequality has only increased. The essay will deal with different factors as different subheadings, such as short-term political factors, i.e. the rise of neo-liberalism, and more long-term and underlying geographic and demographic factors. The essay will utilise demographic and geographic statistics to support this approach, but more importantly it will grasp economic data, such as GDP growth rates and HDI data in order to form a comparative analysis in case study examples. Moreover, in order to provide a successful analysis, it will be important for this essay to be grounded in secondary reading and different conceptualisations of inequality. Most useful for this is the work of Milanovic, which stresses the importance of the inverse U-shaped Kuznets’ cycle and conceptualises global inequality as a series of recurring Kuznets’ waves. Other useful scholars for this analysis include Piketty, Deaton, and Cornia. Overall, the essay will propose that categorisations such as national and income inequality have become redundant since the 1980s. Indeed, the essay will position the 1980s as a turning point when national wealth converged and income wealth diverged. To this end, it will advocate the use of a singular ‘individual inequality’ category of inequality, that is: the gulf in wealth between the rich and the poor across the globe, regardless of income or nationhood. What remains unclear at this stage is the best structural approach to the argument, as the research and planning I have conducted so far has been inherently compartmentalised by the different subheadings. (i.e. the links between short-term political and economic factors and more longer-term demographic ones remain ambiguous.)