The economic booms in China and India have helped to reduce global inequality. Over the past two decades, masses of Indians and Chinese have closed the gap (in relative terms) with the rich world.
But, at the same time, many of the world's truly poor countries have fallen further behind (particularly in Africa, where developments are often described as catastrophic), and inequality within most countries has risen. Widening inequality has been recorded in the US (starting with former president Ronald Reagan's administration), the UK (starting with former prime minister Margaret Thatcher), Russia during its privatization, and more recently in China and India.
These developments seem to add to global inequality. So, on balance, it seems that global inequality has been relatively stable during the last two decades.
Should anything be done about this? Many think it is not necessary to take global action to fight economic inequality. They argue that only poverty reduction matters.
In the words of Anne Krueger, the deputy managing director of the IMF, "Poor people are desperate to improve their material conditions ? rather than to march up the income distribution [ladder]."
Thus, even if the absolute income gap between an average American and an average African increases, why worry? After all, such people argue, the average African would be a bit less poor.
But this assumes that our income relative to the income of others does not matter. On the contrary, psychological studies invariably show that people care not only about their absolute income, but also about where they stand in the social pyramid and whether their position is fair.
wealth
In the past, a poor African might have looked at his compatriots and resented their wealth; now, both he and his better-off compatriots look at the rich world and resent the huge income gaps they see. The gaps are most obvious where people from different countries work together, as in many multinational companies. An "expatriate" may be paid 10 times more than local staff for the same job.
A wage premium based solely on citizenship is grating. But even when people do not work together, globalization, by bringing the world to everyone's living room (or hut), enables them to make much wider comparisons of their living standards. It erodes the relative security in which the rich world could shelter itself, as in a cocoon. Now, all can see these income differences.
This is why international action to address both global poverty and global inequality is needed. Global redistribution through taxes that would be levied by an international body may seem far-fetched today, but the logic of development that we are witnessing -- particularly the move away from nation-states as the locus of sovereignty -- suggests that it may eventually come to pass.
opportunity
One such opportunity was missed in the early 1990s. When Russia faced its worst crisis, aid was given to the corrupt regime of then president Boris Yeltsin. But it should have been disbursed directly in cash to the most needy Russians: pensioners whose earnings plummeted because of inflation and economic contraction.
An international organization could have simply used the existing infrastructure of the Russian state to distribute cash grants to some 20 million pensioners -- money that would have been much better targeted and spent than by giving the same amount to the government.
If this had been done, Russians would have fondly remembered receiving cash aid from the international community rather than blaming it for transferring funds to corrupt leaders. But the same or a similar approach could be taken in many countries today, from Angola to Zimbabwe.
The approach is simple and powerful. It involves three steps: raise money from the globally rich, do not deal with governments, and transfer funds in cash to the poor.
Those who advocate leaving globalization in the hands of the private sector may resent the idea of vesting tax-raising authority in a global agency. But they must know that the processes they support undercut their own position by rendering the wealth gap more obvious and the fairness of actual global distribution more questionable.
They will ultimately realize that their self-interest lies in supporting some form of global action to deal with both poverty and inequality.
Branko Milanovic is an economist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs