How much should we worry about inequality? Answering that question requires that we first answer another question: "Compared to what?" What is the alternative against which to judge the degree of inequality that we see?
Florida is a much more materially unequal society than Cuba. But the right way to look at the situation -- if Florida and Cuba are our alternatives -- is not to say that Florida has too much inequality, but that Cuba has much too much poverty.
On the global level, it is difficult to argue that inequality is one of the world's major political-economic problems.
It is hard, at least for me, to envision alternative political arrangements or economic policies over the past fifty years that would have transferred any significant portion of the wealth of today's rich nations to today's poor nations.
I can easily envision alternatives, such as Communist victories in post-World War II elections in Italy and France that would have impoverished nations now in the rich North. I can also envision alternatives that would have enriched poor nations: Deng Xiaoping (
Nor should we worry a great deal that some people are richer than others. Some people work harder, apply their intelligence more skillfully, or simply have been lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. But I don't see what alternative political-economic arrangements could make individuals' relative wealth closely correspond to their relative moral or other merit. The problems that can be addressed are those of poverty and social insurance -- of providing a safety net -- not of inequality.
But on the level of individual societies, I believe that inequality does loom as a serious political-economic problem. In the US, the average earnings premium received by those with four-year college degrees over those with no college has gone from 30 percent to 90 percent over the past three decades, as the economy's skill requirements have outstripped the educational system's ability to meet them. Because the required skills acquired through formal education have become relatively scarcer, the education premium has risen, underpinning a more uneven distribution of income and wealth.
Ceci Rouse and Orley Ashenfelter of Princeton University report that they find no signs that those who receive little education do so because education does not pay off for them: if anything, the returns to an extra year of schooling appear greater for those who get little education than for those who get a lot. A greater effort to raise the average level of education in the US would have made the country richer and produced a more even distribution of income and wealth by making educated workers more abundant and less-skilled workers harder to find -- and thus worth more on the market.
Likewise, the US' corporate CEOs and their near-peers earn 10 times more today than they did a generation ago. This is not because a CEO's work effort and negotiation and management skills are 10 times more valuable nowadays, but because other corporate stakeholders have become less able to constrain top managers and financiers from capturing more of the value added.
Similar patterns are found elsewhere. Within each country, the increase in inequality that we have seen in the past generation is predominantly a result of failures of social investment and changes in regulations and expectations, and has not been accompanied by any acceleration in the overall rate of economic growth. For the most part, it looks like these changes in economy and society have not resulted in more wealth, but only in an upward redistribution of wealth -- a successful right-wing class war.
This kind of inequality should be a source of concern. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, and the other millionaires and billionaires of Microsoft are brilliant, hardworking, entrepreneurial and justly wealthy. But only the first 5 percent of their wealth can be justified as an economic incentive to encourage entrepreneurship and enterprise. The next 95 percent would create much more happiness and opportunity if it was divided evenly among US citizens or others than if they were to consume any portion of it.
An unequal society cannot help but be an unjust society.
The most important item that parents in any society try to buy is a head start for their children. And the wealthier they are, the bigger the head start. Societies that promise equality of opportunity thus cannot afford to allow inequality of outcomes to become too great.
J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, was assistant US Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry