Inequality is on the public’s mind almost everywhere nowadays. Indeed, in the world’s two largest democracies, India and the US, widespread popular movements against rising inequality and elite greed are becoming highly salient issues in looming national elections.
Yet, in both countries, some social inequalities have been on the decline during the last few decades. In India, certain historically disadvantaged groups (particularly among the lower castes) are now politically assertive. The most egregious vestiges of caste discrimination are gradually disappearing.
Similarly, in the US, discrimination against women, black Americans, Latinos and homosexuals is declining.
These developments reflect a democratic advance in both countries. However, at the same time the fabric of democracy is being torn apart by a staggering rise in economic inequality.
Generally, economic inequality is easier to justify than racism and other forms of invidious discrimination. A fundamental tenet of US society is that everyone has an equal chance — a belief that appears more plausible with the decline of social bias. In India, this myth is less powerful, but there is a general feeling, shared even by some of the poor, that the rich deserve their wealth because of their merit, education and skills.
There are two problems with this argument.
First, education and skills are not inborn talents. The rich have access to better schools, healthcare, nutrition and social support than the poor, which plays a decisive part in later academic and social success.
Preschool children in rich families have better nutrition, healthcare and mentoring — there is evidence that much of the brain damage caused by malnourishment for poor children might have already, irreversibly, happened by age three.
When students from poor families start to fail in school, they have little or no access to remedial classes, whereas the rich receive expensive coaching from private tutors throughout their education. As a result, India has the world’s largest number of school dropouts.
Sociologists in the US have also documented adverse “neighborhood effects” for poor children in inner cities. In Indian villages, where residential patterns are often even more segmented, such effects are acute.
The other problem in both countries is the rising importance of “unearned incomes.” In India, as in other fast-growing economies, scarce public resources, such as land, minerals, oil and gas, as well as telecommunication spectrum, have shot up in market value recently, generating extremely high unearned income for the politically well-connected.
In the US, the deregulation of the financial sector during the last few decades and the accompanying rise of dubious financial instruments destabilized the real economy while doing little to improve productivity. The result, as everyone knows, was exorbitant financial gain for a select few, followed by large losses that were paid for by the many.
The US and Indian examples suggest that, in democratic societies, groups that promote social discrimination grow politically weaker over time. Economic inequality, on the other hand, is perpetuated through the politically powerful and well-funded lobbies of the rich.
The trend is reinforced as elections become more expensive in both countries, leaving politicians increasingly dependent on contributions from wealthy donors who demand policies that are favorable to their interests.
This implies that anti-discrimination and egalitarian movements need to broaden their focus to include electoral reform, better financial regulation, transparent privatization and, above all, an overhaul of the education system to ensure high-quality schools for the poor and preschool nutrition and healthcare.
In addition, massive investment in both countries’ creaking physical infrastructure would create jobs for some workers and improve the productivity of others.
The advantages of improving education, creating more jobs and increasing productivity seem clear. The question then remains why India and the US neglect both education for the poor and infrastructure.
The answer lies partly in the fact that the rich in both countries are ceasing to use many public services. They send their children to elite private schools, are treated in expensive private hospitals and live in gated communities where security and other services are provided privately.
Moreover, big companies nowadays have their own power plants, private roads and many internal services as well.
As the rich secede from the public infrastructure upon which the rest of society depends, it has become increasingly challenging to tax them in order to pay for services that they do not want or need.
Meanwhile, the pre-existing countervailing institutions (such as labor unions) for the workers get eroded by new technology and globalization.
In India, greater social equality has meant that small numbers of hitherto subordinate social groups have begun to enter the political and economic elite.
However, once there, rather than trying to change conditions for the poor, they adopt the values of the elite while manipulating the symbols of identity politics — a tactic that still attracts votes. (Democratic South Africa shows how difficult it is to make a dent in economic apartheid).
Both India and the US have responded to unrest over rising economic inequality with a kind of reactive populism.
In India, this takes the form of loan waivers for distressed farmers (which weaken the banks), price controls for water, electricity and public transportation (which wreck government budgets and undermine the prospect of long-term investment in those areas) and more subsidized food in the corrupt and inefficient public distribution system.
Meanwhile, in the US, populist right-wing movements prefer tax cuts to long-term investment in infrastructure. At the other end of the political spectrum, anti-state anarchists cannot help in building institutions that will sustain pro-poor investments.
The world’s two largest democracies face a grave economic challenge. They must find a way to channel the rising anger caused by economic inequality into productive investments that make the rich feel that they have a stake in ameliorating conditions for the poor.
If India and the US move toward overcoming the most pervasive inequality of all, they will reinvigorate their democracies — and their economies.
Pranab Bardhan is a professor of economics at University of California at Berkeley.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath