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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past