Pope Francis warned in November last year that “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace” are driving rapid growth in inequality. Is he right?
In one sense, Francis was clearly wrong — in many cases, inequality between countries is decreasing. The average Chinese household, for example, is now catching up with the average US household (though still with a long way to go).
However, such examples do not negate the importance of rising inequality within countries. Both China and the US are dramatically unequal societies — and are becoming more so.
In the US, the statistics are striking at both ends of the income distribution. The bottom quarter of US households have received almost no increase in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the past 25 years. They are no longer sharing the fruits of their country’s growth. The top 1 percent, however, have seen their real incomes almost triple during this period, with their share of national income reaching 20 percent, a figure not seen since the 1920s.
In many emerging countries, rapid economic growth has raised living standards to at least some degree for almost everyone, but the share of the rich and ultra-rich is increasing dramatically. Once these countries approach the average income levels of developed economies, and their growth slows to typical rich-country rates, their future may look like the US today.
Globalization explains some of the bottom-quarter income stagnation in the US and other developed economies. Competition from lower-paid Chinese workers has driven down US wages, but technological change may be a more fundamental factor — and one with consequences for all countries.
Technological change is the essence of economic growth. We get richer because we figure out how to maintain or increase output with fewer employees, and because innovation creates new products and services. Successful new technologies always cause job losses in some sectors, which are offset by new jobs elsewhere. For example, tractors destroyed millions of agricultural jobs, but tractor, truck and car manufacturers created millions of new ones.
However, new technologies come in subtly different forms, with inherently different economic consequences. Today’s new technologies may have far more troubling distributional effects than those of the electromechanical age.
Information and communications technology is not costless magic, but it is closer to it than were the innovations of the electromechanical age. The cost of computing hardware collapses over time in line with Moore’s law of relentlessly increasing processing power and once software has been developed, the marginal cost of copying it is effectively zero.
The consumer benefits of this technology are large relative to its price — the cost of each year’s latest personal computer, tablet or smartphone is trivial compared with the cost of a new car in 1950, but the number of jobs created is trivial, too.
In 1979, General Motors employed 850,000 workers. Today, Microsoft employs only 100,000 people worldwide, Google employs 50,000 and Facebook employs just 5,000.
However, increased unemployment is not inevitable. There is no limit to the number of service jobs that we can create in retail, restaurants and catering, hotels and an enormous variety of personal services.
For example, Walmart employs 2 million people and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that more than 1 million additional jobs will be created in the leisure and hospitality sector in the US in the next decade.
However, the wages that the market will set for these jobs may result in yet greater inequality and there is no reason to believe that politicians’ all-purpose answer to the problem — “increase workforce skills” — will offset this tendency.
However many people learn superior information technology skills, Facebook will never need more than a few thousand employees, and access to high-paid jobs is likely to be determined not by absolute skill level, but by relative skill in a winner-take-all world.
At least information technology products and services are very cheap, so even the relatively poor can afford them. That might make very unequal societies more stable than many fear.
In his book Average is Over, the economist Tyler Cowen makes the deliberately provocative argument that while new technology will produce extreme inequality, the relative losers, satiated by computer games and Internet entertainment, will be too docile to revolt.
Cowen may be right; the poor may not rebel, but extreme inequality should still concern us. Beyond a certain point, unequal outcomes inevitably fuel greater inequality of opportunity — and extreme inequality of either outcomes or opportunity can undermine the idea that we should all be equal as citizens, if not in material standard of living.
So Pope Francis was right: Despite capitalism’s undoubted success as a system for generating economic growth, we cannot rely on market forces alone to generate desirable social outcomes. All new technologies create opportunities, but free markets will distribute the fruits of some new technologies in dramatically unequal ways.
Offsetting such outcomes will be a greater challenge today than it has been in the past.
Adair Turner is a member of Britain’s Financial Policy Committee and the House of Lords.
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