International development aid is based on the “Robin Hood principle”: Take from the rich and give to the poor. National development agencies, multilateral organizations and nongovernmental organizations transfer more than US$135 billion per year from rich countries to poor countries with this idea in mind.
A more formal term for the Robin Hood principle is “cosmopolitan prioritarianism,” an ethical rule that says we should think of everyone in the world in the same way, no matter where they live, and then focus aid at areas where it helps the most. Those who have less have priority over those who have more. This philosophy implicitly or explicitly guides the aid for economic development, aid for health and aid for humanitarian emergencies.
On its face, cosmopolitan prioritarianism makes sense. People in poor countries have needs that are more pressing and price levels are much lower in poor countries, so that a US dollar or a euro goes twice or three times further than it would where it came from.
Illustration: Mountain People
Spending at home is not only more expensive, but it also goes to those who are already well off — at least relatively, judged by global standards — and so does less good.
I have thought about and tried to measure global poverty for many years and this guide has always seemed broadly right. However, I currently find myself feeling increasingly unsure about it. Both facts and ethics pose problems.
Huge strides have undoubtedly been made in reducing global poverty, more through growth and globalization than through aid from abroad. The number of poor people has fallen in the past 40 years from more than 2 billion to just under 1 billion — a remarkable feat, given the increase in world population and the long-term slowing of global economic growth, especially since 2008.
While impressive and wholly welcome, poverty reduction has not come without a cost. The globalization that has rescued so many in poor countries has harmed some people in rich countries, as factories and jobs migrated to where labor is cheaper. This seemed to be an ethically acceptable price to pay, because those who were losing were already so much wealthier — and healthier — than those who were gaining.
A long-standing cause of discomfort is that those of us who make the judgements are not exactly well-placed to assess the costs. Like many in academia and in the development industry, I am among globalization’s greatest beneficiaries — those who are able to sell our services in markets that are larger and richer than our parents could have dreamed of.
Globalization is less splendid for those who not only do not reap its benefits, but suffer from its effects. We have long known that less-educated and lower-income Americans, for example, have seen little economic gain for four decades and that the bottom-end of the US labor market can be a brutal environment.
However, just how badly are these people suffering from globalization? Are they much better off than Asians working in the factories that used to be in their home towns?
Most undoubtedly are. However, several million Americans — black, white, and Hispanic — live in households with per capita income of less than US$2 per day, essentially the same standard that the World Bank uses to define destitution-level poverty in India or Africa. Finding shelter in the US on that income is so difficult that US$2-per-day poverty is almost certainly much worse in the US than US$2-per-day poverty in India or Africa.
Beyond that, the US’ much-vaunted equality of opportunity is under threat. Towns and cities that have lost their factories to globalization have also lost their tax base and find it hard to maintain quality schools — the escape route for the next generation. Elite schools recruit wealthy people to pay their bills and court minorities to redress centuries of discrimination; but this no doubt fosters resentment among the white working class, whose kids find no place in this brave new world.
My own work with Anne Case reveals more signs of distress. We have documented a rising tide of “deaths of despair” among white non-Hispanics — from suicide, alcohol abuse, and accidental overdoses of prescription and illegal drugs. Overall death rates in the US were higher last year than in 2014 and life expectancy has fallen.
We can argue about the measurement of material living standards, whether inflation is overstated and the rise in living standards understated, or whether schools are really that bad everywhere. However, deaths are hard to explain away. Perhaps it is not so clear that the greatest needs are on the other side of the world.
Citizenship comes with a set of rights and responsibilities that we do not share with those in other countries. Yet the “cosmopolitan” part of the ethical guideline ignores any special obligations we have toward our fellow citizens.
We can think about these rights and obligations as a kind of mutual insurance contract: We refuse to tolerate certain kinds of inequality for our fellow citizens and each of us has a responsibility to help — and a right to expect help — in the face of collective threats. These responsibilities do not invalidate or override our responsibilities to those who are suffering elsewhere in the world, but they do mean that if we judge only by material need, we risk leaving out important considerations.
When citizens believe that the elite care more about those across the ocean than those across the train tracks, insurance has broken down, we divide into factions, and those who are left behind become angry and disillusioned with a politics that no longer serves them. We might not agree with the remedies that they seek, but we ignore their real grievances at their peril and ours.
Angus Deaton, last year’s Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
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
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.