Global InequalityJustin Frewen forwww.globalsocialjustice.com

To a large extent, the reality of global inequality is ignored or at best downplayed.However, this has not always been the case. Indeed, in the early 1950s, the first UNresolutions on development focused on inequality rather than poverty. Unfortunately,this decline of interest in inequality is not an indication of any improvement in globalequality.According to the 1996 UNDP Human Development Report (HDR), the period 1960 to1991 saw the richest 20% increase their share of global income from 70% to 85% whilethat of the poorest 20% declined from 2.3% to 1.4%. In spite of an exponentialexpansion in world trade, 86% of global income went to the 20% of the world’spopulation living in ‘developed’ countries. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Paul Allen, theworld’s three wealthiest individuals had total assets of US$156bn, a figure in excess of the combined GNP of the 43 least developed countries, home to over 600 millionpeople.The first decade of the twenty-first century provided few signs that these staggeringlevels of inequality will be reduced anytime in the near future. The 2008 United NationsUniversity-WIDER report revealed that over half of all global assets were the property of the richest 2%, with 40% owned by the top 1% and 85% by the top decile (10%).Meanwhile the poorest 50% had to make do with a paltry 1% of total global wealth. Onaverage, the richest 10% enjoyed 3,000 times the accumulated wealth of those in thebottom 10%. While 1.2 billion people are obliged to survive on US$1.25 a day, there arealmost 500 billionaires worldwide.However, such extreme inequality does not only exist between different states. It is alsoan issue of increasing domestic concern as state level trends in inequality are far fromencouraging. As the 2005 UNDP HDR reported:

While income gaps between countries account for the lion’s share of global inequality,income disparities within many countries rival in scale the inequalities in global incomedistribution. In Brazil the poorest 10% of the population account for 0.7% of national income, and the richest 10% for 47%. Inequalities within Sub-Saharan Africa are alsovery large. In Zambia, for example, the ratio of the income of the richest to the poorest 10% is 42:1.

Approximately 80% of global citizens live in states with rising income differentialsagainst a mere 4% where they are contracting. This trend holds true for statesexperiencing significant or negligible economic growth both in the North (NorthernHemisphere) and South (Southern Hemisphere). Perhaps the most striking example of increasing inequality in the North is the US, where between 1973 and 2005 the richest0.01% saw their incomes rise by 250% at the same time as the bottom 90%experienced a real average income fall of 11%. Nevertheless, shocking though thesestatistics are, disparity in the most unequal nation of them all, Brazil, is still inferior tothat between different states.It would appear, therefore, that the world’s bounty is increasingly being consumed by anever smaller proportion of our planet’s inhabitants, as the vast majority are reduced tofighting over the scraps.It is hard to argue with the global sociologist Jan Nederveen Pietersee when he writes:

Overall discrepancies in income and wealth are now vast to the point of being grotesque.

The discrepancies in livelihoods across the world are so large that they are without historical precedent and without conceivable justification — economic, moral or otherwise… The growth of extreme poverty coincides with an explosion of wealth over the same time period.

However, while this might all be true, what effect, if any, does inequality have onpeoples’ lives and their societies?At the international level, perhaps the clearest indication of the effects of globalinequality can be seen in the differing rates of life expectancy and mortality rates.According to the World Health Organization (WHO) a child born in Afghanistan in 2004had a life expectancy of 42 years, in Botswana and Zambia 40 years, and in Sierra Leoneonly 39 years. On the other hand, those fortunate enough to be born in Canada orFrance had on average 80 years to experience the world, an Australian or Swede 81, anda Japanese child 82 years.In terms of child mortality, the consequences of inequality are also evident. Being bornin Sweden rather than Swaziland meant a baby had a 30 times greater chance of makingit to five. Similarly, a Canadian child was 17 times more likely to reach the age of fivethan a Cambodian child.Such global inequality presents a major obstacle in the fight against poverty. It cannotbe overcome solely on improving economic performance. Instead, the problem of socio-economic inequality has to be openly recognised and tackled. Failure to do so will resultin the gains from economic development flowing into the coffers of the wealthier sectionsof the population, leaving the poor as badly off as ever.Furthermore, the reduction of absolute poverty in itself without a correspondingdecrease in inequality or relative poverty would hardly be a satisfactory outcome.Inequality tends to play a significant role in the marginalisation of relatively poorerpeople.Inequalities in education, employment, health, social and political participation can allbring about increased poverty and marginalisation. The UN’s Report on the World’sSocial Situation 2005 – ‘The Inequality Predicament’ – stresses the role of inequality increating social breakdown. Higher rates of inequality impact negatively on overall socialcohesion and the general well-being of a state’s citizens. In a detailed study of richmarket democracies, Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in ‘The Spirit Level’ (2010)and ‘The Impact of Inequality’ (2005) demonstrates that more equal societies haverelatively lower rates of homicide and violence as well as superior life expectancy andhealth standards.However, there are still those who oppose efforts to reduce inequality – or morecorrectly increase equality – as being detrimental to freedom. They claim that such apolicy inhibits the ability of individuals to realise their innate potential to become asuccessful entrepreneur, lawyer or pursue any other career of their choosing. In reality,the opposite is true. In addition to helping move people out of poverty, real equalitywould emphasise the possibility of individual development by providing people withsufficient resources to enable them do so.Nor should we tolerate the idea that inequality is morally acceptable while the marketworks its magic, as held by those who adhere to the belief that the answer to inequalitylies in an improved global trading system. Similarly, it is imperative that we reject thefatalistic contention that inequality is one of those incontrovertible realities, imperviousto correction.Given the unprecedented levels of international inequality, it is clear that there will be a