Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet.

An Assignment On,
Global Inequality

Course Title: Social Inequality

Course Code: SOC-363

Submitted To
Iqbal Ahmed Chowdhury
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology, SUST

Submitted By
Protyush Chakroborty
Reg. no: 2018232053
3rd year 2nd semester
Department of Sociology, SUST.
Date: 01/12/22
1. Introduction: Global inequality is the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and

power that shape well-being among the 8 billion individuals on our planet. Global inequality can

be discussed in relation to differences in social and economic measurements of development. The

concept of global inequality emanates from the disparities in the distribution of resources among

different regions, among world citizens, and even between countries. When resources are

unequally distributed among nations, we see inequality among nations. Put more simply; there is

an extreme difference between the richest and poorest nations. Inequality is even more important

to understand in today's world, where it is not just a cause for concern for the poor, but the rich

too. Savage (2021) argues that inequality now bothers the wealthy much more since they cannot

use wealth to guarantee their security in a world they can no longer predict and control. This

inequality has two dimensions: gaps between nations, and gaps within nations (Neckerman &

Torche, 2007). The disparities in resource distribution among different regions, among world

citizens, and even between nations are what give rise to the idea of global inequality. According

to various studies carried out by economists, inequality grew globally between 1820 and the 20th

century. The growth of the economies in East and South Asia, especially in India and China, has

reversed the historical trend of rising inequality. On the other hand, the discussion of inequality

has sparked a fresh fad (Khan,2019).

Prior to focusing on global disparity, it is critical to first analyze inequality in general. People's or

families' perspectives on how resources are allocated may be viewed as uneven. The distribution

can take many different forms, such as the distribution of wealth, income, and employment

opportunities, as well as the distribution of services like as education, healthcare, and other

necessities that are provided to various individuals by their respective governments. The inequality

may appear in a multitude of ways at any particular time. It is worried about the disparity in living
standards among people. Inequality occurs when one individual excels in a particular area while

another does not. However, its scope may be international, regional, or national. The rich are

getting richer whilst the poor stay poor. This is not only true within countries such as the UK and

the US but true between countries. Let's have a look at some real-world examples of global

inequality: The richest 10% of the global population currently takes 52% of global income (World

Inequality Report 2022). The poorest 50% of the global population shares just 8.5% of global

income (Hardoon and Suckling, 2022). Indigenous peoples, migrants and refugees, and ethnic and

other minorities continue to suffer from discrimination, marginalization, and lack of legal rights

(UNHCR, online). Global inequality grew substantially after the Industrial Revolution, sparking

rapid income growth in Western Europe, the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as compared

with incomes in other countries. In the early 1800s, individuals worldwide had more similar living

standards, and differences in wealth and income were closer. Fast forward to today, the 10 richest

men in the world own more than the bottom 3.1 billion people.

Inequalities are not just caused and measured by income, but are also determined by other factors,

including gender, age, origin, ethnicity, handicap, sexual orientation, class, and religion, as the UN

has noted in an online report titled "Inequality - Bridging the Divide. These factors affect the

persistent disparities in opportunity both within and between nations.

As classical sociologists considered three dimensions of inequality:

• Class inequality.

• Status inequality.

• Power inequality.

This three dimension act as the focal points towards global inequality.
2. Class Inequality in Global Context:

Poor countries around the world have benefited over the past 20 years. Since the late 1980s, the

economies of what international economic organizations refer to as "emerging Asia," primarily

China, India, and the ASEAN nations, have grown at a rate that is roughly twice that of the rest of

the globe. Sub-Saharan Africa, the terrible development laggard in the latter third of the 20th

century, has been outpacing the rest of the world since 2001, including the so-called "advanced

economies." Since 2003 and since 2000, respectively, Latin America and the Middle East have

had quicker growth than the rich world. Except for post-Communist Europe, "emerging and

developing economies" fared significantly better than the developed world during the Anglo-

Saxon bankers' crisis.

2.1 Nations and Classes

Not only in geopolitics but also in terms of inequality, we are living through a historical turning

point. The international underdevelopment of the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in, among other

things, a growing influence of geography on human inequality. They inhabited developed or

underdeveloped regions, countries, and world regions. It was estimated in 2000 that the country

you resided in determined 80% of the income disparity between households (Milanovic 2011).

Currently, this is altering. Overall, there is less inequality between countries, but the gap between

the richest and poorest people is still increasing. However, despite certain inequalities, intra-

national inequality is generally rising, refuting any claims of the pseudo-universal determinism of

"globalization" or technical advancement.

National class inequality was overshadowed by global inter-national inequalities in the 20th

century's backdrop of mostly national class organizations and class conflicts, including some
networks of "proletarian internationalism." If not properly considered, a 2007 IMF analysis

revealed that the richest national quintile, in both high- and low-income nations, was the only

group that saw a rise in its income share globally in the 1990s. Despite not significantly losing, all

the other quintiles did. The top of the income distribution, between the richest 1% and the rest, as

well as between the 0.1% or 0.01% and the remainder, has seen the most significant shifts.

The richest 1% of Americans, who control 40% of the country's wealth, take nearly a quarter of

the nation's annual income, and who account for virtually all of the country's population, have

recently been accused of capturing their country (Vanity Fair, May 2011), according to US Nobel

economist Joseph Stiglitz. Whole US Congress Around the turn of the century, the richest 1% of

Americans made up 15% of the country's income, compared to 9–11% in India (Banerjee and

Piketty, 2003). Calculating a country's Human Development Index, which takes into account

factors like income, life expectancy, and education, is another technique to compare (income)

classes across different countries. This is a herculean task with significant margins of error.

However, it provides an interesting picture of global inequality. The level is lower among the

lowest quintile of Americans. The poorest American quintile has a lower level of human

development than, e.g., the richest quintile of Bolivia, Indonesia, and Nicaragua, below the most

lucky 40% of Brazil and Peru, and has a level about equal to the fourth quintile of Colombia,

Guatemala, and Paraguay (Grimm et al. 2009).

In addition to national economic convergence, class is also projected to increase as a measure of

distributive fairness. Even while they are occasionally still strong, racial and gender inequities are

obviously eroding. A significant recent illustration is the end of South African apartheid. After

entrenched racism, Democratic South Africa provides one of the most striking examples of class

disparity.
More clearly, the new swing in global inequality indicates that classes will grow and nations will

decrease in deciding human life-courses, even though nation-states remain strong organizations

and class disputes will continue to be primarily state-bounded.

3. Status inequality in global context

Social stratification, or the hierarchical organization of social classes, is implied by social rank.

Social class, social status, and party class (or political affiliation) were three distinct factors that

contributed to stratification, according to Max Weber's "three-component theory" of stratification,

which he presented in his 1904 observation of life in the United States, The Protestant Ethic and

the Spirit of Capitalism. According to Weber, social standing is founded on honor, reputation,

religion, and other non-material characteristics. It adopts a more economic perspective because

social class is founded on a person's link to the commercial market. The two concepts were later

combined by empirical sociologists to form "Socio-Economic Status," which is typically expressed

as a straightforward measure of money, education, and occupational status.

A variety of concepts are used to conceptualize social status: (1) A person's voluntary assumption

of a social position that reflects their skills, abilities, and efforts is referred to as having achieved

status in sociology. Olympic athlete, felon, or teacher are examples of achieved position. (2)

Ascribed status is the social standing that someone is born with or unwittingly adopts later in life.

An individual who is born into a wealthy family, for instance, is considered to have a high status;

likewise, an individual who marries into a wealthy family may also have a high status. (3) Master

status is the social position that serves as a person's main point of differentiation. The definition of

the phrase "master status" is "a status of great importance for social identity, frequently. The term

master status is defined as a status that has exceptional importance for social identity, often shaping

a person’s entire life.

3.1 Global Social Inequality

The caste system in India has portrayed social rank as a fixed position. One is born into their social

rank and stays there till death, never rising or falling in standing. In some hunter-gatherer tribes,

such as the Khoisan, indigenous Australian societies, and other non-stratified societies, status is

either of very little significance or may not even exist. In these circumstances, status is restricted

to particular interpersonal connections. For instance, a Kung man is expected to treat his mother-

in-law (his wife's mother) with respect; however, she has no "status" over anyone other than her

son-in-law, and even then, only in specific situations.

Social status is interpreted differently under various forms of administration. For three centuries,

the Medici family ruled Florence and most of Italy, creating a form of oligarchy. The Medici family

controlled the government through leadership in the arts, politics, and even religion. They held the

highest social status in this society, where those who had close ties to the family were regarded as

having great social status.

One person dominates the territory in a system of government similar to a monarchy, particularly

an absolute monarchy. This person holds the highest social rank in the community, and this status

is typically stable and passed down to the person's offspring. For instance, the sultan is the head of

state and the head of government of Brunei, and he or she has held this position since the fifteenth

century. The monarch's decision determines social standing because she or he has absolute power.

The social status of those employed in a particular industry will increase if the monarch wants the

economy to be more centered on that sector.

The distribution of power is different in constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom. The

elected government in Britain is more powerful than the British royal family. The "royal
prerogative," or authority granted to the monarch by the crown, entails negotiating treaties,

appointing diplomats, and preserving peace. However, the royal prerogative is only exercised at

the discretion and recommendation of the British Parliament's ministers. The country's taxes are

not subject to the royal prerogative, which restricts the powers of the reigning monarch. In this

case, social standing is deceptive. Despite being at the pinnacle of the social scale, the British royal

family's authority is constrained by elected government officials, and their total wealth is less than

that of the British Parliament.

In the latter half of the 20th century, globalization changed how people perceived both their own

and their peers' social standing. The limitations of social position have diminished. People are able

to find business possibilities and investments that were previously unavailable to them thanks to

the Internet and other means of global communication. Businesses expand their operations into

other nations, giving locals access to occupations that are different from those they previously had.

As a result, globalization has given people access to opportunities they otherwise would not have

known about. People who previously had no possibility to improve their condition see their social

status shift as a result of these options.

4. Power Inequality

Power is a broad concept that encompasses the power to perform something or not. It also includes

using a range of techniques to exert power, influence, or control. Power doesn't belong to one

person; rather, it occurs through the interactions of individuals and social groups. Although they

might be overt and evident, these power dynamics are frequently subtle and covert.
4.1 Power Inequality in the Context of Global Politics

Political inequality is characterized by systematically different levels of influence over and

outcomes from political decisions. Since other Western countries began to notice the "anomaly"

caused by rising inequality in the United States, it is now unusual for inequality to not be at an all-

time high. Role-model social democracies like Sweden, veteran democracies like the United

Kingdom, and former socialist states like Poland are all experiencing an increase in income

concentration.

The negative effects of political inequality on democracy include the following: the privileged play

a disproportionately large role in determining social policies; males dominate legislatures and

resemble those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder; legislators support policies that benefit the

privileged; and education and occupation continue to have a significant impact on political

participation. Economic inequality, according to research, discourages political participation for

everyone except the wealthy. It is less likely that there will be fair economic redistribution because

the elite rule over the majority. The fear that even Western liberal democracies might be moving

toward new oligarchies as a result of these and other risks of democracy replaced expectations of

a global conversion to Western liberalism. Social scientists pursue cross-national comparative

studies of politics and inequality as governments struggle to address the issue of economic

inequality and as democracy's adversaries profit from political disparity (Piketty & Saez, 2006).

Everything is in question: Why does it seem that established Western democracies have diverged

from their course of hopeful equality toward a persistently unequal society? Why have the

processes of power sharing and redistribution that characterized prior cycles of democratization

not been sparked in developing societies? We all experience the effects of these issues, which has

prompted social scientists to build on the foundations of democratic theory and political action to
rethink how they conceive and quantify the fundamental forces that give rise to and sustain

inequality in democracies.

5. How great is global inequality?

There is general agreement about the size of global inequality, and there is general disagreement

about the recent direction of change of global inequality. Table 1 shows the results for global

inequality obtained by a number of authors using quite different techniques:

Author Year Gini Value National mean incomes form

Milanovic (2005) 1993 66 Household surveys

Milanovic (2005) 1998 65 Household surveys

Bourguignon and 1990 66 GDI

Morrison (2002)

Sala-i-Martin (2002 1998 61 GDI

Bhalla (2002) 2000 65 GDI

Dikhanov and Ward 1999 68 National consumption

(2001)

Dowrick and Akmal 1993 71 GDI

(2001)

Sutcliffe (2003) 2000 63 GDI

Valenzuela and Rao 1990 65 GDI

(1997)
most of them mix national accounts information (using GDI per capita as mean income) and

household survey information, and only a few use household surveys directly. In all the studies

however, the recipients are individuals (inequality is expressed on a per capita basis), and national

incomes are converted into international (PPP) dollars although the PPP exchange rates may be

drawn from different sources. All Gini values for the 1990s, with the exception of the two extremes

(61 and 71), lies within a relatively narrow range between 63 and 66. The similarity in the results

is even more remarkable when one realizes that the standard errors of these estimates are between

2 and 3 Gini points, 22 and that most of the estimates are consequently within one standard error

of each other.

6. Does global inequality matter?

There are two perspectives on this issue (as on pretty much everything else discussed here).

Global inequality, according to one set of people, is meaningless. There are two potential

explanations for this. Bhagwati (2004) claims that because it is only a number, even the calculation

of global inequality is insane. Since there is no global government and no global civil society, there

is no addressee to whom this lone number matters. This point of view contends that national

disparities matter because they influence political discourse, help shape political parties and

platforms, and help bring together interest groups. However, none of that occurs on a global scale

since there is no global governance.

Another reason adduced for the irrelevance of global (or for that matter, all) inequality is that only

changes in absolute income matters to the poor and the rich alike. In the words of Anne Krueger

(2002), ―Poor people are desperate to improve their material conditions, rather than to march up

the income distribution [ladder]‖. Thus, even if the absolute income gaps between an average
American and an average African increase, these authors are unconcerned. After all, they argue,

the average African would be a bit less poor. This, of course, assumes that our income relative to

the incomes of others does not matter. Yet, this conclusion is at odds with psychological studies

that invariably show that people do not care only about their absolute income, but also about where

they stand in the social pyramid (Graham and Felton, 2005).

7. Conclusion

Only within the nation state can the dominant groups in society continue to hold their position.

However, this is not true for other social groups. All other social groups are increasingly able to

reproduce their social position in another nation state, whereas power elites are required to do so

inside the confines of the nation state. Imagine lining up everyone on the planet by their wealth

and status. On one end, a small group of individuals that have few, if any, barriers to living a full

and healthy life. On the other, a larger group of people who find themselves excluded from the

possibility to do the same. Understanding global inequality starts with recognizing that not

everyone enjoys the same rights, treatment, and opportunities. If you face generational poverty or

gender discrimination, these barriers to equality can have profound implications for the kind of

life you want to live. Social movements can connect internationally or even transnationally. The

prevalence of inequality in the contexts of class, position, and power inequality suggests that there

are numerous instances of inequality occurring globally. Reduce or eliminate prejudice based on

this dimension from society as well as implement global policies and tactics in order to combat it.
References:

Banerjee, A., and Piketty, T. 2003. “Top Indian Incomes, 1956-2000”, B R E A D working

paper, http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/papers.htm

Milanovic, B. 2008. “Even Higher Global Inequality Than Previously

Thought”, International Journal of Health Services: 48:2.

Routledge. Bhagwati, Jagdish (2004). “In Defense of Globalization”. Oxford University Press,

New York.

World Inequality Report. (2022). Chapter 1 Global economic inequality: insights. Belknap

Press. Retrieved from https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-1/