Here is the early version. I will add some links if I get time. The slides, however, are available here.
Introduction
This paper argues that, despite
considerable rhetoric to the contrary, privileged populations have long
undermined “development”, in several ways and scales. The degree of this
erosion of development has arguably increased in recent decades, although there
are countering trends, especially the spread and declining cost of
communication technologies including mobile phones, the internet and now social
media.
Aid has become unfashionable, and many
attempts to increase fairness have instead been denigrated, with language such
as the “politics of envy”. Arguments that it is in the rational self-interest
of societies and indeed of the whole world to become more equal have also had
little effect, despite phenomena such as the September 11 attacks and the rise
of the Islamic State, which now attracts violent idealists from many countries.
Finally, this paper argues that
anthropogenic climate change is a manifestation of global inequality, which,
unless addressed, is likely to not only make inequality worse, but even to
threaten the fabric of global civilization, in combination with other stresses
that reflect aspects of “planetary overload”.
Neoliberalism
and shift away from global development
In 1969 representatives of most “developed”
capitalist countries participating in the Pearson Commission on International Development
agreed to raise their levels of overseas aid to 0.7% of gross national product.
During the height of the Cold War, these economies felt at least slightly
obliged to try to minimize or reduce poverty in “Third World” nations, lest
communist ideology should capture another client. At this time, the leading
dogma of development economists, shared by a series of US Presidents, was that
slowing population growth would favour development, including by changing the
dependency ratio, that is, by lowering the proportion of dependents (children,
as there were few retired people) in the economy. At least in theory, smaller
families would enable more investment in their education; a lower quantity of children could be offset by
a higher quality.
Yet, soon after, in part triggered by the
first oil crisis, almost all high-income countries reneged on their pledge to
give more aid, becoming less
generous, with the exception of four small northern European economies, and
very recently, the United Kingdom. In the late 1970s a resurgence of free
market economics commenced, especially in English speaking economies, also
affecting the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Supporters of
this doctrine, most commonly known as “neoliberalism”, reversed the dominant
thinking of the 1960s that development required aid, in order to supply
determinants such as nutrition, education and concepts (Freire, 2006).
Adherents of neoliberalism claimed that unconstrained
market forces would provide a much surer and faster route to prosperity.
Remnants of aid might be justified as levers for foreign policy influence, but
it was no longer seen as morally valuable, not only by high-income governments,
but by most of their populations. Of course, some people and organisations remained
advocates of aid, but gradually they became less influential. Books criticizing
aid also emerged, supported in some cases, by corruption among aid groups.
Instead of aid, supporters of neoliberalism held that populations in rich
countries could continue to consume with a clear conscience about inequality
and poverty, each of which was automatically to be solved by the free market.
The
failure of the free market and the emergence of the 1%
The triumph of neoliberalism was deepened
in the late 1980s by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rejection of
Communism in Eastern Europe. Funds freed by the end of the Cold War were
briefly touted as fuelling a “Peace Dividend” that could be used, in part, for poverty
alleviation and development. But this did not occur. Instead, inequality
continued to rise, not only between countries, but within many countries.
Today, phrases such as the “top 1%” reflect growing public awareness of rising
inequality.
Various forms of corruption in so called
developing countries have long been scandalous (eg Mobuto in Zaire, various
kleptocrats in Nigeria, Suharto in Indonesia and Thaksin in Thailand), but the
accumulation of enormous wealth has now contaminated several high-income
counties, including the former political leaders of Britain (Blair), the US
(the Clinton family) and Italy (Berlusconi). Inevitably, wealthy leaders are inhibited
from supporting policies that harm their own economic class.
This context of relentless and worsening global
inequality is partly alleviated by the attainment of some the Millennium
Development Goals. The target for poverty has been pronounced as successful,
largely due to the reduction of extreme poverty in China, a country with a
greatly reduced population growth rate. Until recently (and paradoxically,
given the claimed poverty success) the target for global hunger relief was
stated by the Food and Agricultural Organization as severely failing, but a
revised method introduced in 2012 has greatly narrowed the gap (Butler, in
press).
The key ingredients needed to promote
development are not indecipherable. They include better nutrition (from
conception), better treatment of infections, including parasites, better health
systems, and improved sanitation and handwashing. Primary school education is
also vital as are tolerable human rights, acknowledged by other, more powerful
groups. Given sufficient ingredients the poor might further escape poverty
through self-organising processes such as trade unions, night schools and
self-help, triggering further self-reinforcing virtuous cycles. Increasingly
literate parents might not only value education, but effectively agitate for
improved education for their children and for better health care.
However, the delivery of these determinants
on a sufficient scale is a formidable challenge. Reduction of poverty is too
often seen, whether or not correct, as a threat to the privilege of more
wealthy groups. Very often, higher income populations use their existing power
to maintain, or even seek to increase their advantage. Similar arguments apply
globally. That is, despite rhetoric to the contrary, most rich countries do not want poor populations to catch up.
But such strategies are ultimately
self-defeating. Excessive inequality is not only morally repulsive, but it ferments
resentment and insurrection. Our modern world not only has nuclear weapons, but
is evolving towards one with perhaps ubiquitous 3 D printers, armed
micro-drones and robotic surveillance. Greater inequality will undermine
security and well-being, even for populations who today consider themselves impregnable.
Climate
change as a case study of global inequality
The reality of anthropogenic climate change
is now beyond doubt. Myriad forms of evidence support concerns that not only
were hypothetical only fifty years but which could then be only poorly measured
and monitored. Yet, despite overwhelming scientific support, some governments
and corporations remain openly skeptical of the findings of climate science.
The scientific community is calling, almost
desperately, for most fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, tarsands) to remain
unburned and underground. At the same time, cost-effective sources of renewable
energy are emerging, especially solar and wind. Advocates of these technologies
claim that their large-scale introduction could limit global climate change to
a relatively “safe” level of no more than 2 degrees C average warming. More warming
than that threatens the fabric of civilization, through cascading pathways that
included conflict, famine, mass migration and economic collapse (Butler, 2014).
Slowing climate change would require an
enormous restructuring of the global economy. Not only would some corporations
lose vast amounts of money and power, but so would some countries, including Saudi
Arabia and Russia. Until very recently, the self-interest of so many powerful
sectors has led to the effective suppression of action to adequately tackle
climate change. But this elite consensus is now under strong attack, not only from
the rising power of cleaner energy generating technologies (eg solar and wind),
but also by civil society of the global middle class. China is also now an
important actor, in part motivated by its rising middle class which
increasingly protest at that nation’s life-expectancy reducing air pollution.
Australian corporations and politicians are
at the forefront of the movement to delay the clean energy transition. They
have some allies in India, although India is now showing signs of following
China along the route towards cleaner energy. But it is disturbing that India is
not threatening to expel GreenPeace India.
India is highly vulnerable to climate
change. Agricultural models consistently forecast a reduction in its food-growing
capacity. Unlike China, India lacks potentially arable land at higher latitudes
where its farmers might migrate. Neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh face
risks from reduced flow to the Indus and Brahmaputra rivers, not only from
glacier melt but (in the case of the Brahmaputra) from Chinese dams. Increased
instability in India’s neighbours, one of which is nuclear armed, is not in
India’s national interest.
Overall, wealthy countries have been slow
to act on climate change in large part because they believe (arguably
incorrectly) that their own wealth insulates them from all but trivial harm. At
the same time, they have been reluctant to do anything which might reduce their
capacity to make money. Poor countries have been generally slow to act to
tackle climate change, not only because they have limited funds, but, I would
argue, because those who are relatively wealthy in poor countries not only feel
similarly insulated (as in rich countries), but also lack sufficient concern
for the people who are on the front line of climate change and who are
vulnerable in so many ways.
Conclusion
Reducing inequality, poverty, and climate
change is not only morally right, but offers hope that civilization as a whole
will prosper long into the future. Elites, both in low and high-income
countries, need to see that such actions are in their own self-interest. Those
of us who are not in that elite, but who can see the value of these arguments,
need to use our influence to try to change local, regional and national
policies. It is an extraordinarily difficult path, but technology such as
mobile phones, the internet and social media is assisting. The fact that the UK
now exceeds its Pearson aid promise is also very encouraging. Technology and
mechanization might one day reach such a level and scale that cheap labour is
not needed to produce the goods and services that the rich crave.
Literacy, including of health, might allow the
self-propelled spread of minimally acceptable living standards, especially if
assisted by mobile phones and the internet. Children living in huts (or under
platforms) next to railway lines may vanish. Conflict over inexorably
diminishing resources might decline, as birth rates fall. New technology might
also slow the rate of climate change.
This does sound utopian, but together we
can strive towards these goals. However, the current stranglehold which elites
have on policy needs to be strongly challenged. Development will not happen by
itself, though its rapid growth could occur once sufficient seeds can be
planted.
References
Butler C.D., editor. 2014, Climate Change and Global Health. CABI,
Wallingford, UK
Freire,
P. 2006, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary ed. New York: Continuum.
