The question of finding a solution to create a perfect balance between rich and the poor, and the creation of a Utopian state lies in the sensibility and morality of world leaders. Unfortunately, politicians, and the regulatory bodies like IMF, World Bank, and others have a history of implementing myopic policies that only widen the gap further.
To have an objective view of state of affairs, and also to question what is the responsibility of the state, it is important to understand how free trade developed over centuries, and so called globalization has turned the world upside down. We have witnessed a number of activists being brutal about the western policies, and the rise of neo-liberalism. Eduardo Galeno writes free trade was the alibi all Europe used while enriching itself selling human flesh in the slave trade; United States brandished free trade to oblige many Latin American countries to accept its exports, loans, and military dictatorship. In the name of free trade, India was reduced to worst penury.
The question is, how much of globalization benefits the nation, and its surroundings, and are the steps taken in the name of globalization help remove the inequality that it advocates. With the advent of free trade, money has ruled the state of affairs, and policies are driven quantitatively. The standard of living has surely improved over the centuries with the GDP and GNP running in billions of dollars. But, at the same time poverty and inequality also has risen in an unprecedented way. The export based globalization is best suited for people who can afford, and according to United Nations Development Programme, ten richest men on the planet, own wealth equivalent to the value of the total production of fifty countries.
Though it is not entirely wrong to accumulate wealth, but criminal if state policies exploit the poor to create a few rich men. In the late sixties World Bank promoted policies encouraging export based agriculture, and thus marginalizing the farmers, spoiling the fertility of the soil and moreover gave rise to artificial medicines. It obviously destroyed agrarian economies.
It is an irony that countries advocating peace now are also the largest dealers in arm trades. African nations was downgraded by prejudiced visions of world leaders, who made them debt serviced nations by supplying weapons in abundance, and gradually exploited them. The largest portions of African budgets go toward serving loans from the developed world. Loans have to be repaid in dollars through exports, and with the fall of the value of the indigenous currency, the real value of the exports decline. It should not come as a surprise why China has interest in investing in Africa.
Let us look at the ones who speak high of inequality with globalization as a key solution. These are United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China who incidentally exercise vetoes in the UN Security council. Ironically, these are also top five arm producers. Between 1985 and 1989, Soviet Union sold $66 billion worth of arms, US sold $53 billion, France $16 billion, Britain $8 billion and China $7 billion. It has been in ascending order since then. Apart from selling weapons, they have even exercised it, United States bombing poorest neighborhood in Panama City, later flattening Iraq, and Russia punished Chechnya’s cries for Independence and France bombed the South Pacific with its nuclear tests.
What actually are the solutions to remove inequality in its absolute sense, and not driven by the culture of consumerism initiated by technology driven by European world, and now visible all across. Globalization has changed the social fabric of our very existence by diminishing the qualitative aspect of human development. Tax free social groups, co-operatives, reducing our currency dependency on European/Christian value system should be tried.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Equality inequality..
What actually is an inclusive sector or rather is there any sector termed like that? The term inclusive growth is more of a hypothesis on which concepts like privatization or public sector interference are sold.
Even if we sit and understand the term ‘inclusive’, we will realize that it entails sustained growth based on sectors that can leverage a major portion of a country’s population, through not only employment but a productive one too. Any inclusive growth promises to remove poverty in its absolute sense, and is a pro-poor policy. In a nutshell, it talks about equality, and that too not wholly measured on the income, but even assets. Now, let us ponder of a country that is an inclusive growth country or is there any? Even if we take Germany who has the highest population in European Union, where GDP runs in trillions, has seen a steady rise in poverty in last two decades.
What is India’s solution to inequality? If we stick to inclusive growth, agriculture which still provides employment to around 60 percent of India’s population has undergone changes in terms of assets distribution. More than 80 percent of Indian farmers are marginalized. Without doubt it could be said that marginalized farmers, people from unorganized sectors who were once farmers, form a major part of more than 800 million poor people of India.
Inclusive growth is evident in the financial sector of India with micro-finance and insurance tapping rural markets. But, even micro-finance pioneered by Grameen Bank have faced challenges in the second phase with easy credit systems, and identifying ‘defaulters’ to reach millions of poor. In India, micro-finance concepts are sold to remove income inequality by granting easy to pay loans, and less collateral, but have found tightening the noose in recent times.
Public sector control on the economies is no guarantee for less inequality, simply due to the lack of resources to channelize the funds in the direction of mass improvement in terms of income and assets. Privatization means the exploitation of resources, and creation of wealth among few individuals. Disparity I think will always prevail with the current development scenarios.
Information technology which boasts of creating employment, and also puts pressure on education system in India has a bleak future. If India truly wants information technology to reduce income gaps, then product innovation is the key. India has to go the Israel’s way.
Sadly, our idea of working towards equality has been an institutional failure. Logic says, agriculture is the sector through which inclusive growth is possible. Pace and pattern which are the key to the meaning of inclusive growth is missing in India.
Even if we sit and understand the term ‘inclusive’, we will realize that it entails sustained growth based on sectors that can leverage a major portion of a country’s population, through not only employment but a productive one too. Any inclusive growth promises to remove poverty in its absolute sense, and is a pro-poor policy. In a nutshell, it talks about equality, and that too not wholly measured on the income, but even assets. Now, let us ponder of a country that is an inclusive growth country or is there any? Even if we take Germany who has the highest population in European Union, where GDP runs in trillions, has seen a steady rise in poverty in last two decades.
What is India’s solution to inequality? If we stick to inclusive growth, agriculture which still provides employment to around 60 percent of India’s population has undergone changes in terms of assets distribution. More than 80 percent of Indian farmers are marginalized. Without doubt it could be said that marginalized farmers, people from unorganized sectors who were once farmers, form a major part of more than 800 million poor people of India.
Inclusive growth is evident in the financial sector of India with micro-finance and insurance tapping rural markets. But, even micro-finance pioneered by Grameen Bank have faced challenges in the second phase with easy credit systems, and identifying ‘defaulters’ to reach millions of poor. In India, micro-finance concepts are sold to remove income inequality by granting easy to pay loans, and less collateral, but have found tightening the noose in recent times.
Public sector control on the economies is no guarantee for less inequality, simply due to the lack of resources to channelize the funds in the direction of mass improvement in terms of income and assets. Privatization means the exploitation of resources, and creation of wealth among few individuals. Disparity I think will always prevail with the current development scenarios.
Information technology which boasts of creating employment, and also puts pressure on education system in India has a bleak future. If India truly wants information technology to reduce income gaps, then product innovation is the key. India has to go the Israel’s way.
Sadly, our idea of working towards equality has been an institutional failure. Logic says, agriculture is the sector through which inclusive growth is possible. Pace and pattern which are the key to the meaning of inclusive growth is missing in India.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)