By Kollengode S. Venkataraman, written in 1998
Economists, sociologists, and politicians of all stripes have recognized that in the US the gap between the rich and the poor has widened considerably in the last two decades in both income and wealth (See “Economic Trends” in Business Week, p. 32 Aug. 27, 97). In this background came last year The Human Development Report 1996 issued by the UN Development Program. The report finds that this widening gap is a global phenomenon having sinister consequences. The essence of the report is that despite improvements in the conditions of people in many parts of the world in the last fifty years, the wealthiest and the poorest people-both between and within countries-are living in an increasingly separate world.
The administrator of the UN program says, “An emerging interconnected global elite, mostly urban, is amassing great wealth and power, while more than half of humanity – that is, more than three billion people — are left out. This two-class world is a breeding ground for hopelessness.”
The end of the millennium witnessed explosions in global communications. This has brought people living geographically far apart, but having access to resources, a lot closer. But while we know what happens in far-off lands (and, if we are curious, also why, we often remain uninformed about the happenings in our own backyard.
Modern technology has thus aided people to choose to remain oblivious to reality outside that is not to their liking. This leads to conflicts because we geographically live in one place, but mentally live in another land, which often exists only in our imagination. If this happens in individuals, we refer them to psychiatrists. When this happens in large numbers, we form support groups.
The UN Report Questions the Basis of GNP and Per Capita Income: The Human Development Report takes the approach that
“Gross National Product or the per capita income,” particularly when expressed in terms of US dollars after converting local currencies, we may add, “are inadequate indicators of how people live.” Considering life expectancy, education, and adjusted real income, the report ranks countries by health, sanitation, treatment of women, child nutrition, and other factors that provide more realistic measures of how people live. On a list of 174 countries, Norway ranks first, our northern neighbor Canada second, and US fourth; Japan 12th China 79th and India, the sixth nuclear weapon state, is 135th. Another finding of the report: In South Asia – dominated by India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh – 29% of the people live in severe poverty when income alone is considered. But over 60% of the people live in conditions that can severely affect their future in a fast-changing world.
According to one expert in the field, “social indicators can no longer be overlooked by any country focused on national economic growth. In developing countries, the prime responsibility for improvements falls on the governments and societies themselves. Nothing much is going to change until countries take steps to invest in people, educate women, and provide basic healthcare while also adopting policies leading to economic growth.” South Asian nations, in spite of assessment by their own experts, have let these problems fester. It is not that these nations don’t understand the need for commitment and sustained hard work for accomplishing anything of value. Look at the recent nuclear blasts by India and Pakistan. These countries have been working on this for decades, covertly and overtly, sometimes using even allegedly stolen technology, as in the case of Pakistan.
Heavy allocation of tax money for fancy weapon systems, either imported or indigenously developed, drains the already scarce national resources and precious time into nonproductive items, and diverts public attention from real issues. In South Asia, interest on debt, cost of running government, and defense spending leave little for improving public health, basic education, and infrastructure. That Pakistan is teetering on the brink of economic collapse is little comfort to India. For, sooner or later, your neighbor’s problems become your problems too.
Mexico’s problems affect us in the US. The Russian collapse affects the Whole of Europe and Asia.
In the final analysis, measures such as infant mortality, school education, mortality of women during pregnancy/childbirth, and the strength of the underlying economy are the yardsticks for assessing national strength. Therefore, encouraging consumer goods may not be the best way to “modernize” societies in Asia and Africa. This requires that societies make careful, often unpopular, nonglamorous, and nonjingoistic choices in resource allocation.
Asian countries — Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, for example – more than a generation ago, started investing in education and basic healthcare for their population and in improving the condition of women. These societies changed significantly for the better when compared to other nations in the region. Even though these “Asian Tigers” have been bitten by the “Asian economic flu,” because of the strength of the basic social indicators in these societies, they might recover sooner than later than what many predict.
Other observations in the United Nations report:
* Worldwide, 360 billionaires control assets greater than the combined incomes of countries having 45% of the world’s population.
* Eighty countries are worse off today than they were a decade or more ago.
* In seventy developing countries, incomes (after considering purchasing power) are lower than they were in the 1960s and the 70s.
The Human Development Report 1996, published by Oxford University Press, is also available in paperback and sold through major bookstores. Price: $18.95 END.