Very interesting, Thomas. But who would actually bell the cat? Despite the
many efforts of high idealists like the World Federalists, we don't have a
global super government, and given the increasing divisions between the
various parts of the world, it is most unlikely that we will within our
lifetimes, or even our great grandchildren's.
In some research I did a few months ago, I found that the now rapidly dying
neo-liberal dream of free markets and democracy for all may not have been so
far off base. Generally, what that research revealed is not really
surprising: that the world's richest and most democratic countries have the
most equitable distribution of income while the poorest countries have the
least equitable. What this suggests is that economic development and rising
national prosperity may indeed be the key to greater distributional
equality.
Your essay raises the question how much income would have to be distributed
from the rich to the poor to ensure that the latter had a livable income.
UN data indicate that in 1995 the 4.8 billion people living in "Low and
Middle Income Countries" had an average per capita GNP of $1,090, whereas
for the 0.9 billion people living in "High Income Economies" GNP per capita
averaged $24,930. What would the rich have to give up to make a noticeable
difference to the poor. A bit of arithmetic shows that a doubling of the
per capita GNP of the poor world, to an average of $2,000, would require an
approximate 20% drop in the per capita GNP of the rich. A tripling of the
income of the poor would require a 40% drop. You can imagine the turmoil
that would cause. And there is always the question of whether a doubling or
tripling of the income of the poor be enough to really make a difference.
What I would suggest is that providing a more equitable distribution of
income is not something that can proceed in the same way nationally and
globally. Nationally, as rich Canadians, Americans, Swiss or Japanese, we
can well afford to consider the possibility of a basic income for our own
citizens. What is true for each of our rich countries is not likely to be
to be true for the world as a whole, or indeed for poorer countries. I've
done some comparisons of Canada, a rich country and Nigeria, a poor country.
Not surprisingly, the distribution of income in Nigeria is far less equal
than distribution in Canada. This suggests a redistribution for Nigeria.
But one is then led to the question of what there is to redistribute. The
average income of the richest 20% of the Nigerian population is minuscule in
comparison with the richest 20% of the Canadian population. This is not to
deny that there are some very rich Nigerians, but if all of their income
were carved away and distributed among their poor compatriots, would it
really make that much difference?
What the foregoing suggests is that what poor countries need if per capita
income is to rise is an increase in investment - and in ever so many
countries like Nigeria, a very large increase. But, the question of where
this investment might come from aside, this puts us on the horns of another
dilemma. With investment would come growth, with growth population, with
population pollution and the unsustainable drawing down of non-renewable
resources, all of which is already unsustainable. Let's face it, it really
is a bitch of a world!
Ed Weick
