Ed, I'm glad you've commented on Mr. Sala-i-Martin's paper on global inequality. His analysis implies that it's too simplistic to talk in simple rich-poor terms, so I'd go along with you in suggesting that there should be a more detailed set of categories.
However, I'd want to suggest that new categories based on relative grades of wretchedness instead of rich-poor still have a patronising air about them -- that is, that our western culture and values are those to be aspired to and that most of the rest of the world are somehow deficient. I'm not at all implying that large numbers of the world are not poor or wretched -- indeed they are -- but in trying to relieve themselves of their poverty or wretchedness, and even when they envy what we possess, they don't necessarily want to emulate our culture or values. Look at Western Europe, for example. Most of the countries have living standards that are pretty close to those of America even though they are trying to catch up in terms of productivity. Nevertheless, although they'll undoubedly adopt many, if not all, American business methods and similar sorts of consumer goods, they certainly don't want to be ersatz Americans. In fact, they frequently express themselves pretty forcefully as anti-American because they don't want to lose many aspects of their cultures (such as long lunch breaks or taking siestas!) which the Americans have lost or never had. Even more so, think of the Arab world -- they're not only anti-American, they're virulently American haters. Or think of the Chinese -- they're not haters, they're just different. If the Pacific rim provinces reach as high a standard of living as America in the next decade or so, I'm sure that their way of life will only be superficially similar to America's. They'll think (as do the Japanese) in quite different ways. It strikes me, therefore, that it might be better not to use any term which places all countries on a linear scale of wretchedness, poverty or undevelopment but to use a term which enfolds the idea of culture as well as their economic status. "Region" would do but this is a rather insipid geographical term and it doesn't easily incorporate the important strands of culture which connect different adjacent countries and which causes them all, despite occasional differences and animosities that might arise between them, to underachieve, in similar ways. The term "gyre" has been in my mind for as a long time now as I've thought about the reasons why certain regions of the world such as Latin America, or Africa, or the Arab bloc, seem to have such difficulties in adjusting to the methods that they ideally ought to adopt in order to raise their living standards. I'm thinking of gyre in the same sense as ocean gyres such as the Sargasso Sea where there is a large body of water swirling about and keeping its own identity even though it's not entirely separate from the rest of the ocean with some diffusion and intermixing at the periphery. Looking at the world in terms of large cultural gyres such as those mentioned above or the Chinese, or the North American (or, better still, the Anglo-American 'cos we're far nearer culturally to America than to Europe), or Western European, or Central Eurasian, and so on, and then looking back through history, we can see evidence that most of these has shown evidence in times past of periods of excellence in every way -- of prosperity, or wise government, of high skill, and so forth. The biggest mysteries in history are why some of the grandest empires and civilisations have failed. We can think of the Roman Empire or the two great dynastic periods of China or the Islamic world. Equally mysterious, in my view, is why they became great in the first place. So the notion of gyre in my mind is not only that there are cultural swirls within regions that unite them -- and quite large regions usually -- but also that gyres are able to swirl vigorously for long periods and then, quite suddenly, slow down and then remain ponderous or even static for long periods. I think that we don't give enough importance to the strands of culture within regions -- or gyres -- that make it difficult for us (supposedly trying to help them) to show how they can develop -- or get their gyres circulating again without we in the west appearing to be heavy-handed, or exploitative, or patronising, or making them suspicious that they'll forever be satraps. Very shortly (in historical terms) mankind will be developing quite new production methods for everything we need (in addition to food) which depend on biogenetic techniques powered by solar technology. This will probably start to occur well within the coming century. As solar radiation is received everywhere in the world then a great deal of equal economic potential will ensue in situ -- not so dependent on geological resources, and not so dependent on other parts of the world. I believe this will throw some of the classic ideas of economics -- the labour specialisation of Adam Smith, the comparative advantage of Ricardo, Malthusian shortages, etc -- out of the window. Every gyre will be able to produce everything it needs, and with as almost equal efficiency as makes no difference, and will not need to transact trade from one end of the world to the other. At the same time, each gyre would be able to retain those particular aspects of its environment and culture that make it special, that make it such a delight to travel to and sense that mysterousness otherness that we can still (just about) see in other societies. What a difference this would make to what is happening now where every large city in the world is beginning to be so similar, with the same types of shops and the same branded goods, the same angst and preoccupation in the faces of the people scurrying about -- the same boring monotony of the lives of so many in this world of globalisation. Anyway, let me not insist on "gyre". This ramble of mine has just given me the opportunity to talk about the more subtle cultural difficulties that seem to me to be persistently foiling any attempts to help the poor of the world. Even countries like those of central Europe that are in many ways very similar to the Anglo-American world and with similar educational standards still seem at least two generations away from catching up. And how far away is the Arab world, or Africa? And yet some provinces of China seem to be doing so very rapidly. So I think that economists have got to take a lot more on board yet to fully understand what the essential dynamics of development consist of. It's far more than just financial discipline. Keith (EW) <<<< Keith Hudson gets his economist well before I do, but when my copy finally arrived a couple days ago I re-read the article on the work Mr. Sala-i-Martin has done on global inequality. It would seem that what Mr. Sala-i-Matin has done makes a good deal of sense. If, measured in terms of relative purchasing power, the vast popultions of China and India are making gains relative to the rich world, one could argue that the gap between the traditionally poor world and the rich world may well be closing - at least a little. However, there are gaps that would still likely be widening, especially that relating to Sub-Saharan Africa. Given Mr. Sala-i-Martin's findings, it would seem that the "rich world / poor world" categorization is no longer very useful. We need something else, perhaps something based on relative wretchedness. The rich world could be termed "non-wretched world". Just below that would be the "no longer quite so wretched world". It would include some parts of Eastern Europe, parts of Latin America, and at least the growing middle class if not the whole of China. Below that would be the "still pretty wretched world". It might include India and some of the more progressive African countries. Below all of the other categories would be the "absolutely wretched world", which would include the countries at the bottom of the UN Human Development Index. Thoughts? >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
