Ed, I
like your suggested revision of the have
vs have not semantics, especially since the old language implies
ownership and perhaps one-upsmanship but does not adequately describe the
uneven state of infrastructures, health systems and their underlying
environmental foundations in many societies.
Would
wretchedness be expanded to identify pockets of ecological disaster where
Superfund financing has been withdrawn and whole communities in wealthy
America are at risk?
Karen
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?
Ed
Ed Weick
577 Melbourne
Ave.
Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
Canada
Phone (613) 728
4630
Fax (613) 728 9382
