the notion that global economic growth is the only way of reducing poverty for the world's poorest people is the self-serving rhetoric of those who already enjoy the greatest share of world income. Based on the global distribution of income in 1993, even if the benefits of global growth were distributed evenly, it would benefit someone in the richest 1 per cent of the world's population 120 as much as someone in the poorest 10 per cent.
So let's not take any more guff about the benefits of growth filtering down to the poor and 'a rising tide lifts all boats' -comforting but merely feelgood talk; it's just not true. For it to be halfway true, different systems of trade and finance would have to be in place. And consider the minimal cost meaningful redistributive policies would have...
poverty could be reduced without growth by more effectively distributing what we already have: For example:
* redistributing just one per cent of the income of the richest 20 per cent of the world's population would have the same benefit as world growth of 20 per cent without redistribution. This is over ten times the average per capita growth rate of global GDP since 1981;
* the rate of poverty reduction achieved between 1981 and 2001 could have been achieved through the redistribution annually of just one tenth of one per cent of the income of the richest 10 per cent of the world's population.
What needs to happen?
...a shift in power relations, both globally and nationally, to move power from developed countries, elites and commercial interests to the majority of the world's population, the poor.
Global democracy instead of the current oligarchy, no -plutarchy, no -kleptarchy.
world economy giving less to poorest in spite of global poverty campaign says new research:
See also http://nouslife.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-its-bad-for-rich-to-get-richer.html
No comments:
Post a Comment