How Poverty Represents an Unjust Distribution of Wealth - Essay Example

? How Poverty Represents an Unjust Distribution of Wealth Task: Introduction When poverty is addressed, implications of wealth distribution are raised within the platforms of the poor and the rich. The definition of poverty is something that cannot be done in a straightforward manner. Shostak, 1965, as cited in Misturelli & Heffernan (2008) perceives poverty as being “a personal experience that only the poor can understand” (p.666). At the same time, poverty may be referred to as an individual’s incapability to satisfy basic needs in acquiring food, clothing, shelter, and nutritional health. In most developed countries, relative poverty is where annual revenue plus the profit made is below the median, thus creating a point of drawing a poverty line. It has been asserted globally that poverty results from wealth distribution issues, which clearly defines the line between the poor and the rich. Poverty has been talked of for quite a long time globally, but the issues surrounding the linkages between the population earning high wages and the population earning low wages have not been addressed officially. This has made the gap between the rich and the poor widen gradually in the global context. Levels of poverty have been estimated and announced over the years, but the credibility of such figures has been put to question by many concerned authorities. It has been argued by many policy makers that the actual rates of poverty in the world precede the official figures that are indicated by most reports (Pinto, 2011, p.43). However, the UNU Report of 2006 with regard to data of 2000 was the first report that covered all nations worldwide, while exploring household wealth components such as infrastructure, land and assets that were financial. According to the report, of the total population in the world, 98% are ranked as being poor, whereas only 2% are rated as rich (UNU-WIDER, 2006, para.1). The rich population own about half of the world’s wealth and the other half is shared by the large, poor population. These figures have raised controversies over the relationship that exists between poverty and wealth distribution globally. People have had different views and contribution towards the analysis of issues that poverty revolves around, and there has been a notion that poverty represents an unjust distribution of wealth. How true is this assertion? Ethics and Justice related to Wealth Distribution and Inheritance Wealth is characterized by the ownership of assets and resources, having the potential of generating income (Heilbroner, 1987, p. 880). The distribution of wealth raises the issue of the rich and the poor. The constructs of poverty have been from many dimensions given that its perception from the view points of the rich and the poor totally have a stark contrast. For instance, many people perceive poverty from the standpoint of ill-being, for they associate poverty with the scenario of a deprivation in social, physical and material needs. In this case, poverty is purely physicality as well as a state of mind. From this ethical point of view, the aspect of well-being and ill-being as brought out psychologically corresponds to a wide spectrum of experiences attached to poverty. Similarly, the grouping of the poor as being homogenous is faced out by the fact that the experiences of poverty are often personal. In critical cases, the poor end up lacking basic needs to an extent death, due to malnutrition (Fitzgerald & Constantine, 2011, p.34). Given that extremely small shares of the world’s wealth are received by the majority of the world’s population, it is inevitable that the people who are ranked in the category of the poor will experience poverty. Logically, when a pawpaw is divided among 10 children, the shares acquired by each of them will be smaller compared to the shares that will be received when the pawpaw is divided among 3 children. In this scenario, the three children will have their shares and perhaps keep some for consumption some other time. For the ten children, they will have their shares and some may not be satisfied with them, and more critically, they may not be able to keep some for future consumption. In this case, the pawpaw represents the total world share of wealth, whereas the three and ten children represent the rich and the poor respectively. Keeping some pawpaw for future consumption corresponds to saving or investing, and directly links to the wages of the poor and rich in the actual world. When another pawpaw is divided to the children again what happens? The three children will have more pawpaw pieces in reserve than the ten children who will have none. Logically, the population that earns high income will always have more to save and invest and will eventually be exempted from poverty, as opposed to the population that earns lower incomes eventually living from hand to mouth (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009, p.34-56). This concept explains why poverty reflects an unjust distribution of wealth. It answers the question why the rich will continue to be richer, while the poor will eventually be poorer. Hand in hand, capitalism has widely influenced the issue of wealth distribution and inheritance. Capitalism has been attached to “individualistic dictation to work and self-control” (Hamer, 1998, p.6). For instance, inequality in wealth possession is attributed to income and models of life-cycle-saving (Isaac, 2007, p.187). In the context of inheritance, chance is attached to the probability of acquiring wealth. Isaac goes ahead to define chance as “the determination of individual asset returns” (p.190). According to studies by Wolff and Gittleman (2010, p.2), the inheritance of wealth accounts for about 20% to 50% of US’s household wealth. The transfer of wealth has been linked to the ownership of homes and capital source for businesses. Practically, when one is from a family which has had a poverty history, then the chances of any member of the family inheriting wealth are minimal and conversely for rich families. Therefore, ethically, chance is a primary determinant of wealth acquisition through inheritance, and the poor population is automatically locked out of acquiring wealth via inheritance. At the same time, inheritance of wealth comes along with issues of gender equality. For instance, many societies have attributed inheritance of wealth with the male sex. In most cases, males have inherited wealth in the form of land, buildings money and domestic animals in the case of African societies, whereas the females have been left out of inheritance. More so, many people have believed that the issue of inheritance has been influenced by a number of shortcomings. For instance, many people perceive that when some population gets access to wealth from inheritance of household resources, undeniably a rise in the inequality of wealth possession. More critically, a decrease in wealth mobility will be realized when a considerable increase in wealth associated with inheritance results to a bequests inequality (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009). Therefore, inheritance maintains inequalities of wealth, as opposed to increasing, or reducing their margins. This is because behavioral responses towards inheritance cannot be predicted, and they occur in magnitudes that are smaller. Thus, inheritances can either maintain or increase the benefits of wealth in the society, thereby having the capacity of implicating the distribution of wealth, which is in turn represented by poverty. In addition, the implications of justice are critical when it comes to the distribution of wealth. Despite the arguments by philosophers that the contexts in which we find ourselves play a minor role in dictating the chances of one’s richness or poorness (Rummens, 2009, p.657), it is logical to assert that this is a true statement. The discourse principle guides the deliberative approach to justice by stating that; a reasonable deliberation that transpires among all persons involved in an agreement has to form the basis of all the norms that regulate human conduct (Habermas, 1996, p.107; 1998: p.41). More so, given that the people having substantial influence in the society including politicians have not addressed the implications of the gap between the population that earn more income and the one that earns low income, many people have believed that justice cannot prevail when there is no democracy. In such instances, the people having greater influence in the society have resolved to support issues that are entirely beneficial to them as opposed to the good of the community. In this case, many people have tended to support the fact that every project that is constitutional calls for and formulates solidarity among citizens. This is referred to as constitutional patriotism by Habermas (1998, p.118; 2001, p.73). Wealth Distribution and Inheritance in the Current World Poverty and wealth distribution in Africa has led to obtaining of Gross National Income per capita, as a result of the dense population in Africa. Poverty affects unjust distribution of health immensely. For example, in Africa, corruption has escalated rapidly due to the environmental indicators and the unjust condition of a poor man. This is a case where, the poor man has an opportunity of being in a wealthy state or a nation which is economically powerful (Schwartz, 2000, p.54). The Kant theory applies in this scenario, whereby the wealthy treat the poor as a means of getting to their ends. The irrational population has focused on acquiring what they want. Often, the power at hand was abused at one time through corrupt deeds, as the poor man tried to wrestle with poverty in such cases. A typical example is that, there has emerged an unequal distribution of wealth and resources, between the side favoring poverty and the other. For instance, a wealthy man has had the mentality that all wealth belongs to him, and if at all a poor man had some, that was not recognized by him (Sachs, 2005, p.57). The contentious issues in the current patterns of wealth distribution are the nature of population, environment, linkage and stress, which often create a problem between the government and environmentalist. Since poverty is linked directly to the bigger population, researchers have been surveying how population affluence is a propeller of environmental stress. Studies have shown that “the populations of developing countries are the most subjected to the consequences of environmental stress” (Ajaero, 2011, p.64). There if, proof that shows the quantity of human made on population magnitude and per capita resource use, per capita income. Utilitarian theory has been applied by the larger population, in a bid to realize justice and equality. Exploitation of the natural setting has been on the rise, as people have been trying to have the best good for the majority. However, the theory has not been successful as shortcomings have emerged from environmental and political issues. Subsequently there is an argument that all levels of development and population have a raise, corresponding to energy consumption and environmental tension. In the present world, the rich people do not want to be associated with the poor. They have a mentality that they belong to a distinct class, hence; they should only interact with the rich. This brings the implication that the poor should get in touch with the poor too. Egoism theory surfaces in this scenario, whereby the wealthy have been advantaged while the poor disadvantaged, eventually resulting to a state of total poverty and unjust distribution of wealth to the poor man. There is a typical case of Carnegie, who grew up in a developing community of poverty. He acquired a disposition of hard work then eventually succeeded the motivational force that made him believe in that poverty could be overcome. However, when he finally became wealthy, he never wanted any associations with poverty, thus degrading the idolatrous who were in poverty. This a clear picture of how a rise in one’s status brings a divide in family class (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009). According to studies by Enderle (2009), U.S households are positioned according to the amount of property and wealth owned (p.293). Possession of a lot of wealth and property, will earn a higher rank on top of everyone, and low wealth and property will earn the lowest rank in that ranking list. He surveys in percentages that 40% of the total households’ scores only 1% of the whole wealth in the nation, and 1% of the total house hold have almost 30% of all wealth. Wealth distribution among the poor and the rich are characterized by one aspect; a poor man may get a minor wealth distribution due to coming from a poor background engraved with total poverty. This factor leaves a poor man with no option other than to sell his share of wealth distribution to a rich man at a cheaper price, in a bid to meet the end needs of the day. According to the level or the status of people, wealthier people tend to have or get too much wealth in a nation in terms of distribution, compared to an average man or poor man. A poor man often gets inheritance from his biological relative, while the other status of man gets distribution of wealth from both relatives and for being rich and popular in a nation. A rich man’s child often gets inheritance from his parents or rather people involved, while a poor man’s child does not have the certainty of inheriting wealth from his parental family. These instances portray ethic of care. Mark (2001) comes out clearly in describing ethical issues, regarding to wealth distribution as a contradiction. Mark thinks that money does miracles. He draws supporting information for hi ideology from Gibran’s advices, portrayed in the article, 'The prophet.' Mark suggests that a person cannot have thirst when his or her well is full. (p.24). No matter what happens, rich men will always have a higher hand when the distribution of wealth is brought to concern. This is because the rich man has a lot of connections compared to the poor people. Hence all doors not only concerning wealth distribution, will be wide opened but all doors concerning human beings, as far as life is concerned. Since a poor man is totally poor, the possibility of the poor man inheriting something from his parents or friends is minimal. It justifies that a poor man is often poor and has nothing to offer or to inherit. The ethic of care theory is portrayed in this scenario whereby care applies within the family ties. However, the ethic of care does not apply outside the family most often, and if it does, the occurrence on the side of the population majority is seldom. These aspects portray sharp contrast between a poor man and a rich man, who will always have a wealth at the fingertips (Sala, Isermot & Ronald, 2005, p.820). Ethically, for one to be considered into an inheritance state, a person has to be related by either blood or adoption. In the context of Africa, the obedient and respectful child normally finds inheritance (Babarinde, 2009, p.356) in the form of a house, wealth, plot, animals and even business premise. This is with regard to the richness the person giving inheritance was or is. In westernized countries, one could inherit leadership, power, fortune, and business in the form of companies. Thus, both in Africa and western countries such as the U.S., ethical theories expound clearly that; the most proffered candidate to acquire inheritance was either the first born of the family or the last born. Finally, ancient era shows that ethical hypotheses were respected and followed accordingly. Inheritances were a characteristic of all families disregarding the amount of wealth that a family had. Virtue ethics theory applies in this case, given that the continuity of the family is the focal point. The coming generations are often expected to develop virtues and live a better life, but from a closer analysis of the inheritance issue in the current world, does the poor man have a significant amount of wealth to inherit? It is automatic that the person inheriting, or acquiring the wealth cannot dictate the nature or amount of wealth that he or she inherits. Therefore, the implications of ethical issues surrounding wealth acquisition lead to a bitter truth that the wealthy will always be wealthy and the poor will be poorer, unless luck comes on the poor man’s way and a misfortune on the rich man’s way. Conclusion Ethical issues surrounding wealth distribution lead to the line that separates the rich and the poor. Ranging from justice to the rights to wealth, acquisition of wealth has been determined by chance, which is often attributed to several factors including the environment and family history. It is clear that the world’s population ranked as poor is struggling to get to the fewer rich, but many shortcomings often combat this agenda. The fact that the rich will always get more and the poor will always get less defines the nature of wealth distribution in the world. Thus, the notion that poverty represents an unjust distribution of wealth is manifestly true, given that the poor man will never have the right to wealth in the present society, while the rich will always perceive all wealth in the world as theirs. References Ajaero, C. (2011). A comparative evaluation of the impact of population and wealth distribution on the environment of West Africa, African Population Studies, 25(1), 63-72. Babarinde, O. (2009). Bridging the economic divide in the republic of South Africa: A corporate social responsibility perspective, Thunderbird International Business Review, 51(4), 355-368, doi: 10.1002/tie.20272. Enderle, G. (2009). A rich concept of wealth creation beyond profit maximization and adding value, Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 281–295, doi 10.1007/s10551-009-0205-y. Fitzgerald, P. & Constantine, M. (2011). Is ‘ethical wealth’ a contradiction? New Internationalist, 34-36. Habermas, J. (2001). The post-national constellation, Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1998). The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Hamer, J. (1998). Money and the moral order in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century American capitalism, Anthropological Quarterly, 71(3), 138-149. Heilbroner, R. (1987). Wealth, The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics, 4, 880–83. Isaac, A. (2007). Inheriting inequality: Institutional instiutional on the distribution of wealth, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30(2), 187-203, doi: 10.2753/PKE0160-3477300203. Mark, J. (2001). The prophet. New York: Paul Fitzgerald. Misturelli, F. & Heffernan, C. (2008). What is poverty? A diachronic exploration of the discourse on poverty from the 1970s to the 2000s, European Journal of Development Research, 20(4), 666-684, doi: 10.1080/09578810802464888. Pinto, A. (2011). What is the real income of the poor? An accountant's perspective, Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(6), 43-49. Rosplock, K. (2010). Gender matters: Men's and women's perceptions of wealth are mostly aligned, Journal of Wealth Management, 12(4), 15-30. Rummens, S. (2009). No justice without democracy: A deliberative approach to the global distribution of wealth, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17(5), 657-680, doi: 10.1080/09672550903301598. Sala, M., Isermot, D. & Ronald, M. (2004). Determinants of long-term growth: A Bayesian averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach, American Economic Review, 94(4), 813-835. Sachs, J. (2005). Can extreme poverty be eliminated? Scientific American, 293(3), 56-65. Schwartz, J. (2000). Fighting poverty with virtue: Moral reform and America's urban poor, 1825–2000. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Shaw, W., Barry, V. & Sansbury, G. (2009). Moral Issues in Business: 1st Asia-Pacific ed., Cengage Learning. Melbourne, Australia. UNU-WIDER (2006). Pioneering study shows richest two percent own half world wealth. United Nations University website. Retrieved 18 January 2012 from: . Wolff, E. & Gittleman, M. (2010). Inheritances and the distribution of wealth or whatever happened to the great inheritance boom? BLS Working Papers. Retrieved 18 January 2012 from: < http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec110030.pdf>. Read More