Inequalities And Its Eeffects - Essay Example

?Inequalities and its effects Introduction The world has been witnessing continuous activities, with the human indulging in various mental and physical activities, which bordered on both constructive as well as destructive sides. When one looks at the constructive side, these activities have transformed the world from a primitive place to a place, where there is advancement everywhere. This advancement seems to be omnipresent, with the ‘fruits’ of advancement positively and beneficially impacting various sections of the population. However, there are still sizable sections of the population, who have not seen or benefited from that advancement. As this advancement does not seem to be widespread, inequalities between sections of population have turned out to be a common phenomenon in various societies. This inequality arises mainly because of differences in wealth, job, ethnicity, caste, etc, etc. Authors, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their book, The Spirit Level with the subtitle “Why Equality is Better for Everyone” focus on these inequalities particularly economic inequalities, its effects on human life and how more equal societies will flourish better. In the book, The Spirit Level, authors Wilkinson and Pickett mainly focus on the ill-effects of economic inequalities, and scientifically as well as statistically try to show how smaller gap between the rich sections of the population and the poorer sections, can provide benefits to all. That is, the authors put forward the view, that the inequalities that exists between the rich and poor sections of a population in a particular community or country, is the main cause of concern, and it could lead to various problems for all the sections of population, necessitating the need to reduce these inequalities. This paper will critically discuss the arguments put by Wilkinson and Pickett against these inequalities with apt supporting evidences. Methodology Methodology, carried out as part of research and analysis, plays an important role when a comes up with any research based book. The authors used optimum methodology to support their arguments about inequalities and their effects. In that direction, they have used only relevant, authentic and reputed sources. They retrieved data from the World Bank, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and others. “To avoid being accused of picking and choosing our measures, our approach in this book has been to take measures provided by official agencies rather than calculating our own” (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009, pg. 18). However, this approach of the authors to prove their hypothesis was not accepted by all the experts. They found loopholes in this methodology, particularly the statistical analysis part, and thereby found loopholes in their arguments as well. The point put forward was, by just drawing lines or even a “line of best fit” based on a various variables and series of data points does not hold any statistical significance, unless the statistical analyses was done. They are convinced that these statistical tables do not provide the correct picture, as adequate analyses were not done. This was pointed out by Moore (2010) “Drawing a line through a series of data points signals nothing concrete… The authors promise that they "have only included a best-fit line through the points"…But since they do not provide any statistical analyses, this can't be verified.” Kay (2009) further adds up against the methodology and thereby the argument of the authors by pointing out how regression methods may not correctly aid in analyzing the economic and importantly social statistics. As social statistics could be influenced by various variables, and is an evolving process, it cannot be easily focused. In addition, adequate data were not given in relation to the estimated equations. Thus, if one “removes the bold lines from the diagram, the pattern of points mostly looks random, and the data dominated by a few outliers.”(Kay 2009). From the above perspectives, it can be said that the methodology used by the authors may not be foolproof and could be subjected to skepticism, thus showing how the arguments against inequalities made with those data cannot be trusted. Measure of inequality As pointed out above, the inequality can be measured as the one that happens between the rich and the poor in a particular country, and not inequalities between the rich countries and the poor countries. The key point or differentiation, the authors make, is that wellbeing of a country’s people, cannot be actualized or should not be judged based only on the wealth or economic status of that particular country. Instead, the focus should be far more deeper, with the economic inequalities between the rich and the poorer sections of the population mainly deciding the welfare of the people. "In graph after graph measuring various welfare functions, the authors show that the best predictor of how countries will rank is not the differences in wealth between them, but the differences in wealth within them” (Runciman 2009). On those lines, the authors state that USA, which occupies the top economic status, does not provide fullest care to its people, while the relatively less economically well-off countries like Japan and other Scandinavian countries provide a better environment for the people. “The position of the US in the international graph (Figure 2.2) shows that the high average income level in the US as a whole, does nothing to reduce its health and social problems relative to other countries.” (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009, pg.21). However, when one views this perspective critically, it is clear that although this could be possible, it may not be the norm. That is, with each country having its own culture and social life, the income inequality between the sections of the people may not directly impact their wellbeing. That is, as stated by Kenworthy (2010) American culture is relatively informal, and so Americans tend to be optimistic about the possibility of upward mobility in the economical sense, and so their status and their income grouping can change quite quickly, even in the post-recession environment. With income status not being a static thing, the inequalities could change leading to different perspectives about its correlation to social problems. This was further validated by Kay (2009) who stated that many societies perform well in terms of their own criteria, and so comparing USA with Singapore, Sweden or even Japan regarding the correlation of income and health cannot give a realistic picture. Spatial vs. social inequality Spatial based concentration of anything including population, industries and also income could also lead to inequalities. That is, when a particular region or country has good natural resources and other optimal opportunities, the people there could become economically well off if they aptly tap those opportunities. While, people living in a place with lack of resources, can expect only minimum facilities and could also face health based problems because of the underdevelopment. Authors Wilkinson and Pickett points out how more equal distribution of resources and thereby the income status “will mean fewer people will be living in shanty towns, with dirt water and food insecurity” (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009, pg. 30). Although, this perspective is true in many cases, there are also occasions, when a region filled with optimum resources could not tap those resources economically, and more importantly those resources may benefited only few sections of the population, thus leading to more inequality. Speaking about the spatial aspect, one critical argument against the book is that it misses focusing on the inequalities in key countries like South Korea and Czech Republic. Snowdon (2010), who published a book titled The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New mainly as a critique to The Spirit Level, states that the authors has not included South Korea and the Czech Republic in the analyses, without clear justification. He further goes on to state that these countries are excluded as they may have data, which could break the authors’ main thesis. These spatial based inequalities can also lead to other actions in another sphere. “…the relative stability of particular spatial formations defines access to land and water, energy and food supplies, and meaningful political voice" (Lawson 2010, pg.355). Political voice in the sense, when people from one particular place become rich during a particular party’s rule, then the other sections will polarize against that party. “When the rich take even more of the national income of a country (and almost all of its wealth), the health of the poor suffers and voting in general elections becomes more spatially polarised.” (Dorling 2010, pg.26). Economics and social approach of inequality Although, economic and social sphere can exist independently, most of the times, both these correlate and coexist, and this is particularly visible in the case of inequalities and its effects. That is, people may face social problems due to the lack of economic based material things, and that in turn leads to inequalities. According to Wilkinson and Pickett (2009, pg.24), Social problems are caused “directly by poor material conditions such as bad housing, poor diets, lack of educational opportunities and so on implies that richer developed societies would do better than the others.” However, the authors further state that this may not be the truth, because some of the richest countries tend to perform worst in social care. “The problems in rich countries are not caused by the society not being rich enough (or even by being too rich) but by the scale of material differences between people within each society being too big” (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009, pg.25). However, this argument of the authors regarding inequalities caused by bad social conditions was viewed from a different perspective by the sociologist John Goldthorpe. Goldthorpe (2009) argues that although lack of social conditions is a key reason for inequalities, the authors Wilkinson and Pickett seems to focus on income inequality mainly from the economic perspective, with other social aspects merely viewed as income marker. Thus, Goldthorpe (2010) state that more research has to be carried out to support Wilkinson and Pickett’s “account of the psychosocial generation of the contextual effects of inequality on health or the rival neo-materialist account”. Another key component of socio-economic approach, is the social status of the individuals. A social status will be mainly achieved or given based on the economic background of that individual. So, both are interrelated and could also be a factor of visible inequalities. However, Kenworthy (2010) states Wilkinson and Pickett do not address, concerns regarding the “tightness of the link between the degree of income inequality in a society and the degree of status competition.” One of the key determinants of this social economic approach is the health of the people. The common perception is, if an individual is wealthy or if aptly said, if a country is an economic power, then the health of its people will also be optimal. However, the authors in line with their theory of inequalities within a particular country, state that countries with bigger income inequalities may not be able to give a better healthcare and also people will have lower life expectancy. “All these problems are most common in the most deprived areas of our society and are many times more common in more unequal societies” (Runciman 2009). Yee (2010) toes this line of the authors by stating that increase in economic wealth of a country is no longer “correlated with improvements in child well-being, health, social trust, and so forth”. Instead, it is more strongly correlated to, or results in income inequalities, which in turn is “correlated with crime levels, teenage births, obesity, and other social problems.” (Yee 2010). However, when one focuses on the views of Runciman (2009) it is clear that there is not enough data in the book, which supports the above perspective regarding health. According to Runciman (2009), most of the data they rely on does not exactly say this, with the graphs that ranks different countries’ performance based on its life expectancy rates, incarceration rates, obesity rates, etc, are simply average measures. Conclusion It can be seen from the above analysis, that these inequalities is prevalent for the past few centuries only because of the advancements particularly in economic, social and technology sphere, which took place mainly in the last few centuries. In the earlier centuries, human beings lived in a mostly egalitarian prehistoric hunting and gathering societies with very minimal inequalities. (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009), However, as the world advanced certain sections of the population utilizing the various advancements, progressed optimally, while leaving behind others. This inequality is now visible in various facets of human life and is leading to various repercussions for the people References Dorling, D 2010, “All connected? Geographies of race, death, wealth, votes and births”, Geographical Journal, vol. 176, no. 3, pp. 186-198 Goldthorpe, JH 2010, Analysing Social Inequality: A Critique of Two Recent Contributions from Economics and Epidemiology, European Sociological Review, vol. 26, no. 6, pp.731-744 Kay, J 2009, The Spirit Level, Financial Times, viewed on May 5, 2011 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/77b1bd26-14db-11de-8cd1-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1LYXzmzJ3 Kenworthy, L 2010, Inequality as a social cancer, viewed on May 5, 2011 http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/01/18/inequality-as-a-social-cancer/ Lawson, V 2010, “Reshaping Economic Geography? Producing Spaces of Inclusive Development”, Economic Geography, vol.86, no.4, pp. 351–360 Moore, C 2010, “Inequality is not a social illness to be 'cured'”, The Telegraph, viewed on May 5, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7193991/Inequality-is-not-a-social-illness-to-be-cured.html Reeves, R 2009, “In search of the truth about equality in Britain”, The Observer, viewed on May 5, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/apr/05/spirit-level-richard-wilkinson Runciman, D 2009, “How messy it all is”, London Review of Books, vol. 31, no. 20-22, viewed on May 5, 2011 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n20/david-runciman/how-messy-it-all-is Snowdon, C 2010, The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New Theory of Everything, Democracy Institute/Little Dice, 2010 Yee, D 2009, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, viewed on May 5, 2011 http://dannyreviews.com/h/Spirit_Level.html Read More