What is the Impact of Inequality on Human Security - Research Paper Example

The Impact of Inequality on Human Security The post-Cold War era has seen a significant turn in the debates informing academic scholarship in international security studies, with a range of novel (or alternative) perspectives emerging to challenge the dominant realist and liberal notions of security. The failure of realism to predict or satisfactorily explain the end of the Cold War disputed the prowess of theory (Wohlforth 1994); equally, the unabated spate of intrastate conflicts of the past two decades, along with the rise of global catastrophic terrorism and the international response it generated, undermined the liberal vision of cooperative security (Dunne 2001: 199). The resultant vacuum was, and continues to be, filled by a variety of new theoretical approaches. The most important break from the past has been the expansion of the idea of security from its traditional military understanding to more human and critical directions. For advocates of human security, a concept canonically elaborated in the 1994 Human Development Report (UNDP 1994) the state is no longer the primary referent object. Instead, it is the individual who is taken as the basic referent of security: “Human security…encourage[s] policymakers and scholars to think about international security as something more than the military defense of state interests and territory. Although definitions of human security vary, most formulations emphasize the welfare of ordinary people.” (Paris 2001: 87) Human insecurities may arise due to a variety of factors, ranging from societal insecurity, migration, environmental degradation and climate change, water and resource scarcity, energy security, organized crime (trafficking in humans, narcotics, and arms), health insecurity and various inequalities within society, including political persecution or denial of basic human rights by a repressive regime, to lack of access to critical services such as education and healthcare (Burgess 2007). The purpose of this paper is to explore this last factor: the implications of societal inequality, conceived primarily in economic terms, on the agenda of human security. In recent years, Richard Wilkinson has produced some of the seminal work on the area relating inequality and security (1996; 2005); his main argument remains that various kinds of social inequalities detract from social cohesion, leading to conditions of human insecurity. Specifically, Wilkinson – and epidemiologist by profession – deals with the subject of health and retains that the structure of social relations determines peoples’ health. In essence, Wilkinson maintains that higher the income inequality within a society, the poorer is its overall health i.e. there remains a direct correlation between income inequality and mortality rates. Wilkinson places the structure of societies in a continuum between the two extremes of “dominance hierarchies” and egalitarianism: “Appropriate to each pattern of social relationship, we have deeply ingrained matching social strategies that equip us either for dominance relationships, in which other people are feared rivals, the strong prey on the weak, everyone tries to gain advantage in the social hierarchy, and people exploit each other when they can, or for affiliative relationships, in which other people are the best source of mutual aid, friendship, cooperation, and security.” (2005: 22). But, the author maintains that the strategies to assume in particular social contexts depends on a fine balance that is “triggered by differences in the degree of equality of inequality” in the social environment (Wilkinson 2005: 22-23). Crucially, he asserts that strategies born out of inequality provide the means for less affiliative solutions and likely to produce higher levels of conflict, friction, and violence within society. (Conversely, more equal societies lead to more cohesive strategies and provide greater security to individuals.) Wilkinson shows that antisocial behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, violence and environmental damage all arise out of inequalities in social structures. Wilkinson systematically develops an analytical framework through the study of inequality and throws light on the many human insecurities deriving from the same. He maintains that inequality leads to a much lesser degree of social capital; the higher the income inequality, the greater is the rate of violent crime (including homicides), and people are content to not being involved in community life, and are likely to trust other individuals far less than in societies where the income distribution is more equitable. Therefore, inequality remains corrosive to social life, and complicates the security of individuals on an everyday basis. Low social status (understood as social subordination), early childhood experiences, and poor social affiliations contribute, as psychological factors, to the erosion of sociability and social cohesion. The crude determinant of status remains income, and huge differentials within a society can impact notions of respect, personal worth, and appreciation. Income inequality, therefore, makes societies decidedly fractious. Wilkinson argues that the reason violence proliferates in unequal societies is because inequality and the encumbrance of low social status increases the probability of humiliation and disrespect within society. Lack of social worth and disrespect are potent carriers of violence; greater the distantiation between people in society, higher is the likelihood that inequalities shall foster violence. People remain dependent on reciprocity, cooperation and mutual support for their well-being, and their “security [is] inextricable related to the strength of their social relationships” (Wilkinson 2005: 29). Discrimination becomes the primary dominance strategy in unequal societies. Social friction is related to the extent of inequalities in the social hierarchy, and hence social relations are increasingly poorer with the growth of inequality. Wilkinson also argues that unequal societies tend to be more patriarchal and their dominance hierarchies prove detrimental to women. Also, in a circular logic, since unequal societies tend to be less hospitable, more violent and, in general, more aggressive, the author argues that the status of women in such cases is less likely to improve. Wilkinson cautions that: “Rather than making do with a vague idea that perhaps inequality is socially corrosive, it is essential that we should develop a more thorough understanding of how we are affected by inequality if we are to make headway in solving the problems of modern societies.” (2005: 31). Therefore, it remains essential to think in practical terms about eradicating grave income inequalities through workable public policies that can provide the basis for more secure and hospitable societies. He asserts that the strategies of improving social relations through greater equality may indeed prove a difficult test, but one that must be passed at all costs. It is prudent at this point to consider the implications for Wilkinson’s arguments for security studies, in general, and human security, in particular. His core argument, as we have seen above, rests on the empirical observation that people and societies are more secure when there is marginal inequality in the distribution of incomes across the social structure. Therefore, it is safe to argue that inequality does endanger international life by fostering violence and promoting a climate of competition that is both ruthless and malicious. It must be understood that only when the individual is considered as the referent object (as in human security) can the harmful effects of inequality in terms of security can be comprehended; when the unit of analysis is the state, it is difficult to ascertain such impediments to security. This perspective can throw light on the many intrastate conflicts of the post-Cold War era, something which has stumped theories like neorealism and neoliberalism. Indeed, the politics of the 1990s saw the integration of the international security agenda with the international development agenda, bringing aspects such as economic inequality into the fold global governance. While economic factors for insecurity were lower order security issues for governments during the Cold War, “[g]lobal political changes post-Cold War, the shift in conflicts mainly to poorer regions of the world (particularly Africa), the scale of humanitarian emergencies, the perceived threat of global terrorism, and deepening global economic integration with its attendant inequalities and political protests, created space for the exploration of the relationship between poverty and security within mainstream analysis.” (Thomas 2008: 247) Economic inequality that gives rise to poverty could harbor conflict situations at the individual level, like the trafficking of people, drugs, and arms (the latter, in turn, giving rise to a gun culture), and even domestic violence (Thomas 2008: 248). When we take security as a priori to human beings, rather than political collectives, we can discern a far greater range of threats. Inequality is in many cases tantamount to human insecurity, and the general improvement of the latter demands the eradication of the former. As Thomas asserts, these two categories are inextricably intertwined, and they “refer to a human condition characterized by the lack of fulfillment of a range of human entitlements” such as food, healthcare, shelter, employment, and so on (2008: 248). Inequality and poverty are, in fact, chronic conditions and those living in the same are subject to various sorts of insecurities; these conditions are created over years – sometimes decades – inequitable income distributions (as Wilkinson’s analysis above shows us) and social and political inequalities that result at the national or global level through policies and actions of states and institutions. Inequality and poverty have also led to a monumental increase in internal displacement, while those mired in global pandemics continue to suffer without any voice over the strategy for tackling the issue: “Horizontal inequalities can also be detected from a global perspective, with entire world regions and their inhabitants disadvantaged or advantaged by the particular global rules within which all must operate, yet few set” (Thomas 2008: 253). The experience of global food insecurity, where subsidized products from developed countries challenge (and more often than not uproot) the livelihoods of farmers in developing countries, is an example in which inequalities between societies leads to human insecurity. The changes in the conception of security, including how it can be accesses or provided, has meant that inequality bears a direct correlation to human insecurity. Since security has increasingly become commercialized, i.e. something that may be bought or sold, and more its provision more technologically oriented (Burgess 2007), it is difficult for those with lower incomes and restricted access to resources to guarantee their personal security. Economically, there are further threats to human security that arise from inequalities, which become salient in the wake of the current international financial crisis. Economic depressions, as recent experience tells us, have a worldwide impact and the role of global financial institutions is held as culpable in this regard, as their policies have perpetuated global inequalities. But, some argue that the presence of bodies like the International Monetary Fund is a source of stability; “[a] more representative and human-needs oriented IMF is increasingly accepted as necessary, however, for the further enhancement of human security from economic depression” (Hough 2004: 94). If we are to understand human security as a global public good, then the erosion of security by inequalities may be eradicated by solving the problems of under-provision and limited access, collective governance, and operational delivery (Hampson 2008: 233). Indeed, societies evolve over particular historical and cultural contexts, and one must be mindful to these when devising policies engineered to tackle inequalities. For instance, many argue that liberal democracy and economic liberalization cannot, by themselves, guarantee a viable strategy to produce human security, especially when societies are subject to various vulnerabilities: “The argument is that historical patterns of human settlement and lingering colonial legacies have too often marginalized large numbers of peoples from social, economic and political development processes” (Hampson 2008: 236). States’ foreign economic policies can also make way for certain legislations and regulations that help inequalities endure within society and exacerbating the human security dilemmas that the same cultivate. These tools of economic statecraft may range from particular trade preferences and economic sanctions against certain states to giving incentives for approved actions. However, these policies invariably involve collateral damage (i.e. unintended consequences), are impossible to fully implement or realize, and affect neighboring states through migration and loss of trade. As Hough explains, “There can be little doubt that liberalizing trade leads to more produce and wealth for the world collectively but it is not surprising that governments are reluctant to abandon mercantilism, given that there is a certain risk inherent in opening up your country in this way. The collective spoils of free trade are not likely to be distributed evenly and governments fear not getting their slice of the global pie if it is a global free-for-all.” (2004: 101) Although the dimensions of security are changing rapidly in today’s world, the most acute economic threat to human security comes in the form of famines, both natural and man-made. In terms of numbers, this threat has killed by far the most people in recorded history, totaling more than 70 million deaths since 1770 (Hough 2004: 86). The causes of famines are simply related to the supply and demand for food – decrease in supply, increase in demand, or disruptions of normal supply and distribution – but inherently involve certain political factors as well. The pursuit of ideologically driven state objectives, ignorance on the part of the government, and the failure to modernize remain the primary political factors. These occurrences are more likely in countries where there is a distinct inequality in the level of political freedom, whether in voicing dissent or advancing alternatives. The evidence, here, points to China under General Mao, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and India during the Second World War. The problem of inequality also raises several downsize risks, which relate to the “vicissitude, or turbulent ups and downs, intrinsic to the evolution of human economies and societies, and the term ‘risks’ implies those hazards which occur due to positive action or non-action of human agency” (Mine 2007: 64). Indeed, there is a large human dimension to the possible prevention of escalation in threats and conflict scenarios; human failures in such cases – whether due to the lack of organization and infrastructure, asymmetrical information or late response – can prove critical, if not altogether fatal. For downsize risks, it must be understood that these dangers have increasingly become diversified (ecological imbalance, resource scarcity, organized crime, et al.), and these are increasingly characterized by their abruptness of occurrence. The role of the state in dealing with such threats has been gradually limited, with increasing interconnections between the local, national, regional, and global levels and transnational movements and organizations acting as intervening variables (Mine 2007: 65-67). As Caroline Thomas maintains, “The associated material challenges for the achievement of human security in the new century are immense: the reduction of global poverty, the reduction of inequality between states and between human beings, and the harnessing of scientific advancement for the benefit of the majority of humankind. The rapid technological advances under way have the potential to decrease or increase existing inequalities, depending on how they are used and which rules determine the distribution of the benefits.” (2000: 11-13) The picture that emerges, therefore, shows that inequality is both a micro- and macro-level problem. If particular national policies prove harmful for human security in a national context, they are reinforced and perpetuated by the global political and economic processes through which individual actions are moderated. Tackling these challenges requires a new framework of analysis; this is precisely where scholarship on human security comes in. However, a fresh academic perspective is only part of the solution, since correcting human insecurities demands a new policy direction. At the moment, there is now a clear suggestion that such a consensus is emerging at the global level. The ‘reformist’ approach to development, while still aiming for global economic integration through the free market, has sought to rethink the top-down neoliberal policies of the IMF and World Bank, by including local solutions to persistent problems ad increasing the range of preferences for individual agents. Moreover, the problems related to market subsidies and inefficiencies, financial instabilities, and the role of monetary institutions in regulating the global marketplace have been brought under the reformist agenda (Thomas 2000: 95). From the above essay, we can see that inequality ingrained within societal and international life can lead to a variety of problems and security concerns. By tracing the negative effects of inequality through the ideas of Wilkinson, we were able to prepare an understanding of why inequality is socially corrosive and the ill effects it can cause. This discussion helped us underpin the role of inequality in the proliferation of a whole range of security concerns. In conclusion, it is fair to remark that inequality has grave implications for human security, and the task to obviate its harmful effects shall be long and arduous. However, there is an increasingly active and vocal global movement towards achieving this goal; while inequality between and within nations may continue to persist, fresh alternatives may help reduce its telling effect on human security. References Burgess, J. P. (2007) ‘Non-Military Security Challenges.’ In Contemporary Security and Strategy. Ed. by Snyder, C. A. London: Palgrave. Dunne, T. (2001) ‘Liberalism.’ In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations [3rd Edition]. Ed. by Baylis, J. & Smith, S. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hampson, F. O. (2008) ‘Human Security.’ In Security Studies: An Introduction. Ed. by Williams, P. D. New York: Routledge. Hough, P. (2004) Understanding Global Security. London: Routledge. Mine, Y. (2007) ‘Downsize Risks and Human Security.’ In Protecting Human Security in a Post 9/11 World: Critical and Global Insights. Ed. by Shani, G., Sato, M., & Pasha, M. K. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Paris, R. (2001) ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security, 26, 2: 87-102. Thomas, C. (2000) Global Governance, Development and Human Security: The Challenge of Poverty and Inequality. London: Pluto Press. Thomas, C. (2008) ‘Poverty.’ In Security Studies: An Introduction. Ed. by Williams, P. D. New York: Routledge. United Nations Development Programme. (1994) Human Development Report 1994. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, R. G. (1996) Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. New York: Routledge. Wilkinson, R. G. (2005) The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier. New York: The New Press. Wohlforth, W. C. (1994) ‘Realism and the End of the Cold War.’ International Security, 19, 3: 91-129. Read More