More Resources

Equality and Economy: The Global Challenge.


Equality and Economy: The Global Challenge

Michael Blim

AltaMira Press: Walnut Creek, CA, 2005, 243pp, $29.95, ISBN 0-7591-0688-6.

This excellent interdisciplinary book by anthropologist Michael Blim analyses inequality and poverty around the world and considers proposals to address them. After two anthropological and philosophical chapters, the last eight deal primarily with the economic aspects of equality. Examples are drawn from the USA, China, India, the European Union, Mexico, and other countries. The policies of the World Bank and IMF are thoroughly reviewed.

In early chapters, the author discusses the concepts of 'cultural relativism,' and then provides a stimulating discussion of 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome' with reference to the ideas of John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Amartya Sen. One idea encountered in several chapters is that economic growth can reduce poverty but not inequality. But according to Blim, there is some evidence that countries with highly unequal income distributions have experienced a lower level of economic growth than more egalitarian countries. The link between unequal distribution of income and unequal distribution of wealth is also explored.

We are treated to a fascinating comparison of two adjacent regions in India, Kerala and Karnataka. Although Kerala has experienced low rates of economic growth, it enjoys low infant mortality rates and a near-perfect literacy rate. Karnataka, on the other hand, with its capital Bengalor, has higher levels of production than Kerala, but suffers significantly higher infant mortality rates and a literacy rate of only 67%.

The author considers ideas for reducing the level of inequality within countries, such as progressive income and wealth taxes, measures to improve the conditions of vulnerable groups based on race, gender, disability, land reform, cooperatives, and education and health care for the poor. The author suggests that government expenditures on elementary and secondary education are pro-poor, while expenditures on higher education are pro-rich. Similarly, expenditures on primary health care are pro-poor, while expenditures on hospitals are pro-rich. In certain countries, however, government expenditure on primary health care is also regressive, because the poor have less ability to make informal payments to receive health services. This discussion would have benefited from more attention to the likely negative effect of corruption on equality.

Blim argues that we could reduce poverty with higher economic growth rates without at the same time reducing inequality. On the other hand, if we take measures to redistribute income, then poverty also would decrease and there will be improvement of quality of life of the poor. Those economists who oppose redistribution of income and wealth argue that when we try to achieve more equality, we end up reducing incentives of all citizens to generate income and wealth. Even the poor will have less incentive to work. But when the state provides free child care, mass transportation, and other services to poor people, they will have a way to find a job. True, generous amounts of unemployment insurance could reduce the incentive to find a job. But even if some redistributional policies reduce incentives, is that more significant than improvement in the well being of the poor? Besides the Kerala example, the author cites the example of Sweden, where the growth rates lately have been lower than most neighbouring countries, but the social welfare indicators, such as infant mortality rates, are better.

My impression is that it would be easier to generate political support to alleviate extreme poverty than to reduce inequality because in the perception of the public, the concept of equality is not associated with the idea of well being. By arguing for this association and by pointing out how widespread deep poverty is around the world, this book has made an important contribution.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100245

Ara Khanjian

Ventura College

Ventura, CA, USA

COPYRIGHT 2009 Association for Comparative Economic Studies Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.


Marketplace

Learn how to distribute a press release

Try our new online printing. theupsstore.com/print
Today on Entrepreneur

Sign Up for the Latest in:
Online Business
Franchise News
Starting a Business
Sales & Marketing
Growing a Business

E-mail*

Zip Code*