This is David Runciman reviewing a book called "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better", by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett .
Here's the first para of the review I found in London Review of Books:
"The argument of this fascinating and deeply provoking book is easy to summarise: among rich countries, the more unequal ones do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator you can imagine. They do worse even if they are richer overall, so that per capita GDP turns out to be much less significant for general wellbeing than the size of the gap between the richest and poorest 20 per cent of the population (the basic measure of inequality the authors use). The evidence that Wilkinson and Pickett supply to make their case is overwhelming. Whether the test is life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity levels, crime rates, literacy scores, even the amount of rubbish that gets recycled, the more equal the society the better the performance invariably is. 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 (which would result in the US coming top, with the Scandinavian countries and the UK not too far behind, and poorer European nations like Greece and Portugal bringing up the rear) but the differences in wealth within them (so the US, as the most unequal society, comes last on many measures, followed by Portugal and the UK, both places where the gap between rich and poor is relatively large, with Spain and Greece somewhere in the middle, and the Scandinavian countries invariably out in front, along with Japan). Just as significantly, this pattern holds inside the US as well, where states with high levels of income inequality also tend to have the greatest social problems. It is true that some of the most unequal American states are also among the poorest (Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia), so you might expect things to go worse there. But some unequal states are also rich (California), whereas some fairly equal ones are also quite poor (Utah). Only a few (New Hampshire, Wyoming) score well on both counts. What the graphs show are the unequal states tending to cluster together regardless of income, so that California usually finds itself alongside Mississippi scoring badly, while New Hampshire and Utah both do consistently well. Income inequality, not income per se, appears to be the key. As a result, the authors are able to draw a clear conclusion: ‘The evidence shows that even small decreases in inequality, already a reality in some rich market democracies, make a very important difference to the quality of life.’ Achieving these decreases should be the central goal of our politics, precisely because we can be confident that it works. This is absolutely not, they insist, a ‘utopian dream’."
I hope people of India, the comfortably ensconced middle class, puts away its myopic glasses and look out and look at the poor people.
The justifications of these car-cocooned ("money will percolate down to them after we are done with it") are more heartbreaking than the grinding poverty of these gentle souls (okay, they are idlers and ruffians, but they don't rationalise their wrongs with Nobel-Prize winning theories, right?).
Someone has to do something- a kilogram of essential vegetables costs as much as a litre of petrol! If you don't do anything, these we well-off will have to face the consequences of our narcissism: our children will take to drugs, we will be mugged, our houses burgled, and our women inside our air-conditioned flats will tremble when someone rings the calling-bell. And then, when we manage survive everything- swine flu will get us.
Serves us right.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2b55daf4-a584-4960-9f24-75f8d4abf9df)
This is the list ranked according to Human Development Index (HDI which has replaced PQLI) as included in UNDPs Human Development Report.
ReplyDeleteThe lists appear to confirm this theory even if they are peppered with anomalies.