Achieving some level of socio- economic and even political equality is a pre- determinant of the development of a nation. But the question is , can development be achieved in a country without some level of equality?
I'd say you need equality of opportunity, not so much mere equality (a utopian concept), for credible development to take place. Reason being, without equality of opportunity, the smart, entrepreneurial minds needed to create widespread, sustainable development, will simply not get the chance.
Economic systems are quite complicated, self-regulating machines. History demonstrates time and again that a small group of privileged individuals rarely, if ever at all, understand how to successfully adjust the knobs manually.
I'd say you need equality of opportunity, not so much mere equality (a utopian concept), for credible development to take place. Reason being, without equality of opportunity, the smart, entrepreneurial minds needed to create widespread, sustainable development, will simply not get the chance.
Economic systems are quite complicated, self-regulating machines. History demonstrates time and again that a small group of privileged individuals rarely, if ever at all, understand how to successfully adjust the knobs manually.
You may have development, but as Albert pointed out, it would not be credible. The few privileged groups can possibly dominate development to their interests and not necessarily for all to benefit.
Best regards,
Debra
Putting aside some lucky societies that have enjoyed a reasonable level of equality early in their history, in practice equality seems to be a goal and a logical result of a balanced development process. Rapid economic growth usually produces inequality, although it may also reduce absolute poverty (that is, poverty can diminish but the rich get even more richer, so the gap widens). In general we see that just a few countries follow a policy of balanced development. Most of them opt to grow without taking more care than the (politically) indispensable for increasing inequality and social cost in the short run.
In Section 3 of the paper linked below, "Income inequality and economic growth" is discussed. This section might give a partial answer to the complicated problem contained in the question posed here. There the following is described:
Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that inequality is growth-enhancing. […] In fact, most of the recent empirical evidence regarding the effect of inequality on growth contradicts the conventional wisdom.
https://thorbecke.economics.cornell.edu/docs/SEImpact.pdf
'Some level of equality' is the goal of a nation's economy and the welfare of the people. What is required is the achievement of equilibrium as equality is a utopian idea. This depends on the government's attitude which should ideally be attenuation of the difference between the rich and the poor. Communism advocates elimination of the difference by nationalizing the national wealth and the means of production. This has been experimented in Soviet Russia. But nationalization of a state's wealth and its equitable distribution led to the fall in entrepreneurship, resulting in weak economic growth. China has revised the attitude and has allowed entrepreneurship. To achieve 'some level of equality', the ideology of the political party in power so be so oriented. In this age of globalization when international players are invited to every country to set up industries for the purpose of creation of jobs, eradication of poverty and uplift of the quality of life of the poor should be the primary aim of meaningful management of the economy. To achieve this goal, state funding in infrastructural development even through deficit budget is a prerequisite. Moreover, while the government should encourage entrepreneurship through sops, the government should have programmes to improve the condition of the poor by facilitating free education and healthcare for the poor. Housing is a great problem in all the countries, particularly in the third world countries. The government should have subsidized programmes to provide good homes to the poor. The state can have such programmes by generating revenues through traditional taxation and encouraging industrial enterprises. At the end of the day, it is doubtlessly true that some level of economic equality is the sine qua non to achieve meaningful development of a country.
Sibaprasad Dutta
For sustainable development, equality of opportunities, rationally distribution of resources, and equity(justice) are essential.
Yes of course. In fact, much of the recent development globally been at the expense of growing inequality.
Safety and security with peace in a country is mandatory for its development. Justice and welfare of common people have also prime importance in this regard.
Develpment can't be attained without some level of education, in particular, superior education. With this it will be developped a public administration, a health system, a banking sector, etc. Educated citizens will tend to equality. So development requires some level of education, which will facilatate some level of equality.
All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded the individual.
--- Albert Einstein
Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance.
--- Ban Ki-moon
Development in a country can only be achieved if there is peace and there will be peace only if there is 'some level of equality.'
Dear Kayode, I do get your point. However, I shall stick to the letter, thus:
As a matter of fact economic development is not incompatible with equality. Quite on the contrary, economic development promotes inequality, either within a nation or else abroad - in a non-zero sum world.
Economic development entails concepts such as: competitiveness, increasing consume, destruction of nature, and many other similar consequences.
Now, to the spirit of your question: should economic development entail equality then we would van to radically change the very concept of economic development.
Economic development can be achieved in an unequal context!... However it won't be sustainable and will lead to pressure toward equality... The cycle could be as follows: Unequal Development -> Society frustrated -> Informed public > pressure toward Equality > Partial Equality > political Deception > Unequal development and so on.. it's a subjective view of equality and development, based on my observations in different countries
True development needs perpetually to overcome inequality ... in a sense, whenever there is inequality, there is tension and hence a few will strive for equality... Artificial equality brings about an artificial sense of development. That's my two cents.
Dear all, I agree with Carlos Eduardo: it would be indispensable to change the statistical indicators: for example, instead of GNP, which does not show the spread or scope of product by community, etc., using another way of visualizing which communities are getting their fair share of the wealth. Of course, new indicators would account for new ways of sharing that wealth more equitably, in the first place...
Best regards, Lilliana
With equality in education may be we can have development. People who have a formal education are the natural candidates to Public admnistration, to Banking system, Health services, etc.
Socio- economic development is a poor fixed term. Socio- economic and even political equality is really only myth. But socio- economic and even political inequality is a main risk for humanity. And of cause any sustainable development on long-term scale is impossible if this inequality would be so huge as now.
Dear colleagues,
There are 7 reasons we need a Sustainable Development Goal on reducing economic inequality
This is the year the United Nations (UN) agrees on a new set of Sustainable Development Goals to lead the international development agenda until 2030. Today NEF publishes a report on why eliminating extreme economic inequality must be on the hit list.
1. We can’t end poverty without tackling inequality
Most of the world’s poor now live in middle-income countries, not low-income countries. They are struggling not because there isn’t enough in their economies to go around – but because wealth and resources are piling up in the hands of the rich.
2. Inequality wrecks the planet
In the face of climate change and dwindling natural resources, the chances of our planet sustaining indefinite economic growth are slim. But reducing inequality could go a long way to eradicating poverty even in a low growth scenario. Forecasts show that – even if the world economy slows down – a more equal world in 2030 would have half the number of people living in extreme poverty.
Inequality also does untold environmental damage of its own – by driving a consume-to-catch-up culture, as people struggle to emulate the cars, holidays, houses and fashion of those further up the chain.
3. Meeting basic needs is not enough
There is a big misconception that inequality will be solved as a by-product of other measures, such as universal healthcare and education. But while these measures are vital for progress on human rights they are no guarantee of a more equal society. Studies have again and again shown that high income and wealth inequality is strongly related to lower levels of social mobility. The UK is a case in point – even though we have universal education and healthcare many of our poorest are trapped in cycles of deprivation that last generations.
4. Economic inequality worsens social exclusion
The proposed SDGs rightly have a strong focus on reducing disparities along gender, ethnic and religious lines. But even with less discrimination disadvantaged groups will not attain parity without addressing grossly unequal starting points. High levels of economic inequality mean that anyone with even a small initial disadvantage are unlikely to fulfil their potential.
5. Inequality is a slippery slope
Political inequality is a direct descendent of economic inequality and it is incredibly hard to reverse. As soon as one echelon of society can pay for the best childcare, the top schools, the best doctors, lawyers and bank managers it is not long before all positions of power are theirs too (or their children’s). And why would they want to change a system that is rigged in the favour of them?
6. It is measurable
One of the main arguments against including economic inequality in the SDG shortlist is that it cannot be robustly measured. But this is a poor excuse. Our paper explores a range of potential options and settles on the Palma ratio, an indicator that weighs up the ratio of income going to the poorest 40% compared to the ten per cent. This could be complimented with other easily-communicated measures such as changes in real median incomes and the share of wealth going to the top 1%.
7. We need a transformative SDG
Sustainable Development will never be achieved by tinkering around the edges of a fundamentally flawed economy. While other proposed goals on basic water, education, healthcare and sanitation are crucial for progress on human rights, an SDG on eliminating economic inequality would force governments to address the root causes of our problems.
Yes, development is possible without some level of equality. But this can not be sustainable. Inequlaity leads to conflicts, which adversely affects development. It is not easy to achieve equality in all forms!
Yes, It can be achieved without equality, since which is needed for development is a high level of social control in the sense of having good level of social organizations and standardized control technologies. Development does not imply equality.
well, you will be able to achieve economic growth without equality. But development is a broader concept which you need to consider many other aspects including social development where you need equality.
Brazil is one of the biggest economies od the world and yet we have the poorest and most violent communities in the planet.
The very aim of development is to reduce inequalities moreover it depends upon the nature of development-driving force.
Equality is not the prerequisit of development, if everything is equal then maybe everyone is equally poor.
Of course Yes. Development is possible without some level of equality. But I think this development can not be sustainable. The inequality will create socio-cultural conflicts.
I believe equality is an essential component for development. Development depends on many factors, such as financial, social, political and human factors.
I do believe that the sustainable development of any country will be better with some level of equality in opportunity and transparency in action.
In any society , people are economically classified as upper class ( rich ) , middle class ( upper & lower ) & lower class ( poor ) . The private sector takes care of the rich & upper middle class , while the public sector ( government ) takes care of the lower middle class & poor sections of society . This is the concept of the welfare state , which should reduce inequality in society . If the governments depend on private sector to take care of the poor , it would worsen equality . Therefore , it is the duty of the government to play its role in development by reducing inequality
Of course, dear Kayode! It is equality which spoils development in our capitalist society. Development is based on exploiting the many for the benefit of the few.
Best regards, Lilliana
The straightforward answer is " No ". The development of a country means inclusive development of all sections of the society. God created every human being as same, it is His creation: some human beings, who practices discrimination through their policies, programs, actions and behavior. It is the responsibility of all persons in positions of authority ( particularly, political leaders ), to strive for all round development of socioeconomic segments for overall development of the country.
Why do we vouch for democracy in a sovereign country . Simple reason , it offers equal opportunity to everyone to make use of such opportunity. Therefore, you need some kind of equality to feel the impact of development rationally distributed to all , otherwise rich will be richer and poor will turn poorer with time...eventually leading to all kinds of problems...brain drain finally..migration..
Develpment can be attained without equality, by exploration of people. This will result in emigration, and other types of consequences of the bad distibution of wealth.
Development, on the lines of the western economic model, is largely achieved without equality. However, the aim is to raise the living standards of the general population. Development with equality might be described as Socialism and there is yet no evidence to suggest that 'top down' equality has been achieved here. Perhaps, China, with its remarkable record on reduction of urban poverty is a case you might look at?
considero Que la responsabilidad de los Gobernantes es Garantizar el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de sus gobernados pero mientras se lucha solo por tener poder político para que junto con los del poder económico determinar estilos de economía donde logran enriquecerse ampliamente con el consentimiento de órganos de gobiernos y de algunos miembros de la sociedad donde una sociedad no regula de ninguna manera lo que hace bien o mal un gobierno donde no se evalua ni hay rendición de cuentas de lo que se invierte y como se invierte entonces seguirá aumentando la pobreza en nuestras naciones.
De ahi que nosotros los investigadores tenemos la oportunidad de ofrecer investigaciones que ayuden a nuestros estudiantes a tener un mayor nivel de conciencia a la hora de ocupar cargos importantes en el sector publico y privado.
saludos prof arturo rivera
I agree with Albert.
If you talk about EQUALITY we can write pages n pages, give lectures but practically how much can we achieve!! This kind of issues depend on country's policy matters and issues like social backgrounds. Unless otherwise we have some strict policy it is very difficult to achieve both development and equality.
You're such a cynic, Lilliana! Capitalism does indeed exploit the many, to make use of their individual talents. As opposed to assuming that one warm body is interchangeable for another warm body, and that some central authority is the best arbiter at assigning warm bodies to available jobs.
Like any system, capitalism can become unstable, if certain input conditions are applied. That's why we have government regulations. It is the job of the free press, and the government regulators, to educate themselves first, then monitor industries, and apply (or lobby for) corrective action as needed. In general, the machine has to be self regulating, though. Oversight is needed when conditions go outside the range of effectiveness of the self regulating mechanisms.
To assume "equality," aside from "of opportunity," is to make mindless drones of people. We're all different. Industries which can recognize and exploit the differences are the ones that run best.
Dear Kayode,
In my opinion, development and equality are two different things and has less impact to one another.
Say, for example, let us take individuals like us. Our development is in the hands of us and not in the hands of equality.
Our development is directly proportional to a number of efforts, that we put in and how much harder we work towards our goals in life.
Same goes to the country as well. The development of a country lies with it's Citizen's hard work, discipline, and wisdom towards their election of leaders to rule or ruin their country.
In a bigger picture, if we look at nature, there is no equality at all. Everything is created with VARIANCES and IT WILL VARY AT ALL THE TIMES irrespective of anything.
Thus, development of a country and equality has fewer things in common.
Regards.
Sekar Gopal.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics