In the last two decades, the world as a whole has gotten richer, but, while some national economies have advanced sharply, others have fallen farther behind. The increase in aggregate wealth has not led to the abolition, or even reduction, of poverty.
Much the same is true within countries. Almost everywhere, globalization has produced both a new class of multi-millionaires and an underclass comprising people who are not just poor in the statistical sense of earning less than half the national average, but who are excluded from opportunities that are supposed to be open to all. Globalization’s dynamism has benefited many, but it has also increased inequality.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? There are many who think so. In fact, entire countries have a built-in egalitarian streak. They dislike the business leaders who take home huge sums even when they fail, and they hate to see poor and excluded people in their midst.
But, while it is comfortable to live in the social-democratic world of Scandinavia, Germany, and other European countries, many of them have purchased their equality on credit from future generations.
Moreover, an egalitarian climate does not promote innovation and a sense of dynamic development. Creative individuals tend to leave societies in which there is strong pressure not to be different. Inequality is not merely compatible with freedom, but is often a result of and stimulus for freedom.
Is that the choice we have to make then: freedom or equality? Things are not quite so simple. A free society recognizes two limits to economic and general inequality. Both raise quite difficult practical questions, though they are clear in principle.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Inequality is incompatible with freedom if it limits individuals’ chances of participation in the political community, in the market, and in civil society. At the lower end of the social scale, this raises the old and vexing question of equality of opportunity. What is clear is that everyone must have access to elections and political parties, to education and the labor market, and to the associations of civil society.
In short, citizenship in the full sense of the word requires basic rights and the ability to enforce them. It also requires a basic economic status, including an income guarantee, which can be provided in a variety of ways.
One difficult question is where, exactly, to draw the line that defines the basic status to which all citizens are entitled. In most countries, it should probably be higher than it is now. Another difficult question is how the basic status is to be guaranteed. The debate about individual income supplements versus general public services has become lively everywhere. It may well be resolved with different answers that accord with different countries’ traditions, although tax credits and similar additions to people’s incomes are more compatible with free societies.
At the upper end of the social and economic scale, a different issue arises. Many people object to business managers who take away in pay, bonuses, and stock options hundreds of millions of dollars from their companies. Indeed, there is a legitimate question whether the behavior of today’s capitalists promotes the general acceptance of capitalism. But individual wealth becomes a problem only if and when it can be used to restrict others’ chances of participation.
When wealth turns into unchecked power, something must be done to restrict it. What has come to be called money laundering, that is, the attempt to turn illicit gains into legitimate riches, provides one example of the need for action. There are others, including the question of inheritance taxes, which have long been regarded as a necessary component of a free society.
Nevertheless, while a free society recognizes limits to inequality, it also accepts that inequality exists, for it provides hope for many by showing what one might achieve with ability and luck – or perhaps even luck alone. Inequality adds color and variety to societies; it is one of the marks of lively, flexible, and innovative countries. It is thus not bad in itself, even if its excesses must be capped in the name of citizenship for all.
Social exclusion and personalized power through wealth are always unacceptable. But if we want freedom, then social and economic inequalities are a legitimate, and necessary, price to pay.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Many countries’ recent experiences show that boosting manufacturing employment is like chasing a fast-receding target. Automation and skill-biased technology have made it extremely unlikely that manufacturing can be the labor-absorbing activity it once was, which means that the future of “good jobs” must be created in services.
shows why policies to boost employment in the twenty-first century ultimately must focus on services.
Minxin Pei
doubts China’s government is willing to do what is needed to restore growth, describes the low-tech approaches taken by the country’s vast security apparatus, considers the Chinese social-credit system’s repressive potential, and more.
Log in/Register
Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.
In the last two decades, the world as a whole has gotten richer, but, while some national economies have advanced sharply, others have fallen farther behind. The increase in aggregate wealth has not led to the abolition, or even reduction, of poverty.
Much the same is true within countries. Almost everywhere, globalization has produced both a new class of multi-millionaires and an underclass comprising people who are not just poor in the statistical sense of earning less than half the national average, but who are excluded from opportunities that are supposed to be open to all. Globalization’s dynamism has benefited many, but it has also increased inequality.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? There are many who think so. In fact, entire countries have a built-in egalitarian streak. They dislike the business leaders who take home huge sums even when they fail, and they hate to see poor and excluded people in their midst.
But, while it is comfortable to live in the social-democratic world of Scandinavia, Germany, and other European countries, many of them have purchased their equality on credit from future generations.
Moreover, an egalitarian climate does not promote innovation and a sense of dynamic development. Creative individuals tend to leave societies in which there is strong pressure not to be different. Inequality is not merely compatible with freedom, but is often a result of and stimulus for freedom.
Is that the choice we have to make then: freedom or equality? Things are not quite so simple. A free society recognizes two limits to economic and general inequality. Both raise quite difficult practical questions, though they are clear in principle.
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Inequality is incompatible with freedom if it limits individuals’ chances of participation in the political community, in the market, and in civil society. At the lower end of the social scale, this raises the old and vexing question of equality of opportunity. What is clear is that everyone must have access to elections and political parties, to education and the labor market, and to the associations of civil society.
In short, citizenship in the full sense of the word requires basic rights and the ability to enforce them. It also requires a basic economic status, including an income guarantee, which can be provided in a variety of ways.
One difficult question is where, exactly, to draw the line that defines the basic status to which all citizens are entitled. In most countries, it should probably be higher than it is now. Another difficult question is how the basic status is to be guaranteed. The debate about individual income supplements versus general public services has become lively everywhere. It may well be resolved with different answers that accord with different countries’ traditions, although tax credits and similar additions to people’s incomes are more compatible with free societies.
At the upper end of the social and economic scale, a different issue arises. Many people object to business managers who take away in pay, bonuses, and stock options hundreds of millions of dollars from their companies. Indeed, there is a legitimate question whether the behavior of today’s capitalists promotes the general acceptance of capitalism. But individual wealth becomes a problem only if and when it can be used to restrict others’ chances of participation.
When wealth turns into unchecked power, something must be done to restrict it. What has come to be called money laundering, that is, the attempt to turn illicit gains into legitimate riches, provides one example of the need for action. There are others, including the question of inheritance taxes, which have long been regarded as a necessary component of a free society.
Nevertheless, while a free society recognizes limits to inequality, it also accepts that inequality exists, for it provides hope for many by showing what one might achieve with ability and luck – or perhaps even luck alone. Inequality adds color and variety to societies; it is one of the marks of lively, flexible, and innovative countries. It is thus not bad in itself, even if its excesses must be capped in the name of citizenship for all.
Social exclusion and personalized power through wealth are always unacceptable. But if we want freedom, then social and economic inequalities are a legitimate, and necessary, price to pay.