‘Working for the Few’: top new report on the links between politics and inequality

As the world’s self-appointed steering committee gathers in Davos, 2014 is already shaping up as a big year for inequality. The World inequality Eton-Harrow-class-279x300Economic Forum’s ‘Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014’ ranks widening income disparities as the second greatest worldwide risk in the coming 12 to 18 months (Middle East and North Africa came top, since you ask).

So it’s great to see ‘Working for the Few’, a really excellent new Oxfam paper by Ricardo Fuentes and Nick Galasso, tackling an issue best summed up by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the aftermath of the Great Depression, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’ i.e. the politics of inequality and redistribution.

The Brandeis quote is particularly relevant because this time really is different. After the 2008 global meltdown, we have not seen anything like the New Deal, in terms of redistribution or reform. The paper argues that this is because political capture by a small economic elite is much more complete this time around.

The numbers take your breath away – my favourite newkiller fact from the report (and there’s a lot of competition): The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. Read that again, please.

Palma for China, IndonesiaAnd it’s getting worse. In country after country, the ratio of the income of the top 10% and bottom 40% resembles an opening jaw (here’s China and Indonesia) – I tried to get Oxfam to superimpose a yawning crocodile on the graphs, but sadly, they said no.

Why should Oxfam care about what happens at the top? Shouldn’t we just worry about helping the people at the bottom? No, because of political capture – this is not about the politics of envy, but the politics of extreme wealth. There is a vicious cycle through which a high degree of wealth funds lobbyists and campaign contributions, which buys favourable policies, which concentrates wealth even more.

We are witnessing a titanic battle between two principles – an idealized market ($1 one vote) and an idealized democracy (one person one vote). Real politics is born of the tussle between the two: sometimes money, sometimes people wins out. Right now, money is doing far too well, as this graph of a measure of financial deregulation and the income share of the top 1% shows only too well.

All this suggests two urgent tasks: reduce the concentration of wealth and income, and build deregulation v inequality USbetter firewalls between wealth and political influence. We need to do both if we are to disrupt and reverse the vicious cycle.

Public opinion is increasingly on our side on this one. A survey conducted for Oxfam in six countries (Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the UK and the US) showed that a majority of people believe that laws are skewed in favour of the rich – in Spain eight out of 10 people agreed. Another recent poll of low-wage earners in the US reveals that 65 percent believe that Congress passes laws that predominantly benefit the wealthy.

There are clear examples of success, both historical and current, in reversing the political-economic death spiral. The US and Europe in the three decades after World War II reduced inequality while growing prosperous. Latin America has significantly reduced inequality in the last decade – through more progressive taxation, public services, social protection and decent work. Central to this progress has been popular politics that represent the majority, instead of being captured by a tiny minority.

The particular combination of policies required should be tailored to each national context. But developing and developed countries that have successfully reduced economic inequality provide some suggested starting points, notably:

  • Cracking down on financial secrecy and tax dodging;
  • Redistributive transfers; and strengthening of social protection schemes;
  • Investment in universal access to healthcare and education;
  • Progressive taxation;
  • Strengthening wage floors and worker rights;
  • Removing the barriers to equal rights and opportunities for women.

I read Angus Deaton’s new book, The Great Escape, over Christmas (review in the pipeline). Deaton argues that the breakup of great civilisations is often preceded by a period of sclerosis and distributive conflict. Unless we can curb the current tendency to increased concentration of power both in politics and economics (and the reinforcing feedback loops between them), the risks to stability can only grow. Let’s hope this discussion gets somewhere in Davos.

There's the have nots. And then there's the have yachts.
There’s the have nots. And then there’s the have yachts.


Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


9 Responses to “‘Working for the Few’: top new report on the links between politics and inequality”
  1. Desmond Whyms

    Well done Duncan in drawing attention to this deeply disturbing but crucially important trend.

    It is very worrying that this has got so much worse AFTER we thought we were in for a major correction and paradigm shift brought about by the financial crisis.

    The work of Wilkinson and Pickett (see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk) has done much to draw attention to the corrosive effects of inequality on economy and society in the UK, but there is still not enough attention to it in development dialogue and programming, and in the south.

    Do you really think Davos will offer a meaningful forum for debate??

  2. Joern Geisselmann

    Really excellent article in my opinion. Rising inequality and the weakening of genuine democracy are among the most worrisome world trends today. Thanks for pointing out the linkage between the two processes and urging our attention to the two.

  3. Graham Long

    I had a few clarificatory questions about Oxfam’s position on inequality – any thoughts welcome:

    (1) Is it correct that Oxfam sees no problem with inequality, in itself, when it “rewards those with talent, hard earned skills, ambition to innovate and entrepreneurial risk taking” – as the preamble to the report says?
    (2)If so, is Oxfam recommending that we permit inequality of wealth in favour of the people in (1), so long as it is not “extreme”, e.g. on the grounds that this is what those people deserve, and that it is better for the world as a whole?
    (3) I couldn’t see anywhere in the report, on a skim through, a figure for what would count as “extreme”. Does Oxfam have a position on how wealthy the world’s current richest 1% should be allowed to be, compared to the poorest? (and, how rich a deserving 1% could be, before ringing alarm bells, if Oxfam is prepared to say that’s different…).

    -for the record, no disagreement here that (a) economic inequality undermines political equality and (b) the world we live in is a long way from fair global equality of opportunity. I suppose I’m wondering if the Oxfam position shouldn’t be more radical than it appears, given its commitments ( e.g. if geography, gender, rich parents – all things mentioned in the report – are questions of luck at birth that create problematic inequality, I’m not clear how far and why natural talents or ambition, say, are different?)

  4. Nicholas Colloff

    To add to your wish list – genuine reform of the financial system so money becomes cheap but hard to obtain and localised (exchange controls) (as it was in the post-New Deal/Bretton Woods world and ceased to be with the US default and accompanying deregulation of the 70s/80s). Wealth accumulates most quickly and unequally when money can make money out of itself (rather than invested in real world production and/or services) and interest rates are usurious (which they are, even now, except to banks)!

  5. Joe

    Thanks for an excellent post. For NGOs there is a risk that as we seek to secure increasingly competitive funding, we become less ‘political’ just when we need to be more vocal. As corporate funding increases and NGOs partner with corporates is there a risk that we are captured by the 1‰?

    Any suggestions Duncan?

  6. Stanley kato kachecheba

    Very thoughtful piece of work! The need to reverse the trend is obvious if the world has to remain peaceful else even the rich are at risk! Crisis and violence is inevitable. Thank once again and keep sharing.

  7. Sky Wanderer

    Excellent discussion, superbly laid out arguments, accurate analysis.

    In reply to this remarkable article, and to confirm the points made therein, please allow me post here the link to a recently updated blog post:

    “The Crisis-generating Austerity-Debt vicious cycle and the EU-empire as the catalyst of the cycle”

  8. Fatou Mbow

    an eye opener…thank you. But since the total is the sum of the individual, does this mean human beings are selfish and are becoming more so over time? If this is the case, the crucial question may be…why?…and… can we do something about it?… at individual level, first?

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.