The Widening Gap

The distribution of global wealth has never been fair, but economic globalization has widened the chasm between rich and poor. True, it appears that some developing countries have benefited from their integration into the global economy. Experts claim that during the past ten years, the number of people below the poverty line in India has gone down from 39 percent to 26 percent and that Asia as a whole has seen a similar improvement. One study shows that by 1998, only 15 percent of the East Asian population lived on $1 a day, compared with 27 percent ten years earlier. The global picture, however, is not so rosy.

In sub-Saharan Africa and some other less-developed regions, income has actually decreased in the past 30 years. “The international community . . . allows nearly 3 billion people​—almost half of all humanity—​to subsist on $2 or less a day in a world of unprecedented wealth,” points out Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general. One of the major causes of this huge social divide is financial self-interest. “The world over, private financial markets fail when it comes to the very poor,” explains Larry Summers, former U.S. treasury secretary. “Mainstream banks do not seek out poor communities​—because that’s not where the money is.”

The vast income divide between rich and poor segregates people and even countries from one another. Not long ago the fortune of the richest man in the United States surpassed the combined net worth of more than 100 million of his fellow Americans. Globalization has also favored the growth of rich multinational companies that have practically taken over the world market for certain products. In 1998, for example, just ten companies controlled 86 percent of the $262-billion telecommunications business. The economic clout of these multinationals often exceeds that of governments and, as Amnesty International points out, “human rights and labour rights are not a priority on their agenda.”

Human rights organizations are understandably worried about the concentration of the world’s wealth in the hands of a privileged few. Would you like to live in a neighborhood where the richest 20 percent earn 74 times more than the poorest? And thanks to television, the impoverished 20 percent of mankind know perfectly well how their rich counterparts live, although they see little chance of improving their own lot. Such gross unfairness in the global neighborhood clearly sows many seeds of unrest and frustration.

“If globalization is to succeed, it must succeed for poor and rich alike. It must deliver rights no less than riches. It must provide social justice and equity no less than economic prosperity and enhanced communication.”​—KOFI ANNAN, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

AS Kofi Annan pointed out, a truly successful globalization would improve the life of every inhabitant of the global neighborhood. But what we have seen in recent years falls far short of that ideal. Human rights and social equity have lagged far behind technical and material progress.

The principal problem is that economic globalization is driven by the desire to make money. The profit motive rarely takes into account the poor and the disadvantaged or the long-term needs of the planet. “An unregulated global economy dominated by corporations that recognize money as their only value is inherently unstable . . . and is impoverishing humanity in real terms,” argues Dr. David C. Korten.

Will the governments of the world be able to regulate the global economy in such a way that it provides social justice? That seems unlikely. So far, governments have found it difficult to solve any global problem​—whether it be global crime, global warming, or global poverty. “Collective action is needed to safeguard global interests,” explains Annan, “but in today’s globalized world, the mechanisms available for global action are hardly more than embryonic.”