More Unequal Societies Are Bad for Everyone within Them - Essay Example

Question 2: ‘More unequal societies are bad for everyone within them--the rich and middle class as well as the poor’ [From the dust jacket of Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level]. Discuss the evidence for and against this proposition. Introduction When commending on the un-equality that is so prevalent in today’s society, Wilkinson and Picket (2009) say that ‘more unequal societies are bad for everyone within them.’ They look at this proposition in detail in their book “The dust jacket of Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level.” The two authors show that a society in which some people are treated un-equally is never fit for any group of people be it the rich, middle class or poor. This essay is based on Wilkinson and Picket’s observation. It discusses the evidence for and against the above proposition by these two authors. Unequal societies are plagued with many ills and problems that tend to affect all the people. Some of the things that are common in such societies include teenage pregnancies, obesity, abuse of drugs and alcohol, premature death, violent crime and pervasive mistrust. A good illustration to this which has also been used by Picket and Wilkinson is the Scandinavian countries and Japan whose difference between highest and lowest levels of income is the smallest so far. These countries display a positive profile when compared to Portugal, America and Britain. These Western countries have the highest difference between income levels (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009 pp. 210). Unequal societies’ subject their people to a harmful scramble that makes the bodies and brains of the people to be come chronically prepared for flight or fight. The scramble casts the people into unending envy, gloom and resentment. It erodes their immunity to disease infection and over winds their biological clocks meaning old age catches up with them sooner than expected. In a society with acute deprivation such feelings easily give birth to violence, a kind of criminal conduct associated with inequality in society. When these psychological and physiological problems affect the poor they will not fail to find their way into the rich people’s lives (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009 pp. 210). Poverty acutely affects unequal societies. The link between mortality and poverty is very strong. A girl born in Japan has a life expectancy of 86 years while that born in Swaziland expects to live for 32 years. The reason for this observation is found in unequal wealth distribution. Countries that have similar wealth levels show different health indices. Mortality in mothers and infants are seen to be worse overall where the levels of inequality are high. It is not just the poorest who are affected. Those with middle incomes do badly in unequal countries than those with similar incomes in countries that are more egalitarian (Bourdieu, et al 1999). Wilkinson and Picket (2009, pp. 167) give us a good illustration in which they explain that in primary school there are lower average scores in literacy and mathematics in places with high income inequality. U.S states with more inequality in incomes have more children dropping out of school than the other states. The percentage of people having mental illness rises with inequality. The case is the same for the percentage of people put in prison and the rates of homicide. Indeed capitalism causes a society to become dysfunctional (Wilkinson and Picket 2009, pp. 167). The problems that arise do not only affect those who are most deprived. Everybody in such a society is disadvantaged compared to those countries with lesser inequality. Inequality destroys social cohesion, community collaboration and trust which eventually cause social problems (Lambert 2002, pp. 19). Humans are social and have a drive that pushes them to desire status and to climb to the top of the social ladder. Consequently the self esteem of people is indexed on the evaluation and performance of others. When the society is unequal the people there feel threatened. The self esteem of most people in unequal societies is decreased and the inequality also affects the aspirations of children. In unequal societies children have lower aspirations (Wilkinson and Picket 2009, pp. 289). People always want to be like the others who are doing well. If the differences are big then there is a strong urge to meet the standards of the others. With growing inequality the rich people tend to spend more money on luxury goods. The people in the lower income levels ‘catch’ this desire and start competing to keep up with that pace. A good example is the rise in levels of inequality in Britain and the USA. In these countries a long-term drop in savings has been observed with a rising debt to go with it. In 1998 although there had been observed a boom in the American economy that had never been seen before, one out of 68 families filed for bankruptcy. This rate was four times what was seen in early 1980s when high inequality rates were unknown in the US (Lambert 2002, pp. 79). Money spend on advertising also varies depending on inequality. In societies that have high inequality levels a bigger proportion of the GDP goes to advertising. New Zealand and the USA spend more when compared to Denmark and Norway (Navarro, 2002 pp. 42). Status in unequal societies can be defended in various ways. One of them is violence. When people feel that they are devaluated by those who are above them and that they do not have resources to fall back to, they tend to regain self worth by trying to assert superiority on groups that are more vulnerable (Salverda, Nolan, Smeeding 2009, pp. 23). Social problems arising from inequality in a society for example crime, prostitution, and alcoholism and drug abuse are not just problems of those involved but the entire society as well. Criminals, for example robbers and thieves may belong to the poorest class but their victims will include the rich and those in the middle class. Prostitution may be perpetrated by the poor in an attempt to get an income but the clients of these prostitutes will not come from the poor alone and therefore the entire society will be affected by it. It is a fact that an unequal society is not good for all people in it (Navarro, 2002 pp. 342). However, having illustrated that unequal societies are not good for all people within them, it is important to look at the other side of the coin. Is it really true that unequal societies do no good to their people? Research shows that certain unequal societies do not have the problems that other unequal societies have (Toombs and Hilyard 2004 pp. 65). This could serve to justify the claim that it is not just the inequality that causes the problems to all people but other factors come into play as well. The USA, Portugal and Britain do badly in terms of inequality. However Portugal is different from the other two in many aspects. Sweden and Japan have big differences but they are doing well. Japan has a big difference in terms of equality but it is a society that generally does well. Talking about family structures it has been observed that Sweden has an almost equal political representation for women yet there is a very high level of births out of wedlock (Sala-Martin, Xavier 2006, pp. 57). In Japan, women representation in politics is not very high but the amount of children born out of wedlock is not high. This is an exact opposite of what is happening in Sweden. The inequality in political representation for women in the case of Japan does not create a bad society for other people. From this example it is clear that even though women are less represented politically there is no much societal rottenness that comes from this. Japan’s economy is the third largest in the world and resource distribution is relatively fair to the extent that life expectancy for women in that country is about 86 years. This is an indicator that inequality does not always translate into bad things for all societies (Davies1997, pp. 213). Suicide is prevalent in unequal societies. However it is interesting to note that it affects egalitarian states and countries. Suicide does not affect everybody else in a society like the other social problems. It affects the individuals involved and may have no effect on the rest of the members of that society. This is so yet suicide is a problem that is caused mainly by inequality (Barro 2000 pp. 56).  The fact that a society is unequal does not mean that the inequality is evident in all societal aspects. The most common aspect of inequality is the level of income which has also been studied by Wikinson and Picket. A society that is unequal in terms of income levels may be bad for those who are poor and at the same time be good to those who are rich. The segment of the society occupied by the poor becomes the one to provide services and to serve the rich. The poor get their livelihood from the rich and the rich get their services from the poor. In such a society all the classes of people complement one another. In this sense the society is either good for all the groups or at least good for the rich who enjoy their wealth at the expense of those who are not wealthy (Uslaner, Mitchell, & Brown 2002 pp. 53). Many countries around the world thrive on various types and levels of inequality. There are those that have prospered both economically and socially yet they have religious, political and social inequalities. As illustrated in the example of Japan, this is very much possible. Countries in the Middle East and the entire Muslim world have no religious, gender, social and even political equality. In some of them such as Saudi Arabia the position of the woman in public life is not upheld. In some of them the non Muslim has no place in the society and in politics gender imbalance is the order of the day (Alesina, Di Tella, MacCulloch 2004, pp. 245). China is a communist state and inequality is practiced in many aspects including religious, political and economical. It is interesting to note that the country is not doing badly in terms of its economy, societal cohesion and integration and other aspects. These countries do not have social problems like the ones witnessed in the west where levels of inequality are relatively low. It is therefore possible that societies with inequalities in them can still be good for everyone within them (Toombs and Hilyard 2004 pp. 12). Conclusion In this essay the proposition that ‘more unequal societies are bad for everyone within them..” has been discussed with evidence. This statement which is closely associated with Wilkinson and Picket (2009) has been qualified and disqualified at the same time in this essay. Unequal societies can be bad for all people because the social problems caused by inequality directed at the poor can spill into the lives of the rich or those in the middle class. Compared to other countries, a country with inequalities is at a disadvantage. However it is also true that unequal societies can be good for people living in them. The rich and the poor can compliment each other in a manner that makes them comfortable staying in the same society. The rich can serve as employers to the poor. The social problems caused by inequality can be restricted to a particular segment of the affected society so that they don’t affect all the people in that society. Unequal societies can therefore be good or bad for those who live in them. Bibliography Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. (2004). "Inequality and Happiness: Are Americans and Europeans Different?". Journal of Public Economics 88 (9–10): Barro R. (2000). "Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries". Journal of Economic Growth 7 (1). Bourdieu, P. et al (1999) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society. Amazon Publishers. London. Davies, N. (1997). Dark Heart: the Hidden Truth about Modern Day Britain. London. Vintage Lambert P. (2002). Distribution and Redistribution of Income. Manchester University Press, 3rd edition.  Navarro, V. (Editor) (2002) The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life. New York. Baywood. Sala-Martin, Xavier (2006).The World Distribution of Income: Falling Poverty and... Convergence, Period," Quarterly Journal of Economics," 121(2), May, pp. 351–397. Salverda W., Nolan B., Smeeding M. (2009): The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. Oxford University Press.  Toombs, S. and Hilyard, P. (2004) Towards a Political Economy of Harm: States, Corporations and the Production of Inequality. In, Hilyard, P; Pantazis, C; Tombs, S. and Gordon, D. (Editors) Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously. London. Pluto. Uslaner E.; Mitchell, Brown. (2002). "Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement" Wilkinson R. (2005), The Impact of Inequality - how to make sick societies healthier, The New Press. Wilkinson R. and Pickett K. (2009), The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, Allen Lane. Read More