Saving resources will help to decrease pressure on the natural environment, ensuring that habitats, landscapes and species are conserved. It will also delay the running out of these essential resources as well as reducing the need for transporting them. The data strongly support the hypothesis that countries with more unequal distribution of factor income redistribute more in favor of the poor – even when the analysis controls for older people’s share in total population (that is, for pension transfers). But the evidence on the median voter hypothesis is inconclusive even if middle-income groups gain more (or lose less) through redistribution in countries where initial (factor) income distribution is more unequal.Twenty percent of the world’s population (we often hear) consumes more than 80 percent of the earth’s resources, while the other 80 percent consume less than 20 percent.

Critics of globalization never tire of reminding us of this injustice. Far less often do we hear a proper analysis of the reason for this state of affairs. The critics make it sound as though the poor are poor because the rich are rich, as if the richest 20 percent had somehow stolen those resources from the other 80 percent.

Get a personal essay quickly and without loss of quality
For Only $13.90 per page!


order now

That is wrong. The affluent world has grown fastest since losing its colonies. And the regions the imperialist countries subjugated grew faster after becoming colonies than they had previously. Several of the world’s richest countries — such as Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries — never had any colonies of importance. Others, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore, were colonies themselves. On the other hand, several of the world’s least developed countries — Afghanistan, Liberia, and Nepal, for example — have never been colonies.

The main reason for that 20 percent consuming 80 percent of the resources is that they produce 80 percent of resources. The 80 percent consume only 20 percent because they produce only 20 percent of resources. It is this latter problem we ought to tackle. The problem is that many people are poor, not that certain people are rich. Critics of capitalism point out that per capita GDP is more than 30 times greater in the world’s 20 richest countries than in the 20 poorest. The critics are right to say that this inequality is due to capitalism — but not for the reasons they think.

The difference is due to certain countries having taken the path of capitalism, resulting in fantastic prosperity for their inhabitants, while those choosing to impede ownership, trade, and production have lagged behind. Factors such as climate and natural disasters are not unimportant, but most of the gap can still be put down to certain countries having opted for liberalization and others for control. The 20 economically most liberal countries in the world have a per capita GDP about 29 times greater than the 20 economically least liberal. If, then, we are serious about closing the North-South divide, we should hope with all our hearts that the South will also gain access to a free economy and open markets.

Developing countries that have had openness in recent decades have not only grown faster than other developing countries — they have grown faster than the affluent countries too. The world’s inequality is due to capitalism. Not to capitalism making certain groups poor, but to its making its practitioners wealthy. The uneven distribution of wealth in the world is due to the uneven distribution of capitalism. Trade and investment flows in the past two decades have come to be more and more evenly distributed among the economies that are relatively open to the rest of the world.

It is the really closed economies that, for obvious reasons, are not getting investments and trade. A quarter of direct international investments between 1988 and 1998 went to developing countries. Since the beginning of the 1980s, investment flows from industrialized to developing countries have risen from $10 billion to $200 billion a year. If we look only at capital flows to the developing world, we find that 85 percent of direct investment there goes to a mere 10 countries, often the most liberalizing.

But because those investments have been growing by 12 percent annually in the past three decades, tremendous increases also accrue for countries not included in the top 10. The affluent countries accounted for 80 percent of world GDP in 1975, a share that has fallen to 70 percent today. As has already been mentioned, poor countries that opted for economic liberalization and free trade have had faster growth than the affluent countries in recent decades.

Free trade and economic liberalism, it seems, are a way for developing countries not only to get richer, but also, possibly, to catch up with the wealthier countries. As U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said at a conference held in February 2000, soon after the demonstrations against the World Trade Organization: “The main losers in today’s very unequal world are not those who are too much exposed to globalization. They are those who have been left out.” References 1. http://www.

catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=20&pid=1441157I.Recapitulation of Harrison’s arguments:1. Population growth that leads to:lower living standards,malnutrition/disease;2.

Malnutrition and disease:malnutrition make infectious diseases more likely. Chief killers indeveloping countries (44% of deaths, and 3/4 deaths among Latin Americanchildren) are infectious, parasitic, and respiratory diseases, helped along bymalnutrition. (Harrison, p.282)The disease-poverty cycle (287).Unequal food distribution in the worldDeveloping countries’ population growth outstripped developed countries, andthe former’s food growth did not go up as fast as population growth, hence anunequal distribution of food, according to Harrison.The massive amounts of cereal needed to feed cattle (p.

276) could have beenused to feed third world hunger. (Harrison, 273-77)World Wide Problems1. Natural catastrophes–drought, heavy rain and flooding, crop failures.2.

Environmental degradation–soul erosion and inadequate water resources.3. Food supply-and-demand imbalances4. Inadequate food reserves.5. Warfare and civil disturbances.

6. Migration–refugees.7. Culturally-based food prejudices.

8. Declining ecological conditions in agricultural regions.Problems of the Developing World1. Underdevelopment.2.

Excessive population growth.3. Lack of economic incentives–farmers using inappropriate methods and laboringon the land they may lose or can never hope to own.4. Parents lacking knowledge of basic nutrition for their children.5. Insufficient government attention to the rural sector.

Problems of the Industrialized World1. Excessive use of natural resources.2. Pollution.3. Inefficient, animal-protein diets.

4. Inadequate research in science and technology.5. Excessive government bureaucracy.6. Loss of farmland to competing uses.Problems Linking Industrial and Developing Worlds1.

Unequal access to resources.2. Inadequate transfer of research and technology.3. Lack of development planning.4. Insufficient food aid.

5. Excessive food aid.6. Politics of food aid and nutrition education.7. Inappropriate technological research.

8. Inappropriate role of multinational corporations.9. Insufficient emphasis on agricultural development for self-sufficiency.

x

Hi!
I'm Jack

Didn't find the essay you're looking for? We suggest writing it right now.

Check it out