As the global elite gathers for the World Economic Forum this week, the "Occupy" igloos popping up around Davos, Switzerland should serve as a great visual reminder that inequality can no longer be ignored.
For the last several years I ticked the box "Inequality" in the pre-Davos survey checking out what participants are most concerned about -- while fervently wishing (though doubting) it would then appear as a major trend in the summarized results. Before and after the crash of 2008, other issues topped the agenda, but last year, for the first time, a majority of invitees shared disquiet about the rising levels of inequality in the world. Of course, this might be because the captains of industry and world leaders attending were probably not the ones dutifully filling out surveys, but still...
Last year was also the first year that an issue more squarely in the sights of global development organizations -- cutting maternal and child mortality rates -- finally made it to the main stage (the norm being that health, education, and poverty discussions take place in the margins). It was great to see government and business leaders pounding fists over real life-and-death issues that affect millions of too-often-unheard women and children at the bottom of the economic scale. This helped set the agenda for the win later in the year, when funding pledges for the (at-the-time-ailing) Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization actually exceeded the target. And that primed the pump for a much-needed push toward universal coverage to guard against killer diseases such as measles, even in the poorest communities.
At the same time, it was disappointing how poorly the world's elite grasped the significance of what was then unfolding in Tunisia. I recall the words of a young Iranian-American woman I met, who promised that this was the kick-off and that momentum was building right across the Arab world -- but no one was listening to her then. Given the tumultuous year that followed, it's no surprise that the theme for this year's forum, "The great transformation -- shaping new models," virtually admits that last year's challenge to agree on "shared norms for the new reality" was pretty much overtaken by events.
In the run-up to this year's conference, the issue of inequality has gone mainstream in a big way -- at least it seems that way in London, where the media, the politicians, and even some brave bankers are vying to respond to the sense of injustice and inequality permeating the economic gloom. But will this translate in the global arena? Despite the Occupy movement, the discourse was quite different in the United States when I visited last month, and I notice many more U.S. companies signed up for Davos this year, for some reason. Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- those large, emerging economies known as the BRICs -- will see it differently, too. But the truth is, inequality is a major problem in all these countries. And as UNICEF's 2011 report on global inequality demonstrated, "inequality is also strongly associated with political instability."
However, even if the argument to address inequality is well-made at Davos, many will argue that the priority has to be growth, and that development assistance can't be afforded in a downturn, or that increased domestic investment in social sectors needs to wait for growth. I'll be arguing for health and education investments in the next generation, not just as a moral obligation or a political necessity but because it's smart economics. The evidence is there: between 30 and 50 percent of Asia's growth between 1965 and 1990 has been attributed to improvements in reproductive health and to reductions in child mortality and fertility rates, and malaria alone is estimated to cost Africa $12 billion a year in lost revenue. It's one thing when Save the Children makes this argument, but fortunately, an increasing number of business leaders are getting behind the message. They are responding to what their employees and customers are looking for: a more holistic interpretation of their mission and a more intuitive sense that building a fairer world has got to be good for business.
Economists, business and political leaders still seem oblivious to the fact that, as Herman Daly is reported to have said "The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment."
The fact that we are stripping out our resources and destroying our collective life-support systems seems supremely relevant! Why isn't Davos discussing this?
Yes. They want to make sure it continues.
Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists and communists are all prepared to describe means to ends - that is how they will achieve their objectives. But the anarchist-led OWS draws back from this and remains firmly fixed at the early stage of creating symbols and managing media events.
When does it move on to participation in the democratic electoral and government processes of, let's say for example, the United States?
If OWS simply wishes to be a pressure group which exempts itself from the responsibility of having to define process and policy, they will lose credibility. They will become no more than another pressure group. Their initial headline-grabbing achievements will forever represent their best days.
If they aim to exercise pressure within a major party, they will become a faction.
If they aim to effect change by resorting to illegal acts a la Anonymous, they will become a public nuisance.
And if a remaining bitter rump of the pure and the good think they can only effect change through anti-democratic processes, they will become a terrorist organisation.
Their present state is temporary. Either they develop or decay. I suspect they are unable to reach collective decisions These tensions will build. The movement will fragment and/or seriously shrink by the summer.
I suggest you volunteers to local homeless shelter, soup kitchen or meals on wheels. Think it won't happen to you? Think again. On the current path there is the 1% and there is everyone else. And the injustice and extreme anger is palatable -- and the country one spark short of conflagration.
If Obama fails yet again to deliver justice for the crimes that collapsed our economy --- you will see Americans begin to deliver their own justice.
I sympathize with your frustration. Losing badly is not pleasant. The feelings people have about how bad things are can change very quickly. Think of yourself two years ago. Did you have such strong feelings then?
There may come a day when you realize that the insults you so casually tossed at me consists entirely of pious baloney and my remarks are an attempt to describe what is actually happening.
The greatest problem faced by OWS is what to do. As those involved struggle with this issue, many, very many drift away. The core which remains is made up of the radicals and radical fragment have a tendency to detach themselves from practical process because they can see no way of achieving their radical goals through normal means.
You reflect that trend towards anarchism and violence. My comment stands. Your unkind conduct confirms that I am on the right track and you are lost.