From (In)equality to Equality - and Why

I wrote this piece today on the spur-of-the-moment for my Berlin university's bi-annual magazine, the next edition which will be on "(In)Equality". A theme I like writing about, as you know, and in case they decide not to include it, at least a few people can read it this way.  

Why We Should Try to Move from (In)equality to Living In Equality

Equality is a concept of relativity. The assets, skills, and/or opportunities of one person are compared to those of another. If they are found to be the same, we speak of “equality”. In turn, if there is divergence, we speak of “inequality”. However, the concept of equality is not that straightforward. An example: If you have ten thousand euros and have retired, and I have ten thousand euros debt, we are considered “unequal” on an income scale. But what if you have no further prospects for income, live in a society without a welfare system, and I have a graduate degree in my pocket, a contract with a high-flying consultancy, and a guaranteed high pension at the end of my work life? Or what if you are a woman, living in a country without gender rights, and suddenly have 13 orphaned grandchildren to raise on your own because most family members have died from AIDS? It feels as if we are suddenly comparing apples with pears, as the circumstances and/or changes with time seem to make a simple comparison based on current income irrelevant.

Equality is also a highly normative concept. The assumption in most literature on inequality (e.g. debates on global or national poverty, education opportunities or gender equality) is that inequality is a “bad”, and equality is the Holy Grail. But look at, for example, the gender debates of the past decades to see how much disagreement there can be on what “equality” means. Does gender equality mean that women should be the “same” as men? Or should this equality be reached by “feminizing” men to take on traditionally “female” roles such as childcare and household tasks? Or does “equality” mean something completely different to “sameness”? Another example comes from the field of development theory, which has parallels to economic ideology and e.g. tax and redistribution policies throughout the past century: Should a “poor” class or country be made “richer” (sometimes implying “as rich”), or should the “rich” be made “poorer” in order to attain equality? How? And most interestingly: Why?   

Equality debates are often framed as moral debates of “rights”. Inequalities of assets, and in particular of starting conditions and opportunities are seen as “unfair”. However, the motivation behind trying to attain “equality” is often not one that rises out of principle, but because inequalities have real, practical, and often detrimental consequences. Gender inequalities result in a weaker and smaller workforce, and lower GDP growth for all. Global and intra-national income inequalities result in political tensions and increase in violence. Unequal access to natural resources results in resource depletion and wars. Poverty results in unnecessary suffering and deaths.

Most equality theorists have taken into account the complexity of the concept of equality. For example, if we look at more recent development theory literature, we find that authors such as Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Dambisa Moyo, Amartya Sen, and Esther Duflo take into account not only income inequalities, but also inequalities of opportunities, skill-sets, geographic and psychological conditions, historical determinants, and personal choice. One of the most exciting pieces in this field in the past years has been Esther Duflo and Abhjit Banerjee’s book “Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty”, which criticizes most development literature to be abstract, aiming to solve inequalities through grand theories and single variables, and instead shows how inequalities are determined and can be changed by understanding local circumstances, cultural conditioning, or individual psychology. The main lesson here is that the devil is in the detail, and the main question should be: What do those who are on the losing side of “unequal” (i.e. here the poor) actually want?

The above question shows that equality debates are not only normative debates, but also power struggles. The rich, skilled, lucky or strong (by some termed the “core”) are at one end of the continuum, and at the other lie the poor, unskilled, unlucky or weak (the “periphery”). One side has power, and the opportunities to use this power, whereas the other side is marginalized not only in its assets and opportunities, but also in its ability to shape policy and debates.

There have been two reactions aiming to bridge this divide between the “core” and “periphery”. One has been a wave of attempts by policy-makers in several fields to “enfranchise”, “consult”, and “include” the periphery, in order to give the “periphery” a voice or even a right to participate in the decision-making process. For example, the World Bank has for several years run hundreds of national consultation workshops prior to re-writing its multi-annual policy strategies (e.g. education, energy, environment) to include the views of NGOs, the private sector, and academia in both developed as well as developing countries.

Another reaction has been to ask the “periphery” to define its demands, and in part fund and implement these policies, with the assistance of “core” funding. This model is at the centre of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which channels most government funding against these diseases to developing countries. The idea is that through this inclusion, the developing countries become at least in part responsible and accountable for the policies made and implemented. And most importantly, they best know what they need.

At the end of the day, equality is not an end to itself. It is a means. The aim is not to create “sameness”, transforming pears to become apples or vice versa. Trying to attain equality often means trying to make the world a better place for those who are suffering, deprived of a voice or rights. Essentially, equality implies access and opportunities for all.