Question

reflection paper on a global problem-immigration and refugees, human rights, climate change, poverty, toxic waste and pollution, resource scarcity etc- showing how the problem has been shaped by iniquitous distribution of power and resources

Answer 1

Neo-liberalism assumes that inequality creates productive competition and no risk of conflict where a viable state and social contract exists. From a critical position, inequality in a range of different forms ranging from local to global in scale, weakens the links between civil society, solidarity, social justice, human rights and democracy. These positions have different implications for peace and order. State institutions are designed to make processes of consensual regulation permanent for the good of society. While continuing material inequality is inevitable, if the state and international community cannot mitigate its impact on security, rights and representation, in order to distribute a range of peace dividends, citizens rapidly begin to question the point of the state and undermine its legitimacy. Struggles over power, material resources and identity are thus untreated. This is especially problematic where the state also has been shaped through a peace agreement. Ironically, material inequality often lacking a justification of producing wider benefits of a peace dividend for society has been naturalized through peacebuilding and state building, even though strong evidence suggests inequality is also at the root of many conflicts. The most effective solutions to global problems like immigration and refugees, human rights, climate change, poverty, toxic waste and pollution, resource scarcity etc., however, will be those that come from the bottom up, that are based on communities’ knowledge of their immediate environment, that empower, not victimize or overburden those who must adapt to a new world, and that do not create a new dependency relationship between developed and developing countries.

Of the many reasons to address climate change, economic impacts, habitat loss, ocean acidification, agricultural uncertainty, species disappearance, impacts on vulnerable populations, etc., justice and rights concerns stand out as some of the more prominent. Such concerns relate primarily to three core areas: the distribution of benefits and burdens regarding impacts from climate change, backward-looking blameworthiness for having caused climate change, and forward-looking responsibility for fixing the problem. It is clear that the problems presented by climate change must be addressed, due in no small part to the above-mentioned global inequalities and injustices. Among proposed solutions to these climate injustices, policy makers have suggested global agreements, economic interventions, and a variety of technological solutions including alternative energy technologies, adaptation-oriented technology transfers, and even climate remediation in the form of sophisticated geo-engineering proposals. Indeed, technological solutions may be the most politically feasible, economically viable, and institutionally plausible way to address climate change. Technological solutions are often viewed as the lowest hanging fruit among the plethora of potential options. There are at least three primary reasons for this: economic viability, political feasibility, and institutional plausibility.

Human society, which comprises the more than seven billion individuals who inhabit the planet, presents clear divisions in a number of important aspects. Spatially, it is divided into continents and nations with different demographic and geographical characteristics. There are differences in levels of development and wealth, as well as phenotypic and cultural differences, which include a diverse set of ethnicities. Many of these divisions are the result of adaptive, geographical and climatic processes, some are the result of eventual phenomena, and others derive from complex historical, social, economic and cultural processes. Some of these divisions, which could be merely differences (e.g. men and women) become inequalities, and very often iniquities, insofar as they define relationships that are essentially based on power and the access to, and the possession of, goods, services and wealth. Consequently, the fruit of collective work that has been accumulated over generations is often unequally distributed. More recently, the concept of global inequality has arisen, which involves the combined effects of these two types of inequalities. Global inequality is the result of inequalities both between and within countries, and it is therefore defined by the interaction of the determinants of each. The availability of international data has made it possible to conduct empirical studies regarding the issue of global inequality. Inequalities within a country relate to the distribution of accumulated wealth within a society, and in particular how that society is organized and the social relations and power established among its various strata. It is defined by the history and the political models that have been adopted, and how the state has redistributed national wealth through fiscal and transfer systems, which have generated greater or lesser distributive distances between existing social groups. Cultural elements are also important in terms of amplifying and consolidating some existing inequalities. For instance, as we have seen, since at least the nineteenth century evidence has increased that the health conditions of a population are related to the characteristics of its social and environmental context. Poverty, poor housing conditions, an inadequate urban environment, and unhealthy working conditions are factors that negatively affect the health conditions of a population. At the end of the nineteenth century, biomedical sciences emerged and began to have an overwhelming influence in providing explanations for health problems and diseases, with social and environmental determinants being secondary. However, biomedical theories have never adequately explained many phenomena within a population (for example, the rich have better health conditions than the poor) or between populations in different countries (for example, richer countries have better health conditions than poorer countries). With few exceptions, the occurrence of the most diverse diseases and health problems is aggravated for social groups living in socially disadvantaged situations, in other words, for the poorest, ethnic minority groups or groups that suffer any type of discrimination. It is not by chance that poor countries have worse health conditions compared to rich countries. Likewise, in any given country, whether rich or poor, the poorest regions and the poorest or marginalized ethnic groups consistently have worse health conditions. Further evidence is provided by the fact that when policies which improve economic conditions or strengthen social protection are implemented in any of these countries they have positive impacts on health conditions. The intense growth in urbanization was due to the massive transfer of the rural population to urban areas. The definition of urban can range from agglomerations with a few thousand inhabitants to megacities with several million inhabitants. In relatively restricted areas these centers group together a large number of people. These agglomerations create a series of problems and challenges which have repercussions in the health sphere; there tends to be an unequal and unfair distribution of space between social groups. The migratory issue introduces an important point into the debate on inequalities. Estimates show that social inequalities between countries account for a larger share of global inequalities than inequalities within countries. While inequalities within nations are much more related to class issues and other processes of social stratification, inequality between nations raises the issue of place of birth. Social inequalities is a global problem that, to a greater or lesser extent, affects all human societies. They are mainly due to the inequalities that exist between the different social groups in each society. Although the inequalities that exist between different societies and nations are relevant, and are often of a greater magnitude, they are not always considered to be unjust, and as such they are subject to political actions. The most plausible theory that has been put forward to solve the latter type of inequalities has been to improve the mechanisms of global governance, insofar as this includes an understanding of how nations were historically founded and the effect of the position of each country in the global productive system.

Every modern political society is characterized by political inequality, in the sense that the members of the society are unequal in their possession and exercise of political power. Different groups of people within the society have and wield differing degrees of political power; different groups vary in their capacities to influence, shape, and control political behavior and therefore the content and direction of public policy. The groups vary in the amounts of political power they possess and exercise because political resources are unevenly and unequally distributed. In some political societies, political power, as we have seen, is narrowly distributed. Such societies are characterized by concentration of power. In each of these societies, political power is concentrated in one or a few elite groups and the rest of the population is virtually powerless. Even Communist-ruled societies found that it was impossible to equalize economic resources among the different individuals, families, groups within society. In any modern mass society, as a matter of fact, in any society whose level of development has advanced well beyond that of the primitive stage, there is a wide variety of interests and talents. Different individuals within the society have differing interests and talents, varying inclinations and abilities. And there is wide variation in the manner in which and the degree to which the society rewards the goods and services resulting from pursuit of the different interests and application of the varying talents. Whenever a governing elite has sought to impose equalization of income and wealth on the population it rules i.e., attempted to eliminate variations of economic reward, or compensation, for the different kind of talent, goods, and services, the government has succeeded only in destroying or seriously weakening economic incentives. The result has been economic decline and collapse, followed by widespread popular unrest, often leading to disruption of society and destabilization of the political regime, including armed rebellion and civil war.

When sources of inequity are built into the social system, however, resulting differences are neither trivial nor discrete. Such inequities persist over time and space. Often, they are blamed on the discriminated-against. Blacks were defined as less than human in much European thinking that was then used to justify colonization and the slave trade. Such thinking was imported to the New World and became a rationalization for slavery, rape, Jim Crow laws, and a variety of other atrocities. Social inequity is virtually ubiquitous, existing in all human societies with sufficient economic surplus that social and economic roles can be differentiated and accorded differential status. Three primary types of inequity currently characterize the global system: those of power, wealth, and knowledge. Apparently the West wields its influence in international relations to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and economic values. Economic inequality has now reached grotesque proportions according to the Human Development Report issued by the United Nations in 1999. Unfortunately, the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow. Inequity seems to act like a social cancer, extending its tentacles into virtually every area of social life, negatively impacting both the discriminated-against group, and its individual members, in an impressively wide variety of ways. Gross differences in income and wealth are strong indicators of inequity. Both globally, and in individual nations, income disparity not only exists, but is on the rise. The unjust suffering attendant to inequity in all of its manifestations is obvious. People who are oppressed and targets of discrimination have their life chances curtailed and, in some cases, cut off. But they are not the only ones who are hurt. Whole communities and nations are hurt economically through loss of productivity and mis-allocation of resources. The World Bank has found that the more equal the distribution of assets such as land, the more economic growth occurs in the society.