Sweden proves neoliberals wrong about how to slash poverty George Monbiot Tuesday January 11, 2005
Guardian
'Does not already the response to the massive tidal wave in
south-east Asia," Gordon Brown asked on Thursday, "show just how
closely and irrevocably bound together... are the fortunes of the
richest persons in the richest country to the fate of the poorest
persons in the poorest country?"
The answer is no. It is true that the very rich might feel sorry for
the very poor, and that some of them have responded generously to the
latest catastrophe. But it is hard to imagine how the fate and fortunes
of the richest and poorest could be further removed. The 10 richest
people on earth have a combined net worth of $255bn - roughly 60% of
the income of sub-Saharan Africa. The world's 500 richest people have
more money than the total annual earnings of the poorest 3 billion.
This issue - of global inequality - was not mentioned in either
Brown's speech or Tony Blair's simultaneous press conference. Indeed, I
have so far failed to find a reference to it in the recent speeches of
any leader of a G8 nation. I believe that the concern evinced by Blair
and Brown for the world's poor is genuine. I believe that they mean it
when they say they will put the poor at the top of the agenda for the
G8 summit in July. The problem is that their concern for the poor ends
where their concern for the rich begins.
There is, at the moment, a furious debate among economists about
whether global inequality is rising or falling. No one disputes that
there is a staggering gulf between rich and poor, which has survived
decades of global economic growth. But what the neoliberals - who
promote unregulated global capitalism - tell us is that there is no
conflict between the whims of the wealthy and the needs of the
wretched. The Economist magazine, for example, argues that the more
freedom you give the rich, the better off the poor will be. Without
restraints, the rich have a more powerful incentive to generate global
growth, and this growth becomes "the rising tide that lifts all boats".
Countries which intervene in the market with "punitive taxes, grandiose
programmes of public spending, and all the other apparatus of applied
economic justice" condemn their people to remain poor. A zeal for
justice does "nothing but harm".
Now it may be true that global growth, however poorly distributed,
is slowly lifting everyone off the mud. Unfortunately we have no way of
telling, as the only current set of comprehensive figures on global
poverty is - as researchers at Columbia University have shown - so
methodologically flawed as to be useless.
But there is another means of testing the neoliberals' hypothesis,
which is to compare the performance of nations which have taken
different routes to development. The neoliberals dismiss the problems
faced by developing countries as "growing pains", so let's look at the
closest thing we have to a final result. Let's take two countries which
have gone all the way through the development process and arrived in
the promised land of prosperity. Let's compare the United Kingdom - a
pioneer of neoliberalism - and Sweden, one of the last outposts of
distributionism. And let's make use of a set of statistics the
Economist is unlikely to dispute: those contained within its own
publication, the 2005 World in Figures.
The first surprise, for anyone who has swallowed the stories about
our unrivalled economic dynamism, is that, in terms of gross domestic
product, Sweden has done as well as we have. In 2002 its GDP per capita
was $27,310, and the UK's was $26,240. This is no blip. In only seven
years between 1960 and 2001 did Sweden's per capita GDP fall behind the
UK's.
More surprisingly still, Sweden has a current account surplus of
$10bn and the UK a deficit of $26bn. Even by the neoliberals' favourite
measures, Sweden wins: it has a lower inflation rate than ours, higher
"global competitiveness" and a higher ranking for "business creativity
and research".
In terms of human welfare, there is no competition. According to the
quality of life measure published by the Economist (the "human
development index") Sweden ranks third in the world, the UK 11th.
Sweden has the world's third highest life expectancy, the UK the 29th.
In Sweden, there are 74 telephone lines and 62 computers per hundred
people; in the UK just 59 and 41.
Thought that some of you might be interested in this paper of mine, which I prepared for a conference on "La conception americaine de la laicite," to be held in Paris later this month. Comments most welcome: [email protected]
Well, now we have an authoritative answer. The following paragraph, written by Richard Posner, is lifted from the Gary Becker-Richard Posner weblog:
"I agree that my statement that foreign aid is an inappropriate use of public funds requires qualification in several respects. First, it can be a way of buying allies, and from that standpoint the fact that the money is diverted to the political or economic elite of the recipient country need not be an objection. Second, it can be a way of conferring utility on Americans who have ethnic or religious or family or other ties to people in the recipient countries. Third, it can be a subsidy to U.S. industry if the aid is conditioned on the recipients’ using the money to buy U.S. goods; in such a case the net transfer to the recipient nation may be small. Fourth, as in the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, it can be a form of social insurance. It is also possible that such aid can confer utility on the populations of the donor countries because the plight of the victims of the tsunami triggers altruistic sentiments in those populations, and that emergency assistance, being temporary, is somewhat less likely to be appropriated by the ruling elites of the recipient countries."
About that second category: Second, it can be a way of conferring utility on Americans who have ethnic or religious or family or other ties to people in the recipient countries. "Other" ties? Hmm ... Is Matthew 25:34-40 relevant here?
I learned just today--I'm always behind the times--that there was a conference on "Religion and the Future of Liberal Politics" at Fordham University on Nov. 11, 2004. Sponsored by the (new) Fordham Center on Religion and Culture. The panelists included our own, valiant leader, Mark Sargent. Click here for a transcript of the discussion.
In my earlier response to Teresa, I said nothing that presupposed that homosexual sexual desire is not, as Teresa said, "disordered". But, as it happens, I do not believe that homosexual sexual desire is disordered in any theologically relevant sense. (I do believe, however, that the magisterium's teaching that homosexual sexual desire is disordered--indeed, "objectively" disordered--is ... well, disordered.) For readers who want to pursue this issue, this is a great place to start:
Stephen J. Pope, The Magisterium's Arguments Against "Same-Sex Marriage": An Ethical Analysis and Critique,Theological Studies, vol. 65, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 530-565.
Theological Studies, you may know, is published by Theological Studies, Inc., for the Society of Jesus in the United States. Stephen Pope, a Roman Catholic, is associate professor of theology at Boston College, a Jesuit university.
Thanks to Teresa for her statement below. I have two brief comments in response.
First. Of course, virtually all of us are "disordered" in one or another respect (or respects). It is theologically mistaken, in my judgment, to hold that the fact that a human being is disordered--broken--in one or another respect means that he cannot represent (re-present) Christ for us in, for example, the Litury of the Eucharist. Indeed, even a sinner can represent Christ for us in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. (I wonder whether Teresa believes that the fact that a human being is female means that she cannot represent Christ for us in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.)
Second. There are some heterosexual men whose disorder--whose brokenness--would subvert their priestly calling, and the Church should try to discern who these men are and exclude them from the priesthood. The same is true for some homosexual men. But there are also some heterosexual men whose brokenness would be redeemed--men whose disorder would lead them by a tortuous route to commit acts of profound humanity--in their priestly calling, and the Church should try to discern whose these men are and welcome them to the priesthood. The same is true for some homosexual men. In my judgment, to counsel the Church to exclude homosexual men from the priesthood on the basis of an irrebuttable presumption--that homosexual sexual desire is more likely to be subversive of than redemptive in one's priestly calling--when the Church could proceed on the basis of discerning individualized determinations, is to vent an attitude toward homosexual men (i.e., to those homosexual men who present themselves as candidates for the priesthood) that is contrary to the love that Christ manifests and enjoins in the Gospels.
(In any event, I suspect that if the Church were to exclude homosexual men from the priesthood--rather than encourage both homosexual and heterosexual men who present themselves as candidates for the priesthood to be open about their sexuality--the Church wouldn't succeed in keeping homosexual men out of the priesthood; rather, the Church would only make it more likely that the (closeted) homosexual men who become priests are those whose sexuality would eventually be subversive of, rather than redemptive in, their priestly calling.)
I agree with Rick, in his posting below, that "Books & Culture" is an excellent magazine. But I must say that the part of the review Rick quotes raises a serious question in my mind about the judgment of the reviewer. Notice the reference to "the vogue for Dietrich Bonhoeffer". So, was Dietrich Bonhoeffer "fashionable," for a time, among the "boomers"? Give me a break. We should be skeptical about the judgment--the good sense--of any informed Chistian who would (unwittingly?) suggest that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is not what he is widely regarded--and rightly so--to be: one of the saints of the twentieth century. Would we talk about "the vogue for Mother Teresa"?
A question for Teresa Collett: Would you recommend that the Vatican do what it is (was?) considering doing: i.e., exclude homosexual men from the priesthood. If so, why?
In my judgment, for the Vatican to exclude homosexual men from the priesthood would be for it to sin againt the Gospel. Not that the Vatican hasn't sinned before. Not that it won't again. But one can hope. And pray. And speak out.
In any event, to consider doing something is not to do it. Sometimes better minds--and hearts--prevail.
(I can hear my thirteen-year-old's response: "Yes you are, Dad: Your brain!")
If, unlike me, you're not Irish (Catholic), you may never have heard the definition of an Irishman: Someone who doesn't know what side of an argument he wants to defend until he knows who he's arguing against. (Or, if he's an educated Irishman: whom he's arguing against.) I mention this because I wonder whether some of you may be getting the idea that I enjoy disagreeing with Steve Bainbridge for the sake of disagreeing with Steve Bainbridge. But, really, I don't.
Nonetheless, I am puzzled by Steve's post yesterday, about Boston College and gays in the military. Take another look at the post and then ask yourself: Does the Catholic Church exclude men from candidacy for the priesthood on the basis of their sexual orientation--i.e., because they are homosexual? (Some of the best priests I know are homosexual, and not all of them are in the closet.) Well, the American military does exclude men (and women) from the military because they are homosexual, if they are candid about their being homosexual. Seems to me that recent episcopal and magisterial statements counsel against discriminating against persons simply because of their sexual orientation (as distinct from discriminating against them because of their sexual activity). Indeed, a Catholic may fairly conclude that it is unjust in the Gospel sense--a failure of love--to exclude persons from the military because of their sexual orientation.
