Last week, a group of upper sixth geographers visited the Royal Geographical Society to watch a lecture entitled 'Not just economics - what we know about why social inequality persists and its possible consequences'. The lecture was given by Professor Danny Dorling of Oxford University, whose achievements include founding the cartogram website 'Worldmapper'.
Worldwide, Dorling said, the top 1% have 50% of the wealth. This is increasing at 7% per year so that in 7 years time the rich will earn essentially everything.
Later on in the lecture he addressed why this is a problematic development. Firstly, with high inequality comes less trust. One simply has to watch the period dramas currently being aired by the BBC such as Lady Chatterly's Lover and the Go-Between to see the level of fear that many upper class families had towards the working class, and the despair they felt at the thought of inter-class marriages. Also, in unequal societies people learn less well. Due to many people doing well in exams, for example those in private schools in the UK, there is more competition for the rest of society so exam results matter more. Therefore, instead of the focus in lessons being on understanding and interest in the subject, it is on how to pass or excel in exams (which doesn't always demand full understanding). Equal societies are also better than unequal ones at planning things on local or national scales. The housing and transport systems are often better in equal countries, possibly because they have fewer other worries.
Dorling also drew links, although sometimes tenuous, between characteristics generally conceived as 'bad' and inequality. For example, more unequal countries tend to have more obesity and higher water consumption and tend to emit more carbon dioxide and have higher infant mortality rates. This can perhaps be connected to the poorer planning in unequal countries: they may not have effective healthcare systems or initiatives to encourage lower emissions and water use.
From my own reading about the viewpoint that there is no such thing as a natural disaster I can say that another impact of inequality, for example within New Orleans, is the escalation of a natural hazard into a detrimental natural disaster. When Hurricane Katrina struck the city in 2005, the poor were vulnerable to the flooding due to a correlation in New Orleans between class and topographic location, with the poorer citizens being in the lower land at greater risk of flooding. Also, the rich had cars to evacuate, money for emergency hotels and supplies and insurance policies for rebuilding. This inequality contributed to the catastrophic impacts which caused the hurricane to be classed as a natural disaster.
Dorling additionally provided some explanation for the causes of inequality. A graph was shown that displayed how the share of total income in the UK that is received by the richest 1% has varied since 1918. The general trend was a decrease until the 1970s and an increase since then. He attributed the decrease to increased tax on the rich during world wars one and two and the Russian revolution scaring the rich due to killings of the wealthy there. It then returned to high levels due to the UK society being innately unequal because of the class system and aristocracy and because the UK won the world wars.
In contrast, Japan and Germany have relatively little inequality because they lost WWII. The USA then divided up Japanese land equally to avoid revolution, with tenant farmers benefitting and the power of rich landowners being reduced (as many of them advocated war and Japanese expansionism), and also downgraded the emperor's status and promoted greater rights for women. In Germany, the UK tried to increase equality by preventing successful cities from becoming more successful, for example by building the Berlin Wall, and by increasing the success of less successful cities. Attempts were made to convert Germany into a more pastoral and agricultural nation, with many factories being dismantled so only light industry was permitted.
The point was also made that poorer countries tend to have more inequality. This is because there is a higher level of poverty, prevalent now due to high levels of urbanisation, and because there is often no effective taxation system to prevent money hoarding.
Overall, this lecture interested us all by causing us to look at inequality not just in terms of the economy but also in terms of society and, in some cases, the environment. It will be of use to us when we undertake the development course as part of our A-Level next term.
