Human Development Ideas among Different Countries

Underdeveloped Societies with More Equal Distribution of Wealth

Introduction

The idea that a country is developed or underdeveloped can be a deceptive one. For instance, most people imagine that developed nations or first world nations have succeeded at promoting human development. Yet what people do not often realize is that in developed nations, there can typically be found a large segment of the population that is underdeveloped or living in extreme poverty when compared to what the wealthy class possesses in that same country. In other words, wealth equality is not necessarily going to be found in a country that is considered a developed society. As Boushey (2019) points out, in the US, “the very richest households—the top 1 percent—save 51 percent of their income, while those in the bottom 20 percent save just 1 percent” (p. 144). Equal distribution of wealth is not a feature or characteristic of life in the US. But in other countries, that might be more likely to be labeled underdeveloped. The terms “developed” and “underdeveloped” are also problematic because they are relative to one another. If the US stands as one of the emblems of development, one could call a state like Peru as underdeveloped by comparison. But then what is one to say of a state like Mali or Somalia, Zimbabwe or Nepal? In impoverished nations, there is not much wealth to speak of let alone to distribute—so they are not necessarily good for comparison either when one thinks of idea of equal distribution of wealth. As World Population Review (2022) points out, labels such as “third world” and underdeveloped give a false sense of a society’s human development, which is more aptly described by scale rather than by binary labeling. Yet these are terms that guide the thinking of these concepts. This paper will, therefore, use them to make a new argument. It will show that underdeveloped societies with more equal distribution of wealth are more successful at promoting human development than societies with greater inequality.

In the US

Perhaps there is no better place to start than with the US, for it is the US that sets the bar when it comes to how people think of a developed society. The US has promoted the idea of the American Dream for centuries; it has created a standard of living that is among the highest in the world; and yet it suffers from a serious problem of wealth inequality, which in turn inhibits American society from being successful at promoting human development. In fact, scholars like Wright (2019) have argued that it is America’s so-called “development” (understood solely in economic or, rather, in capitalistic terms) that inhibits it from actually promoting true human development. Wright (2019) states, for example, that what is needed to promote actual human development in the US is greater wealth equality and wealth distribution. It is this kind of distribution, however, that cannot be achieved in the US because there is no cultural or social vision that can exist within the economic framework of the US that will promote such development. What is needed, according to Wright (2019), is a tear-down of the capitalistic framework using a strategic vision: “the strategic vision of eroding capitalism imagines introducing the most vigorous varieties of emancipatory species of noncapitalist economic activity into the ecosystem of capitalism, nurturing their development by protecting their niches and figuring out ways of expanding their habitats” (p. 54). It is through the expansion of habitats, in other words, that wealth distribution can be achieved and human development more appropriately promoted. Instead of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few, it is spread out among everyone. In theory, this is at least how it should work in an egalitarian society or at least in one that views wealth distribution from an egalitarian standpoint. In the US, there is no such standpoint. Wright (2019) states that “noncapitalist economic activities, embodying democratic and egalitarian relations” are not encouraged in the US and that there is no alignment of interests, values and identities of the people within American society (p. 54). Because there is no alignment, there is no wealth distribution on a high scale and proper human development is lacking.

The lack of human development in the US can be measured in different ways: it can be seen in terms of production, in terms of wealth, and in terms of the wealth gap. But as Mandel (2007) points out, the main factor in inhibiting human development is the fact that self-determination has been denied so many Americans in American society. They can no longer pursue self-determination on any sizeable scale because the levers of control and power have been denied them—thanks in large part to the offshoring of production over the past few decades. Yet most analysts do not figure that data in because they do not view the situation correctly: “shifting production overseas has inflicted worse damage on the U.S. economy than the numbers show…many of the cost cuts and product innovations being made overseas by global companies and foreign suppliers aren't being counted properly. And that spells trouble because, surprisingly, the government uses the erroneous import price data directly and indirectly as part of its calculation for many other major economic statistics, including productivity, the output of the manufacturing sector, and real gross domestic product (GDP)” (Mandel, 2007). In short, the US economy is in much worse shape that its “developed society” status would have one think. The fact that the wealth in US society is concentrated in the hands of a few does not help matters, for when the economy collapses, the impoverished class has nothing to rely on, and human regression is the ultimate end (Boushey, 2019).

Slovakia

Compared to a society like the US, Slovakia might at first glance seem much less developed, and to some degree it is. It has not benefited from quite the level of industrialization that America saw in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yet Slovakia has something that American society does not have, which is a fairer and more equal distribution of wealth (Sustainability for All, 2022). This distribution of wealth is not measured in terms of financial assets, which are held by the wealthiest in the country, but rather in terms of non-financial assets. The distribution of non-financial assets in Slovakia is extremely high, meaning most people in Slovakian society have the same goods—homes, cars, possessions, and so on. There is not one community of wealthy elites and then another community of impoverished people living below the poverty line and in constant threat of losing whatever shelter they have left. In Slovakia, people have the same degree of possessions in the most part. Whether one has a great deal of financial assets or not, people in Slovakia live modestly and within comparable bounds to one another. Part of the reason is that Slovakia has an older culture that is not as new as the American culture, which essentially began with the rise of industrialization.

But is it appropriate to consider Slovakia an underdeveloped country? Perhaps if one is comparing it the US, but not if one is comparing it to a country like Somalia. Yet even countries that might be considered underdeveloped as a result of war, in places like Yemen or Syria or Ukraine, for instance, equality of wealth can be found—but in these cases what is really meant is equality of poverty, for war has decimated the local economies and affected everyone the same.

Palestine

Another society that may be considered underdeveloped is Palestine, which is largely under the influence of neighboring Israel, and is largely dependent upon foreign aid from the Arab world. Palestine was largely affected by the Mandate System of the 20th century, in which colonial powers continued to establish their influence in a region while also acknowledging the power of the colonized—at least in legal terms (Anghie, 2004). Ever since, Palestine has not been able to support itself sustainably speaking without the assistance of nations, such as the UAE. However, while Palestine has historically speaking experienced a higher rate of wealth inequality, in recent years it has seen this inequality drop (Ayyash et al., 2020). The view of Ayyash et al. (2020) is that when inequality is measured in terms of consumption rather than in terms of income it provides a more accurate picture of what people have. Thus, in their study they looked at consumption levels of Palestinian households and found that Palestine is actually in line with the world average of wealth distribution—which should be surprising based on the common thinking that developed nations are responsible for promoting human development.

But what Palestine shows in its society is that in a collectivist culture there is more likely to be wealth distribution of a kind that most people have the same amount and consume the same amount. Does it matter that Palestine is a relatively poor country? Perhaps it does, for in the more developed parts of the world, one sees wealth inequality at a staggeringly high level, for it is in the developed world that the wealthiest families can be found. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is quite large in the wealthiest countries—whether it is the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or China. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few and those few control the levers of society through financial and political power, there is not much reason to believe that wealth will be redistributed in an equitable manner. In fact, Boushey (2019) has shown that it is never redistributed equitably. What happens in a society like that of Palestine, however, is that communities that have little form common bonds, and even those who do possess somewhat more are never so ostentatious as to divide themselves from the society through their wealth. It is to some extent the same case in a society like that of Slovakia: old world cultures and societies tend to keep people together on the same page, with more equity shown among all than not.

Cuba

However, it is not always the case that a society that emphasizes wealth distribution always leads to successful human progress. In states like Cuba, where wealth distribution became a special focus of the government under Castro, there was a great deal of discord and violence. Many Cubans fled the country; others were arrested because they disagreed with the government. On the other hand, Castro was able to show that he could rule over a period of many years and help to spread wealth and promote human development to a degree that was in line with the Cuban leader’s own expectations about what progress and development should mean. The US did not agree with Cuba’s definition of these terms—but, again, that is the problem with using terms that are more relative than universal. One should ask, “To what end is society developing?” before one can have an appropriate sense of what the word means and of how it is being used.

In Cuba, the successful promotion of human development and the distribution of wealth were predicated on the Communist doctrines of the Fidel Castro regime. The Castro government aligned itself with the Soviet government of the USSR, and the US broke off relations with Cuba as a result, since the US was engaged in a Cold War with the USSR. This breaking off of relations hurt trade between the US and Cuba, and it led to waves of immigration from Cuba into the US. The Cuban economy was not ever in a great state, but the distribution of wealth was more equitable because it was part of Castro’s plan under Communism to establish this kind of equitability. It is for this reason that Wright (2019) has argued that “the more state power is subordinated to social power, the more profoundly democratic is the state” (p. 60). In a democratic state, every person is viewed as having the same equal status as another. In Castro’s Cuba, equality was part of the platform on which the Communist leader perched himself.

Human Development

All of this begs the question of what is meant by human development. Does the promotion of human development mean that people have access to education, to jobs, to homes for themselves and their families, and to self-determination? Does it mean some of those, or all of them together? For instance, in some Arab societies, education does not necessarily lead to better jobs, and in some states like Qatar, education is seen as something that women are more interested in than men, and men see getting a job with the state as an indication of greater success than of getting a degree in college and working in the private sector. This is part of the Arab culture, and it is similar in societies like that found in Iran and Saudi Arabia, where there is little gender equality. In China, which is another society where there is a command economy, there is not necessarily a great deal of wealth distribution, as there are reams of poor and impoverished people throughout China, while the society is also home to some of the world’s richest people. This is true in India, in Mexico, in the US, and in some European countries as well. There is always going to be a great deal of power in powerful societies that a handful of people enjoy, and there is always going to be a great deal in inequality in terms of wealth distribution.

But when one talks about human development and the successful promotion of human development, one tends to think of it in terms of liberal, Western ideals—but every society is different and has a different culture, different sets of values, different beliefs about social hierarchies, and so on. There is no country quite like the US in the world, just like there is no country quite like India, or Mexico, or England, or Palestine. The factor of whether or not a nation is developed is another issue that colors this question unfairly, for what does it mean to be developed? This is too often understood in terms of liberal, Western values—but does Palestine or Syria have the same values as the US? It can hardly be said to be the case. Yet Syria also has some degree of promotion of human development—it has been made worse by the war, similar to what has happened in Ukraine, but all the same the propensity of equality and development is there. What matters in these cases is the degree to which the society is interested in establishing a more equitable culture and playing field.

For it is as Wright (2019) notes that “the empowerment of civil society, first against the state through such institutional designs as participatory budgeting or citizen assemblies, and second against the economy through such programs as universal basic income or cooperatives” is really what leads to wealth distribution in terms of everyone having the opportunity to the same goods and services for consumption (Wright p. 116). In a society in which empowerment of the people is supported by the state, there is likely to be seen more fair distribution of wealth.

For example, Kuwait is a wealthy oil state that is also a welfare state for many of its people. Their needs are taken care of on a basic level, as wealth is distributed—but Kuwait is not really a developing state unless one were to compare it culturally speaking to the US—in which case it might seem to be a developing state. But another example is that of Spain, which provides basic care for citizens, such as free health care, education, and so on—but Spain is not a wealthy society; in fact, the glories of Spanish wealth have long since faded into the twilight of history. It does not have the oil resources of a wealthy oil state like Kuwait, and yet it does distribute wealth collected through taxes and gained through sales of debt, so as to create and promote human development: its citizens can go to college without worry; they can receive health care without worry that they will not be able to afford it.