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 householdsthe top 1 percentsave 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 distributeso 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 societys 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 Americas 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 themthanks 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 showmany 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, mening most people in Slovakian society have the same goodshomes, cars, possessions, and so on. There is not one community of wealthy elites and then...…one were to compare it culturally speaking to the USin 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 onbut 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.

But what about social stratification? Does wealth distribution necessarily do away with social stratification or is there more to the problem of how societies arrange themselves and how human development is promoted? In what ways should development proceed? Should it proceed along the lines of serving the state entirely, as it does in a Communist society like that of Venezuela? Should it proceed along the lines of serving the corporation entirely, as it does in a society like that in the US? Should it proceed along the lines of serving God, as it did during the Age of Faith in Europe? Should it proceed along the lines of serving itself, as it might be argued is the case in any revolutionary state? Should it proceed along the lines of serving Allah or the kingdom, as it might be said to do in an Arab state? There is no real agreement on what constitutes human development or the successful promotion of suchyet what can be seen in an underdeveloped society and its distribution of wealth is this: when wealth is distributed evenly among the populace (even if that society is relatively impoverished when compared to a wealthy society like the US) there tends to be more equitability in terms of human development. Whatever is meant by development may differ from one society to another, but in terms of everyone being on the same page, it is more likely to be found in a so-called underdeveloped society where wealth distribution is high.

Conclusion

Speaking on the matter of the distribution of wealth with more equality, one must understand that human development cannot be defined narrowly. Yet this is one reason Wright (2019) called for what is called interstitial transformation in developed society: the development of alternative institutions within the framework of capitalist society, such as cooperatives or peer-to-peer collaboration in the digital world (Wright, p. 116). When peer-to-peer collaboration is found in any society, there is likely to be greater and more equal distribution of wealth because the nature of the enterprise is sharing. When wealth is shared, development transpires; in fact, it is more likely to be the case in underdeveloped societieseven in sub-sections of the US where communities are now underdeveloped. Thus, even in developed societies there are pockets of underdevelopment here values of equality/fairness, democracy/freedom, and community/solidarity are both to be found and to be pursued more than in those areas where wealth is concentrated (Wright, p. 117). It is the extent to which society collaborates for…