27 Nov Inequality and things

Yesterday, a friend posted a small blog post in the Economist about the correlation between wealth and happiness (and the difference a log makes) to which he added this comment:

Mean happiness of a nation apparently correlates well with the Log of it’s GDP per Capita. More evidence that many of the benefits of money really come on a log scale rather than linearly. (E.g., you need to double your income to go up one notch of happiness.) IMHO this has implications for how we think about economic equality and poverty.

What i found interesting was that no one was really interested in what, exactly, constituted happiness. Most of the arguments had to do with particularities of the (did i mention how?) tiny blog post with two graphs and a small comment or at his own personal comment. One person, spiritedly posted the weblink to the Equality Trust, which was summarily poo-poo’ed:

If there are effects of equality on health and happiness, they’re weak. The effect of poverty is 5-10x greater than the effect of inequality.

 And then i realized that i had no answer. I think i’ve been paralyzed by my academic training to the point that i spent three hours scouring websites supporting and debunking The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. (Is it just me, or has the title changed since first printing?) I’ve seen them speak on their book – twice, in fact – and was duly wowed and awed by their amazing charts and graphs and things. I’m thoroughly convinced, but i also know that i tend to already be bit on the squishy side when it comes to people.

Some of the arguments that i’ve come across, i can’t even begin to unravel as i just don’t have a brain for statistics. I love Calculus – it’s like a delicious puzzle – but statistics feels more like a chore. It’s a major failing on my part. Especially when it comes to Important Debates.

But i will say this: the one website i spent the most time on, The Spirit Level Delusion, really just got some things flat out wrong. I can’t speak to the statistical bits (obviously), but at least do get your basic facts right if you’d like to convince a particular set of people to change their minds about inequality’s effect on life, in general. The most obvious glaring error? The U.S. has never given .7% of GDP in aid – ever. I emphasize this point so strongly because the U.S. is particularly good at patting itself on its back for how “generous” it is, and yet it’s a big fat fail on their part.

The highest the U.S. has managed is .22 percent – most of which goes in tied aid (i’ve seen figures between 60 and 80% tied) which means the money has to be spent buying American products (or military equipment, or hiring American specialists, etc.). Much of it also comes as debt relief – so no actually money going out, just the end of gouging poor countries (i wonder if anyone’s done a survey of debt relief and how often countries have actually paid it back because of interest?). Even more interesting, is the kind of aid it is – what the money is spent on. I borrowed this from another website:

Source: Parade.com, Who Gets U.S. Foreign Aid? 14 December 2008

It may seem a small point to argue in such a huge blog. I’m glad the blog is there – it’s made me realize how very not-statistics-savvy i am. It’s been useful for flexing my argumentative muscles. It’s easy to bluster on social networking sites and with friends over a cocktail, but it’s another, entirely, to actually have to back up arguments in a meaningful way – even if they’re only happening inside my own head.

All of that being said – i’d like to come back to my first point, which really was – what, exactly, is happiness and how is it measured? Who is measuring this “happiness” thing? I don’t trust happiness rantings and rankings. My idea of happiness versus my ideal of happiness is as different from my friend’s Evangelical Minister dad’s idea of happiness as it is from a family in Kakuma, Kenya, waiting and hoping to return home to Southern Sudan.

Granted, i recognize that many of them rely on things like life expectancy and health – but how do you capture true happiness? And what would it mean if you could? And what would it mean to be able to prove whether poverty or inequality had a bigger impact?

That, i think, is the real point. I can’t speak for the entire audience of Wilkinson and Pickett’s book, but i can speak for myself. Inequality sucks – and if it takes numbers and statistics to drive that point home, then so be it. The status quo is not “lifting all boats” – it is not ending poverty. Sickness and death, child mortality, deep poverty, helplessness, and a loss of hope are all outcomes of the current situation. Changing our economic and political systems is not going to end these things, but if done correctly, may mitigate against them. Not wholly. There is a bigger change that needs to happen – one within ourselves and in our ideologies of life.

Political systems reflect the spirit of the people. Books like Wilkinson’s and Pickett’s make people think. It makes them wake up and become aware of just how great the inequality is in the world. It makes people begin to wonder about their own hand in this. Victoria Lawson speaks so eloquently of this in her work on Care Ethics. In her article, Geographies of Care and Responsibility (2007. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1): 1-11), she states:

Care ethics focuses our attention on the social and how it is constructed through unequal power relationships, but it also moves us beyond critique and toward the construction
of new forms of relationships, institutions, and action that enhance mutuality and well-being…(1)

She goes on to say, in Instead of Radical Geography, How About Caring Geography? (2009. Antipode, 41(1): 210-213):

Feminist care ethics assert the absolute centrality of care to our human lives: we are all in need of care and of emotional connection to others.We all receive care, and throughout our
lives, many of us will also give care. In short, care is society’s work in the sense that care is absolutely central to our individual and collective survival. Despite the centrality of care to human well-being, care is still marginalized in geographical theory, in public and political discourse and in our economic lives. This marginalization of care is deeply political and it bolsters relations of gender/race/ethnic inequality and restricts human flourishing. Marginalizing care furthers the myth that our successes are achieved as autonomous individuals, and as such, we have no responsibility to share the fruits of our success with others or to dedicate public resources to the work of care (210).

It is easy to pick apart statistical analyses of anything. It’s a lovely brain-centered activity that makes my synapses tingle with delight. But to what end? Perhaps the popularity of The Spirit Level is that it gives us a moment to connect with what we know deep down to be truths: that this world we live in is Upside Down.

survival.