At Davos, Income Inequality Should Be Front and Center

Income inequality has risen to the top of the global agenda in recent weeks. At Davos, where some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people are attending the World Economic Forum, the organizers have made inequality a theme of the event. It was a smart choice. As Oxfam’s recent report made abundantly clear – it calculated that the world’s 85 wealthiest people control as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people – massive income inequality is a stain on our collective conscience.

Over the next few days in Switzerland, participants should do more than just engage in group hand-wringing sessions on inequality while nibbling on hors d'oeuvres. Instead, we should use this moment to talk about taking substantive steps that can help lessen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Three steps should guide us. First, we should closely track the inequality gap. The World Bank Group will start doing that this fall, measuring every year how the poorest 40 percent are doing compared to the rest of the population. Second, we should invest in the kinds of projects that can lead to inclusive economic growth in countries and regions; for many sub-Saharan African countries this could mean investing in transformative energy projects, which will attract industry and create many more jobs. And third, countries need to invest in their people over the long term, improving education, health care access, and social safety nets.

In Davos, inequality is likely to surface in discussions around three critical issues: the fight against climate change, prospects for global economic growth, and the effects of the conflict in Syria. All are linked by their disproportionate impact on the world’s poor.

  1. Climate change is a threat to our fragile existence on this planet, but it is the people living in extreme poverty who will be hit the hardest. In fact, those with the fewest resources suffer most from its effects – thus exacerbating inequality. One of our objectives is to build greater resilience to climate disasters both in rural areas (where 60 percent of the poor live now), and in cities (where millions of poor people move each year). Investments like these will spare many lives, save money, and preserve greater equity.

  2. Our economic projections show that both high-income and developing nations are growing. This is good news for the poor. Over the last five years developing countries were the engines of growth and job creation -- both critical for lifting people out of poverty. All nations have to continue to make the necessary fiscal reforms to bolster growth. They should invest in education and health. These investments strengthen their economies. They also give people the tools to escape poverty, and to share more equally in economic gains.

  3. Syria’s conflict has claimed the lives of nearly 130,000 people and forced an estimated 6 million people from their homes, including more than 2.3 million registered refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Syrians now account for a quarter of all people living in Lebanon -- that’s the equivalent of twice the population of Canada (over 70 million) moving to the United States in just 18 months. We need to do more to help the nations hosting the refugees, as well as provide direct assistance to the displaced and battered refugees themselves. A failure to do so will push hundreds of thousands of men, women and children into extreme poverty, making the region even more unequal and unstable.

As leaders in Davos discuss the important issues of the day, they should always be mindful of how these developments affect the more than 1 billion people now living in extreme poverty. Their fate is tied to ours in countless ways. It is in the interest of all nations and people to build a world without extreme poverty and to ensure that growing prosperity is shared by all.

Jim Yong Kim is President of the World Bank Group

Read more coverage from LinkedIn Influencers in Davos here.

(Photo Credit: MakeMoneyMall / Flickr)

Sunil Kumar

Insurgent Decolonial Academic, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science | Former Graduate Dean 2011-2017

8 年

I agree with Dave on this. If anything is to be done about income inequality, employers should take a hard look at their flexible labour market practices - for instance subcontracting and zero hour contracts. Justice in the space of inequality of income cannot be realized when there are injustices in the spaces of labour markets.

回复
Vincent Fong

Value Driven Agnostic Project Specialist / Scrum Master | Agile and Waterfall

10 年

Karma, what goes around comes around.

回复
Harold Aranda

Multi-state, Tri-lingual Life, Accident, Medicare and Health Insurance Independent Broker, Education Finace Consultant

10 年

So is this to make us feel guilty for earning our net worth? Just another diatribe for institutionalized wealth transfer AKA progressive taxation, eco tax, et al?

回复
Harold Aranda

Multi-state, Tri-lingual Life, Accident, Medicare and Health Insurance Independent Broker, Education Finace Consultant

10 年

"The demands of the competitive market are remorseless: reduce the cost of labour; privatise everything; remove protection from working people, and maintain a pool of unemployed to discipline those lucky enough to have a job. Trade unions are to be obstructed while the wealthy are courted in the hope that they will find a pliant, flexible workforce that is easy to exploit. We see the consequences not only in the workplace but in our health service, in education, in all aspects of social care that mark a civilised society. We see it in the disregard for the environment, as in the current push to start fracking for shale gas, regardless of its impact. We have seen it in the illegal wars and imperialist invasions of recent governments. None of this is new. But where is our political representation?" -Ken Loach The Guardian, Thursday 27 March 2014

回复
DEXTER NEWMAN

Owner, ACE BUILDING CONSULTING, Cutting through the Red Tape of NYC Agencies for Property and Business Owners (DOB + FDNY Experts)

10 年

Someone said we could eliminate poverty in one generation. I don't believe that is the case. I find all belief systems require a NEW generation, raised on the rejection of what was previously acceptable, before real change can occur. When the truth comes out (Apartheid, Women's Rights, Gay Rights) it still takes years, before those raised with the new belief, come into power. We all know Sharing The Wealth will end poverty. How long until we can PROVE that SHARING your wealth will make YOU better off than HOARDING your wealth. What will the opposition be? Your own human nature. What would stop a group from proving that sharing everything can work? one bad apple. The Whole World needs a new type of Hero. It needs to become more sexy to give than to have.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Jim Yong Kim的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了