So, so economic growth. Economic, economic growth. Now let's your pie has grown dramatically over 10 years and I'm just, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit for the sake of, for the sake of discussion. Let me draw them like this. So I'm trying about the same height, but now, our whole economy, let's say our whole economy has, has doubled.
Our whole economy has doubled here. And now at this situation, let's say you still have this wealth and equality growing. So half of national income right over there. If we assume that I've drawn it pretty close to proportional, so let me just copy and paste this. So copy and paste. If we assume that the population hasn't grown by this amount. It's grown by something smaller than this or maybe the population has been relatively stable, then your per capita, your per capita GDP, your per capita income is actually going to improve.
So this is a situation here, where even though inequality has increased, because the pie has gotten bigger, these people are better off. These people are better, are better off. And so that leads to really one of the fundamental questions, especially when you're thinking about economic systems, is that you have this, you have this market system, this capitalist system, this market economy, market economy and at least in recent history it's shown us that hey, this is, this leads to growth, wealth creation.
So pie, so economic growth, economic growth but it also leads to inequality. It also leads to inequality. Second, if inequality, in itself, is something to be concerned about, we need to explain why this is so.
It is easy to understand why people want to be better off than they are, especially if their current condition is very bad. But why, apart from this, should anyone be concerned with the difference between what they have and what others have? I will mention four reasons for objecting to inequality, and consider the responses they provide to the charge of mere envy and to the claims of entitlement. The first three:. Economic inequality can give wealthier people an unacceptable degree of control over the lives of others.
If wealth is very unevenly distributed in a society, wealthy people often end up in control of many aspects of the lives of poorer citizens: over where and how they can work, what they can buy, and in general what their lives will be like.
As an example, ownership of a public media outlet, such as a newspaper or a television channel, can give control over how others in the society view themselves and their lives, and how they understand their society. If those who hold political offices must depend on large contributions for their campaigns, they will be more responsive to the interests and demands of wealthy contributors, and those who are not rich will not be fairly represented.
Economic inequality makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create equality of opportunity. Income inequality means that some children will enter the workforce much better prepared than others. And people with few assets find it harder to access the first small steps to larger opportunities, such as a loan to start a business or pay for an advanced degree. This intuition for fairness is deeply ingrained, and recent evolutionary analyses have elucidated where it comes from.
First, take a moment to appreciate just how different human achievements are from those of other species, from arranging our social interactions into democracies to developing technologies to send people and robots into space.
What features of the human brain allow us to achieve these large-scale outcomes? Some common-sense answers include our capacity for language or advanced reasoning, but these are of little use without a commitment to fairness.
However articulate and clever this unfortunate person is, they will struggle to survive. It is only when we look at humans in a group, cooperating, that we stand out from other species. Significant differences begin to appear only when we cross the threshold of individuals, and when we reach 1,, individuals, the differences are astounding.
Fairness is what allows humans to work together in large groups. Likewise, others will prefer to interact with you if you have a reputation for fairness. Western society is more unequal than it has been for decades. This trait benefits everyone. Indeed, those who benefit most are sometimes those who receive the least from it.
As a concrete example, imagine that we are hunter-gatherers living 20, years ago, and that fishing trips are best done by two people. You are a skilled fisher. Each day, you need to decide whether to go fishing with another skilled fisher with whom you are likely to jointly catch 16 fish, or me, an unskilled fisher with whom you are likely to catch only If everyone demands equal divisions, then you will always choose the other skilled fisher instead of me.
But rather than being left to starve, I might argue for the virtues of fairness, and suggest that I will only take two fish. So you can go out with either me or the third person and still end up with eight fish.
Despite our strong evolution-based motivation for fairness, people often act quite unfairly. One of them is greed. Thus, if we want to achieve greater fairness, it is important to know how and why the motivation for it increases or decreases.
Many studies have shown that it depends on context. Most notably, the motivation is quite high when people know they are being evaluated by others who can choose whether to interact with them in the future. Likewise, being in an environment in which it is common to interact with strangers — and in which any given one of them is a potential partner — leads to higher levels of fair behaviour.
Although the actual content was identical for everyone, individuals in groups told they were playing the community game made more cooperative decisions and expected the other players to do the same. Such research on how people think about fairness has obvious ramifications for contentious social issues such as executive pay, taxation and welfare. Fair inequality appears to be a desirable, even natural, state of affairs. A total of Of this, only At least During and , the proportion of small and marginal farmers grew to There are million small and marginal farmers, which points to fragmentation of lands and that more medium farmers are becoming small and marginal farmers.
These farmers together owned about Between and , the number of small and marginal farmers rose by about 9 million, according to agriculture census Per capita land holding of the bottom 67 per cent marginal farmers reduced to 0. The area is not enough for farmers to grow food for even six months.
Nearly 17 per cent smallholders have an average land holding of 1. The average holding of Scheduled tribe marginal farmers is 0. The country has added 3. French economist Thomas Piketty, in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century , came up with a simple idea to explain how inequality in terms of wealth distribution takes place in an economy.
0コメント