[ CHAPTER TWO | The End of Poverty ]
Borders are funny things. Aside from the various ceremonies conducted at them, the idea that an imaginary line defines one nation, one law, and one people, from another is a little absurd. And to think of the patriotism and passion that this imaginary line can arouse in a person. Consider the historical divide between India and Pakistan; geographically metres away, but at times relationally worlds apart. And I need not remind you of what happens when different countries meet on the sports field, even if they are from opposite sides of the world.
Recently, a friend of mine has been experiencing this divide first hand. In a post chronicling his trip to Mexico and the USA, my flatmate and daily-routine buddy, Scottie Reeve, wrote the following: “Grass and vegetation in the slums is non-existent, yet only half an hour across the border suburban lawns sprout lush crops of green grass. I’ve spent time in crowded homes which stench with the smell of many people, yet in the same day walked through air-conditioned shopping centres which seem to stretch for acre upon acre.”
Isn’t that absurd? I wonder, how close do the poor have to become before we begin to experience compassion? Another continent, a few kilometres across the border, or on our doorstep?
What I’ve been learning as I read through The End of Poverty is that until two hundred years ago geographical borders were not also lines of wealth. Everybody was poor. Whether it be India, Pakistan, America, Mexico, New Zealand, France, or Africa. By today’s standards, even with purchasing power parity adjustment, we were all in the same boat.
What two hundred years, agricultural breakthrough, coal, the steam engine, and industrialisation can do to a country eh? Starting in Britain, due to a number of key conditions, modern economic growth swept throughout the western world. Since 1820, world population increased six-fold. Gross world product increased forty-nine fold. Western Europe’s per capita income increased fifteen-fold, and the US twenty-five-fold. We’re talking enough exponential graphs to make a stats teacher go dizzy.
Sure, all regions have experienced growth in the last two centuries. Just some countries have experienced higher and more consistent growth. And over that period of time consistency counts for a lot. A difference of 1% per year can propel one country to the heights of economic glory, leaving other nations catching their breath in an attempt to chase them down. It’s exactly the same principle as compound interest, just with a lot more money.
So, the question remains, why the rocket increase in some areas, but not others? As Jeffrey Sachs puts it, “The crucial puzzle for understanding today’s vast inequalities, therefore, is to understand why different regions of the world have grown at different rates during the period of modern economic growth.”
Your thoughts?