Many leading economists, politicians and journalists here at home and around the world, are somehow telegraphed to tout income inequality as our biggest socio- economic conundrum. It is a favourite meme of famous economists and commentators ranging from Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs to Thomas Piketty. The income inequality narrative is also routinely shoved into the mushy skulls of impressionable university students. Hence we have a fashionable phrase such as inclusive growth which presumes that the poor are held back by groups of powerful and rich people.
The way in which the subject of income inequality is discussed is to whip up emotions and pit the poor against the rich. It is framed as a zero sum game whereby there rich gain their success by riding on the backs of the poor. However the rich do not succeed at the expense of the poor. In fact it is possible for the incomes of both the rich and poor to rise simultaneously. This has happened in a lot of countries which were previously poor but managed to lift people’s living standards. Think South Korea, Chile, Taiwan and Singapore to name nut a few. So let us stop sapping the energy and spirit of poor people by such negative talk.
In a free society, incomes cannot be expected to be equal because people are different, work in different vocations and cannot therefore earn the same income. Therefore a brain surgeon is compensated more than a librarian. The only income equality you can have is in dictatorial socialist countries. In such countries you have equality of economic misery unless your parents are members of the politburo of the communist party.
So the focus should be on creating conditions for people to move out of poverty instead of promoting enmity and antagonism between low and high income earners. The first step is to recognise that the government has a duty to provide equal opportunities for all. However, the notion of equal opportunity should not be conflated with sameness of opportunity. Equal opportunity means that everyone is equal before the law and your station in life is not determined your place of birth. You are not for example, looked over whenever a job opportunity arises in preference of a candidate whose only main qualifications is being the son of a chief. It also means that your property rights are recognised and enjoy full protection under the law. On the other hand, sameness of opportunity is an illusion because the extent to which people exploit opportunities depends on natural differences such as aptitude, energy and talent.
So instead of wasting too much energy moaning about the rich, we should improve conditions that would make everyone better off. First we should improve our business environment to unleash the creative power of the free market. As it is, many are still held back by too much regulation and its associated costs. Empirically, countries that promote economic freedom i.e. less red tape and less regulations, are among the world’s richest because they are not hobbled by excessive regulation.
We should also promote marriage and the family for the simple reason that married couples are economically stable compared to single parent households. Forget the Marxist notion of marriage as patriarchal and therefore outdated. Children from two parent homes do well in school and then pursue good careers. They therefore avoid a life of prison, drugs, violence and crime. That is the stability that a husband rings to the household.
In order to improve prospects for the majority of people, we have to improve the performance of public school outcomes. . Many of our public schools perform poorly and make it difficult for graduates to get good jobs. The 2019 World Bank review of basic education in Botswana showed that while public spending on education was high at 22 percent, students scored poorly on regional and international mathematics and science assessments. These therefore are our challenges.
