NEW YORK – America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity, and others view it in much the same light. But, while we can all think of examples of Americans who rose to the top on their own, what really matters are the statistics: to what extent do an individual’s life chances depend on the income and education of his or her parents?
Nowadays, these numbers show that the American dream is a myth. There is less equality of opportunity in the United States today than there is in Europe – or, indeed, in any advanced industrial country for which there are data.
This is one of the reasons that America has the highest level of inequality of any of the advanced countries – and its gap with the rest has been widening. In the “recovery” of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth. Other inequality indicators – like wealth, health, and life expectancy – are as bad or even worse. The clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.
It would be one thing if the high incomes of those at the top were the result of greater contributions to society, but the Great Recession showed otherwise: even bankers who had led the global economy, as well as their own firms, to the brink of ruin, received outsize bonuses.
A closer look at those at the top reveals a disproportionate role for rent-seeking: some have obtained their wealth by exercising monopoly power; others are CEOs who have taken advantage of deficiencies in corporate governance to extract for themselves an excessive share of corporate earnings; and still others have used political connections to benefit from government munificence – either excessively high prices for what the government buys (drugs), or excessively low prices for what the government sells (mineral rights).
Likewise, part of the wealth of those in finance comes from exploiting the poor, through predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices. Those at the top, in such cases, are enriched at the direct expense of those at the bottom.
It might not be so bad if there were even a grain of truth to trickle-down economics – the quaint notion that everyone benefits from enriching those at the top. But most Americans today are worse off – with lower real (inflation-adjusted) incomes – than they were in 1997, a decade and a half ago. All of the benefits of growth have gone to the top.
Defenders of America’s inequality argue that the poor and those in the middle shouldn’t complain. While they may be getting a smaller share of the pie than they did in the past, the pie is growing so much, thanks to the contributions of the rich and superrich, that the size of their slice is actually larger. The evidence, again, flatly contradicts this. Indeed, America grew far faster in the decades after World War II, when it was growing together, than it has since 1980, when it began growing apart.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise, once one understands the sources of inequality. Rent-seeking distorts the economy. Market forces, of course, play a role, too, but markets are shaped by politics; and, in America, with its quasi-corrupt system of campaign finance and its revolving doors between government and industry, politics is shaped by money.
For example, a bankruptcy law that privileges derivatives over all else, but does not allow the discharge of student debt, no matter how inadequate the education provided, enriches bankers and impoverishes many at the bottom. In a country where money trumps democracy, such legislation has become predictably frequent.
But growing inequality is not inevitable. There are market economies that are doing better, both in terms of both GDP growth and rising living standards for most citizens. Some are even reducing inequalities.
America is paying a high price for continuing in the opposite direction. Inequality leads to lower growth and less efficiency. Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset – its people – is not being fully used. Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education, and technology, impeding the engines of growth.
The Great Recession has exacerbated inequality, with cutbacks in basic social expenditures and with high unemployment putting downward pressure on wages. Moreover, the United Nations Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, investigating the causes of the Great Recession, and the International Monetary Fund have both warned that inequality leads to economic instability.
But, most importantly, America’s inequality is undermining its values and identity. With inequality reaching such extremes, it is not surprising that its effects are manifest in every public decision, from the conduct of monetary policy to budgetary allocations. America has become a country not “with justice for all,” but rather with favoritism for the rich and justice for those who can afford it – so evident in the foreclosure crisis, in which the big banks believed that they were too big not only to fail, but also to be held accountable.
America can no longer regard itself as the land of opportunity that it once was. But it does not have to be this way: it is not too late for the American dream to be restored.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in Economics, is Professor of Economics at Columbia University. His latest book is The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers our Future. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012
Catitan Sut
Baru-baru seorang sahabat lama saya telah menyebut kepada saya tentang beberapa perkara yang saya tidak terfikirpun selama ini. Antara lainnya dia bertanya : "apakah political economy policy yang akan dilaksanakan oleh PR sekiranya mereka membentuk kerajaan?"
Kerajaan kita, BN sekarang ini nampaknya menjurus kepada liberalisasi ekonomi, seakan kita menyediakan padang permainan yang rata untuk semua pemain, tanpa mengira latar-belakang keturunan kerana berslogankan 1Malaysia dan menuju Wawasan 2020 untuk semua rakyat tanpa pilih kasih. Bahkan kita juga membuka ruang untuk penyertaan dari luar negara seluas-luasnya untuk kuasa-kuasa ekonomi antara-bangsa menyertai padang kita yang semakin kita ratakan.
Sebenarnya itulah trend dunia di masa ini, halatuju dan kegiatan ekonomi kita tidak boleh lagi diarah untuk penstrukturan masyarakat, sebaliknya kita akan membuka segala kengkangan yang mengawal arah dan kegiatan ekonomi kita. Kita akan terus mendengar liberalisasi sesuatu sektor selepas liberalisasi suatu sektor yang lain, yang akan diisytiharkan oleh kerajaan kita. Itu tidak lagi mengambil kira langkah-langkah liberalisasi yang perlu dilakukan kerana perjanjian ekonomi serantau dan antarabangsa.
Kemudahan demi kemudahan akan ditawarkan kepada pelabur antarabangsa untuk menggoda mereka, agar datang ke negara kita. Kalau mereka belum berpuas hati dengan segala tawaran kita, mereka diminta agar menyatakan apa lagi kehendak mereka. Kehendak mereka akan dilayan sebaik-mungkin.
Dengan pendekatan ekonomi sebegini, ke manakah haluan ekonomi orang Melayu ? Kita tidak minta agar orang Melayu terus disogok dengan subsidi , sehingga subsidi dan bantuan kerajaan yang lain banyak diberi kepada golongan yang tidak layak. Golongan Melayu yang patut diberi sokongan dan kemudahan pula kerap tercicir. Kelemahan sistem ini bukan sahaja kerana ianya tidak mengajar Melayu untuk berdiri, bahkan ianya juga disalahkan gunakan untuk kepentingan politik kepartian.
Bahkan ada syarikat Melayu yang kukuh dalam bidang-bidang tertentu, kemudiannya berpindah milik menjadi syarikat yang berkaitan dengan parti pemerentah, mereka mungkin ditawarkan ganjaran yang lumayan atau mungkin juga mereka diugut agar melepaskan kepentingan mereka kepada syarikat milik parti.
Sekarang ini banyak khabar-angin perniagaan yang mengatakan BN (pinjam istilah Pak Habib Husein Janda Baik) terlalu campur tangan dalam urusan tender kerajaan. Ianya diperkatakan oleh penyokong kerajaan, penyokong pembangkang dan ahli-ahli perniagaan. Kalaulah terdapat sedikit kebenaran dalam khabar-khabar angin ini, bermakna semakin terpinggirlah kepentingan Melayu dalam bidang ekonomi. Begitu juga dikatakan terlalu banyak kebocoran kerana rasuah dan salah kuasa dalam pengurusan kewangan negara
Kita memerlukan suatu model ekonomi baru yang tidak meminggirkan rakyat keturunan lain , tetapi menyediakan penyertaan orang Melayu secara sihat dalam bidang ekonomi. Antara model yang sangat berjaya sebelum ini, adalah usaha Almarhum Tun Abdul Razak. Beliau membuka sekolah-sekolah berasrama dengan banyaknya untuk menempatkan pelajar-pelajar luar-bandar. Selepas 30 tahun, kini kita akan dapati begitu ramai tenaga mahir yang bergiat aktif dalam segala aspek jentera ekonomi negara semada dalam kerajaan ataupun swasta adalah hasil dari idea yang sangat bernas ini.
Ilmu dan kemahiran yang ada pada lepasan pelajar asrama penuh tadi tidak boleh diambil alih dengan mudah dari mereka, ianya juga tidak boleh di'ali-babakan' .
Sedangkan Tun Mahathir pula consistent dengan lantunan idea-idea lamanya sebagai-mana yang beliau telah tulis dalam The Malay Dilemma pada akhir 1960'an. Beliau berfikir 'masculine' yakni 'size matters"; beliau mahu projek yang ter.., terbesar, terpanjang . Dalam pembahagian ekonomi pula beliau mahu lahir beberapa hartawan Melayu (bukan konsep sedikit sama dicicah, banyak sama dilapah), mereka inilah pula diharapkan akan memperkayakan yang lain. Sistem ini menyerupai 'sistem payung" . Usaha inilah antara lain yang melahirkan Tajuddin Ramli, Halim Saad, Wan Azmi dan dua tiga tokoh hartawan yang lain. Perlaksanaannya agak straight forward, iaitu melalui penswastaan perkhidmatan milik kerajaan. Nampaknya idea Tun Mahathir apabila diterjemah kepada alam nyata adalah idea yang rapuh dan tidak dapat berdiri tegak walaupun ianya kelihatan glamour.
Kita masih ada masa untuk sama-sama berfikir dan mencadangkan apakah langkah-langkah yang perlu untuk membaiki keadaan ekonomi negara kita , agar anak bangsa kita tidak menjadi kenukut di tepi gantang.
No comments:
Post a Comment