Why is it hard to get a realistic understanding of which countries are rich and which are poor?

Why is it hard to get a realistic understanding of which countries are rich and which are poor?

“Tell me where you live, and I can predict how well you’ll do in life.”

 Does welfare vary largely across space?

  Although I don’t have a crystal ball, I do know for a fact that location is an excellent predictor of one’s welfare. Indeed, a child born in Togo today is expected to live nearly 20 years less than a child born in the United States. Moreover, this child will earn a tiny fraction—less than 3%—of what his or her American counterpart will earn.

Such disparities in income and living standards within a country are just as unsettling. If we look at Benin for example, most urban inhabitants in Cotonou have access to electricity and only one in every five is poor. But for the people living in the north-western Boukombé commune, the situation is quite dire: almost everyone is poor, and there is not a single home that has electricity.

  More alarmingly, our recent study on Geography of Welfare in West Africa found that geographical “pockets” of poverty exist in each country covered in the study (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, and Togo).  These pockets have high poverty rates combined with very few people per square kilometer. In such difficult to reach areas, the per-person cost of a poverty-targeted program will be extremely high. Indeed, these pockets will form the tough last mile for poverty reduction.

   Why does inequality across space persist?

  So, the question is really “Why?” Despite a strong push for the development agenda combined with strong economic growth, why does spatial inequality persist? How is it that some disadvantaged places, with “pockets” of poverty, might never catch up?

  In our study, we tackled such difficult questions by exploring the role of three crucial elements in the economic geography literature: natural endowments such as temperature and soil quality, agglomeration economies as proxied by population density, and market access via roads and distance to more highly populated areas.

  The answer, in short, is that agglomeration economies and market access are key in explaining spatial differences in welfare. If natural endowment plays any role, it is via a location’s proximity to the coast. Other agroecological characteristics such as rainfall, soil quality, and elevation do not show any strong relation to welfare.

  However, the story is quite different when looking at agricultural productivity— an important point considering agriculture is a cornerstone of the economy in this sub-region. What is notable is the correlation between geography and agricultural productivity regardless of whether population density, market access, or farm inputs are taken into account. This finding implies that a region with unfavorable geographical conditions may still have lower crop yields despite investments in road and population.

 What can be done?

  Within-country disparities can be a potential source of tension between rich and poor areas, and may affect the country’s overall growth and political stability. So, what can we do about it? We propose four broad policy recommendations:

  First, policies which support urbanization will allow more people to take advantage of economies of scale and boost economic development. But not all individuals can migrate to urban locations. Thus, second, increasing agricultural productivity via land tenure security, irrigation, and enhanced research and development (R&D) may foster food security in rural areas.

  Third, to bring into the fold difficult to reach pockets of poverty, pro-poor fiscal transfers via inter-region transfers can make a difference. It is also important that local governments in disadvantaged areas use the fiscal transfers received to invest in portable assets (health and education) for its citizens so that they can join a healthy and educated workforce if they choose to migrate.

  And yet many will still be missed by such policies mentioned above. Those missed will often be the vulnerable. Thus, fourth, cost-effective safety net programs such as e-vouchers and mobile transfers can effectively protect the vulnerable.

Why is it hard to get a realistic understanding of which countries are rich and which are poor?

According to Pew Research, most Americans believe the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy, but 60% believe that most people can make it if they’re willing to work hard.  Credit: Credit: Allan Danahar via Thinkstock

In a candid conversation with Frank Rich last fall, Chris Rock said, "Oh, people don’t even know. If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets." The findings of three studies, published over the last several years in Perspectives on Psychological Science, suggest that Rock is right. We have no idea how unequal our society has become.

In their 2011 paper, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely analyzed beliefs about wealth inequality. They asked more than 5,000 Americans to guess the percentage of wealth (i.e., savings, property, stocks, etc., minus debts) owned by each fifth of the population. Next, they asked people to construct their ideal distributions. Imagine a pizza of all the wealth in the United States. What percentage of that pizza belongs to the top 20% of Americans? How big of a slice does the bottom 40% have? In an ideal world, how much should they have?

The average American believes that the richest fifth own 59% of the wealth and that the bottom 40% own 9%. The reality is strikingly different. The top 20% of US households own more than 84% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% combine for a paltry 0.3%. The Walton family, for example, has more wealth than 42% of American families combined.

We don’t want to live like this. In our ideal distribution, the top quintile owns 32% and the bottom two quintiles own 25%. As the journalist Chrystia Freeland put it,  “Americans actually live in Russia, although they think they live in Sweden. And they would like to live on a kibbutz.”Norton and Ariely found a surprising level of consensus: everyone — even Republicans and the wealthy—wants a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.

This all might ring a bell. An infographic video of the study went viral and has been watched more than 16 million times.  

In a study published last year, Norton and Sorapop Kiatpongsan used a similar approach to assess perceptions of income inequality. They asked about 55,000 people from 40 countries to estimate how much corporate CEOs and unskilled workers earned. Then they asked people how much CEOs and workers should earn. The median American estimated that the CEO-to-worker pay-ratio was 30-to-1, and that ideally, it’d be 7-to-1. The reality? 354-to-1. Fifty years ago, it was 20-to-1. Again, the patterns were the same for all subgroups, regardless of age, education, political affiliation, or opinion on inequality and pay. “In sum,” the researchers concluded, “respondents underestimate actual pay gaps, and their ideal pay gaps are even further from reality than those underestimates.”

These two studies imply that our apathy about inequality is due to rose-colored misperceptions. To be fair, though, we do know that something is up. After all, President Obama called economic inequality “the defining challenge of our time.” But while Americans acknowledge that the gap between the rich and poor has widened over the last decade, very few see it as a serious issue. Just five percent of Americans think that inequality is a major problem in need of attention. While the occupy movement may have a tangible legacy, Americans aren’t rioting in the streets. 

One likely reason for this is identified by a third study, published earlier this year by Shai Davidai and Thomas Gilovich that suggests that our indifference lies in a distinctly American cultural optimism. At the core of the American Dream is the belief that anyone who works hard can move up economically regardless of his or her social circumstances. Davidai and Gilovich wanted to know whether people had a realistic sense of economic mobility.

The researchers found Americans overestimate the amount of upward social mobility that exists in society. They asked some 3,000 people to guess the chance that someone born to a family in the poorest 20% ends up as an adult in the richer quintiles. Sure enough, people think that moving up is significantly more likely than it is in reality. Interestingly, poorer and politically conservative participants thought that there is more mobility than richer and liberal participants.

According to Pew Research, most Americans believe the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy, but 60% believe that most people can make it if they’re willing to work hard. Senator Marco Rubio says that America has “never been a nation of haves and have-nots. We are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves, of people who have made it and people who will make it.” Sure, we love a good rags-to-riches story, but perhaps we tolerate such inequality because we think these stories happen more than they actually do.

We may not want to believe it, but the United States is now the most unequal of all Western nations. To make matters worse, America has considerably less social mobility than Canada and Europe.

As the sociologists Stephen McNamee and Robert Miller Jr. point out in their book, “The Meritocracy Myth,” Americans widely believe that success is due to individual talent and effort. Ironically, when the term "meritocracy” was first used by Michael Young (in his 1958 book “The Rise of the Meritocracy”) it was meant to criticize a society ruled by the talent elite. “It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit,” wrote Young in a 2001 essay for the Guardian. “It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.” The creator of the phrase wishes we would stop using it because it underwrites the myth that those who have money and power must deserve it (and the more sinister belief that the less fortunate don’t deserve better).

By overemphasizing individual mobility, we ignore important social determinants of success like family inheritance, social connections, and structural discrimination. The three papers in Perspectives on Psychological Science indicate not only that economic inequality is much worse than we think, but also that social mobility is less than you’d imagine. Our unique brand of optimism prevents us from making any real changes.

George Carlin joked that, “the reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it.” How do we wake up?

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. Gareth, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, is the series editor of Best American Infographics and can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Nick Fitz is graduate student at the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia. He primarily studies social norms around technology, health, and illness. Follow Nick on Twitter @fitznich

Which is a major flaw of using national economic data to divide up the world quizlet?

Which is a major flaw of using national economic data to divide up the world? Data is inaccurate due to collection methods.

Why did one prominent cartographer note not only is it easy to lie with maps it's essential?

Why did one prominent cartographer note, "Not only is it easy to lie with maps, it's essential"? It is a way to illustrate the bias of a particular world view.

What is the primary factor that make this region of the world a place of intense geologic hazards?

What is the primary factor that make this region of the world a place of intense geologic hazards? There are four tectonic plates underneath this region.

What is the name of the weather pattern that dominates the countries which are close to the equator?

The trade winds (also called trades) are the prevailing pattern of easterly surface winds found in the tropics near the Earth's equator, equatorward of the subtropical ridge.