By
The world is rich and will become still richer. Quit worrying.
Not
all of us are rich yet, of course. A billion or so people on the planet
drag along on the equivalent of $3 a day or less. But as recently as
1800, almost everybody did.
The
Great Enrichment began in 17th-century Holland. By the 18th century, it
had moved to England, Scotland and the American colonies, and now it
has spread to much of the rest of the world.
Economists
and historians agree on its startling magnitude: By 2010, the average
daily income in a wide range of countries, including Japan, the United
States, Botswana and Brazil, had soared 1,000 to 3,000 percent over the
levels of 1800. People moved from tents and mud huts to split-levels and
city condominiums, from waterborne diseases to 80-year life spans, from
ignorance to literacy.
You
might think the rich have become richer and the poor even poorer. But
by the standard of basic comfort in essentials, the poorest people on
the planet have gained the most. In places like Ireland, Singapore,
Finland and Italy, even people who are relatively poor have adequate
food, education, lodging and medical care — none of which their
ancestors had. Not remotely.
Inequality
of financial wealth goes up and down, but over the long term it has
been reduced. Financial inequality was greater in 1800 and 1900 than it
is now, as even the French economist Thomas Piketty has acknowledged. By
the more important standard of basic comfort in consumption, inequality within and between countries has fallen nearly continuously.
In
any case, the problem is poverty, not inequality as such — not how many
yachts the L’Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt has, but whether the
average Frenchwoman has enough to eat. At the time of “Les Misérables,”
she didn’t. In the last 40 years, the World Bank estimates, the
proportion of the population living on an appalling $1 or $2 a day has
halved. Paul Collier, an Oxford economist, urges us to help the “bottom billion”
of the more than seven billion people on earth. Of course. It is our
duty. But he notes that 50 years ago, four billion out of five billion
people lived in such miserable conditions. In 1800, it was 95 percent of
one billion.
We
can improve the conditions of the working class. Raising low
productivity by enabling human creativity is what has mainly worked. By
contrast, taking from the rich and giving to the poor helps only a
little — and anyway expropriation is a one-time trick. Enrichment from
market-tested betterment will go on and on and, over the next century or
so, will bring comfort in essentials to virtually everyone on the
planet, and more to an expanding middle class.
Look
at the astonishing improvements in China since 1978 and in India since
1991. Between them, the countries are home to about four out of every 10
humans. Even in the United States, real wages have continued to grow —
if slowly — in recent decades, contrary to what you might have heard.
Donald Boudreaux, an economist at George Mason University, and others
who have looked beyond the superficial have shown that real wages are
continuing to rise, thanks largely to major improvements in the quality
of goods and services, and to nonwage benefits. Real purchasing power is
double what it was in the fondly remembered 1950s — when many American
children went to bed hungry.
What, then, caused this Great Enrichment?
Not
exploitation of the poor, not investment, not existing institutions,
but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called
“the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In a word, it was
liberalism, in the free-market European sense. Give masses of ordinary
people equality before the law and equality of social dignity, and leave
them alone, and it turns out that they become extraordinarily creative
and energetic.
The
liberal idea was spawned by some happy accidents in northwestern Europe
from 1517 to 1789 — namely, the four R’s: the Reformation, the Dutch
Revolt, the revolutions of England and France, and the proliferation of
reading. The four R’s liberated ordinary people, among them the
venturing bourgeoisie. The Bourgeois Deal is, briefly, this: In the
first act, let me try this or that improvement. I’ll keep the profit,
thank you very much, though in the second act those pesky competitors
will erode it by entering and disrupting (as Uber has done to the taxi
industry). By the third act, after my betterments have spread, they will
make you rich.
And they did.
You
may object that ideas are a dime a dozen and that to make them fruitful
we must start with adequate physical and human capital and good
institutions. It’s a popular idea at the World Bank, but a mistaken one.
True, we eventually need capital and institutions to embody the ideas,
such as a marble building with central heating and cooling to house the
Supreme Court. But the intermediate and dependent causes like capital
and institutions have not been the root cause.
The
root cause of enrichment was and is the liberal idea, spawning the
university, the railway, the high-rise, the internet and, most
important, our liberties. What original accumulation of capital inflamed
the minds of William Lloyd Garrison and Sojourner Truth? What
institutions, except the recent liberal ones of university education and
uncensored book publishing, caused feminism or the antiwar movement?
Since Karl Marx, we have made a habit of seeking material causes for
human progress. But the modern world came from treating more and more
people with respect.
Ideas
are not all sweet, of course. Fascism, racism, eugenics and nationalism
are ideas with alarming recent popularity. But sweet practical ideas
for profitable technologies and institutions, and the liberal idea that
allowed ordinary people for the first time to have a go, caused the
Great Enrichment. We need to inspirit masses of people, not the elite,
who are plenty inspirited already. Equality before the law and equality
of social dignity are still the root of economic, as well as spiritual,
flourishing — whatever tyrants may think to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment