ECONOMIC GROWTH WITHOUT DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IS BOUND TO BREED VIOLENCE
If economic growth is measured solely in terms of GDP and population growth then it would have a very narrow meaning as it would not take into account the quality of human life. Economic growth focuses on increases/decreases in real income on per capita basis. It has, therefore, a narrow focus. Economic development, on the other hand, has a much broader definition. When economic growth translates into a structural change in economy by way of better education, better health facilities, and longer life expectancies for the population at large, and more particularly for women, we can then talk about economic development.
It means that if a community experiences economic growth over a number of years, and as a result, the real incomes of the members in that community continue to improve, they can then spend more on education, health, arts, music and culture, and by doing so, move from a situation of economic growth to economic development. In the longer term, it is the quality of human life that is more important than the improvement in real income.
It is, however, not necessary that economic growth would always in the long run lead to economic development. There are of course certain criteria to access whether or not economic growth was going in the direction of economic development. These criteria are as follows: Growth without distributive justice means growth without development. If economic growth were to accentuate inequalities of income and wealth, it would be difficult to call it a development. A precondition of economic development is the elimination of absolute poverty levels and a reduction in gross disparities of incomes and wealth.
Growth is possible in an authoritarian and totalitarian system, but true development is possible only in a democratic political and social organization. Political liberty and economic freedom must be the fundamental precondition for long-term economic development. It is, indeed, difficult to imagine how development would take place in a society that opposes individualism and denies social rights and civil rights to its citizens.
Gender issues and development of human resources are fundamental in assessing the success of a process of economic development. An improvement in the economic and social status of women is a necessary pre-condition for development in many Third World countries. Similarly, the process of development is expected to improve the full potential of all members in a community irrespective of caste, colour, ethnicity, sex and religion.
In other words, development is a broader concept in comparison to the economic growth. Development of a society is expected to create an environment for a nicer and nobler life for everybody. It would be now easy to see why economic growth without distributive justice is bound to breed violence. This is evident from several past examples that will be discussed in this essay.
A major priority of the economic planning of most of the developing nations is to ensure that the benefits of growth percolate down to the poorest of the poor. Mere economic growth with increased production is not enough. Only when the economic growth benefits the deprived segments of the society, the economic development can be said to have taken place. In other words, the fruits of growth must be distributed in a just and fair manner. If that is not done or if that does not take place, violence and conflict are natural outcomes.
There are a range of theories that have examined the relationship between economic conditions and crime. Some of these theories include the conflict theory including the class struggle theory of Marx, sub-cultural theories, strain theory, opportunity theories, social disorganization theory, economic theories of crime and relative deprivation theory. The common theme in all of these tested theories is that economic deprivation, poverty or existence of poverty along with opulence and economic disparities lead to violence and conflict. In other words, inequalities especially economic inequality is the root cause of violence while distributive justice is an attempt to bring about greater economic inequality.
Most of the revolutions in human history including the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution took place because of the economic deprivation of the masses. Economic deprivation is actually the lack of distributive justice. All the class wars that have taken place have been rooted in economic causes. The peasant revolutions in Latin American nations originated because the impoverished peasantry and rich landlords existed side by side. The Naxal movement in India arose in 1970s, when large segments of the populations did not benefit from the economic growth.
Research by internationally renowned experts like Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis has shown a strong link between the wealth of a country and the probability of it suffering from civil war. The risk of civil war is much higher in poor countries than in rich countries. A country with a GDP per capita of $250 has a 15 per cent chance of descending into conflict at some point in the coming five years while, in a country with a GDP of $1250 per person, the chances are less than 4%. It is much cheaper to recruit rebels in a poor country, where wages are low and unemployment high, than in a rich country, where costs are much higher and the state is likely to have more resources to deter a possible rebellion.
For instance, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a senior officer’s salary is less than $100 a month and often goes unpaid. One of the commanders of a rebel group in the east of the country recalled the moment he was recruited: “1 had spent five months in a training camp in Kinshasa with no salary. My family was going hungry. When General Laurent Nkunda began recruiting, I saw I didn’t have any option”.
Recognizing the rising expectations of growing middle classes in developing countries, the OECD’s report Perspectives on Global Development 2012 focused on social cohesion: “Social cohesion is also a means that enables citizens to live in societies where they enjoy a sense of belonging and trust. The inference is that the absence of social cohesion may result in instability”. Tunisia and Thailand are cited as examples of countries where salaries are rising and education improving, but where improvements in equalities and political participation are lagging behind.
The unrest in Thailand in December 2010 and the Tunisian revolution that eventually led to the ousting of President Ben Ali show that violence is an outcome of unfulfilled economic expectations especially when the nation is experiencing growth but there is no consequent distributive justice.
In India, there is a special focus on justice including distributive justice in the constitution. The term ‘justice’ in the Preamble embraces three distinct forms- social, economic and political, secured through various provisions of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Social justice denotes the equal treatment of all citizens without any social distinction based on caste, colour, race, religion, sex and so on. It means absence of privileges being extended to any particular section of the society, and improvement in the conditions of backward classes (SCs, STs, and OBCs) and women. Economic justice denotes the non-discrimination between people on the basis of economic factors. It involves the elimination of glaring inequalities in wealth, income and property. A combination of social justice and economic justice denotes what is known as ‘distributive justice’. Political justice implies that all citizens should have equal political rights, equal voice in the government. The ideal of justice- social, economic and political- has been taken from the Russian Revolution.
In conclusion, it can be said that India is a socialist welfare state. The focus of economic plans and programmes in India is on distributive justice so that India may emerge as a peaceful society. In D. S. Nakara vs Union of India, the’ Supreme Court has held that the principal aim of a socialist state is to eliminate inequality in income, status and standards of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide a proper standard of life to the people, especially, security from cradle to grave. Amongst these, it envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of income. This is a blend of Marxism & Gandhism, leaning heavily on Gandhian socialism. From a wholly feudal exploited slave society to a vibrant, throbbing socialist welfare society reveals a long march, but, during this journey, every state action, whenever taken, must be so directed and interpreted so as to take the society one step towards the goal.