Inequality

Antipoverty group Oxfam International got a lot of attention for claiming this week that there’s a global “inequality crisis,” but a far more important point is entirely neglected: globally, income distribution is less unequal than it has been for 100 years.

Entre las opciones de gasto para los gobiernos de las naciones más pobres, poner en marcha la revolución tecnológica puede parecer al principio una prioridad menor. Si lo comparamos con la situación crítica de la infraestructura, la atención sanitaria o las escuelas, el acceso digital mejorado y la reducción del tiempo de espera para obtener certificados de nacimiento se sienten como lujos que deberían postergarse, o quizás dejarse a la iniciativa privada. Pero hay razones para reconsiderar esto.

When famine strikes, governments and international donors step in with life-saving aid. And rich countries give more than $130 billion each year not only to feed the starving, but also to build crucial infrastructure and reduce gaps in access to education, health care, and clean water and sanitation worldwide.

All of this is vitally important. But one of the most powerful investments the development community could make is not in today’s problems, but in research that will address tomorrow’s challenges.

"In 2017, Sida - Styrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete will spend around 20 billion SEK on aid, with the mission to reduce poverty and help people to improve their lives. Different kinds of interventions are funded to reach this goal, but how do we know that poverty is being fought in the most effective way? What drives the decisions leading up to what to prioritize, and how can we ensure more "bang for the buck"?"

This the was the topic of a talk given by Bjorn Lomborg for Sida in November or 2017.

Nella lotteria della vita, nascere femmina in un Paese povero ti pone in una condizione di doppio svantaggio. Nei Paesi poveri le donne sono il gruppo demografico che presenta la maggiore incidenza globale di povertà, oltre alle peggiori condizioni di salute, il minor accesso all’istruzione e la più alta probabilità di essere vittime di violenza.

Não existem remédios rápidos para a desigualdade de género, mas uma coisa é certa: nem todos os esforços são igualmente bons ou suportados por dados rigorosos.

Na lotaria da vida, nascer mulher num país pobre é uma dupla desvantagem. As mulheres dos países pobres têm a maior incidência global de pobreza entre todos os grupos demográficos, juntamente com as piores condições de saúde, o menor acesso à educação e a maior probabilidade de ser vítima de violência.

"Climate change has been a key issue at the United Nations General Assembly this week. Meetings at the U.N. about the topic have been taking place during a season of calamitous weather events, including a series of devastating hurricanes.

While he believes that world leaders cannot ignore climate change, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, says he is concerned that precious resources are too often squandered on ineffective solutions, and that aid money could be spent on better interventions that do the most social good."

In the lottery of life, being born female in a poor country places one at a double disadvantage. Women in poor countries have the highest global incidence of poverty of any demographic group, along with the worst health conditions, the least access to education, and the highest likelihood of being victims of violence.

Climate change has been blamed for a dizzying array of absurd woes, from the dwindling number of customers at Bulgarian brothels to the death of the Loch Ness monster. Most of us can see through these silly headlines, but it’s far harder to parse the more serious claims when they’re repeated in good faith by well-meaning campaigners.

Bjorn Lomborg joined The Economist's podcast The Economist asks to discuss the question: "Poverty, health, education or climate change: where should governments spend their money?" Within each of these areas, some solutions are better than others: shouldn't we do the smart ones first?