To answer that question, a niggling matter needs to be resolved first: the impression created by many individuals, organisations and agencies is that \u201cprosperity\u201d is already<\/em><\/strong> becoming more \u201cinclusive\u201d; is that, in fact, so?<\/p>\n That question has two most likely alternative answers, dependent on whether the respondent likes to the look at the top of society or at the bottom of society.<\/p>\n \u201cYes, prosperity is becoming more inclusive<\/u><\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n Those who like to make that response like to look at the bottom of society, and point out that our global system has reduced absolute poverty by half<\/a> since the year 2000. But if a human being who couldn\u2019t have even one square meal a day earlier now has that one meal, is it right to describe that as \u201cinclusive prosperity\u201d?\u00a0 Today, three billion people survive on less than US$2 per day (that includes any housing, transport, clothing and food); and $2 is less than the price of one cup of coffee in any coffee shop in London, Tokyo or New York. As much as eighty per cent of the world lives on less than $10<\/a> a day.\u00a0 They would all laugh at the notion that they share in \u201cinclusive prosperity\u201d when they compare their lives to ours.<\/p>\n Rich, me?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n You may not consider yourself \u201crich\u201d but, to be in the top 1% of the world<\/strong>, you need to have an yearly income<\/u> of only $32,400 or its equivalent.\u00a0 Alternatively, if you want to look at the matter in terms of wealth<\/u> rather than income, you need to have a net worth of only $770,000 (including everything from the equity in your home, to your automobile(s) and other possessions, your retirement accounts, bonds, stocks, bank accounts, and cash).<\/p>\n Corporate \u201cinitiatives\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n A related issue is that we in the 1% are widely misled by the idea that lack of knowledge, information and technology are the main barriers to inclusiveness. We are therefore taken in by examples of worthwhile and indeed impressive corporate initiatives – which are however hyped as if corporate or technological initiatives are going to make prosperity globally inclusive.<\/p>\n Even a moment\u2019s analysis will reveal that is not the case.\u00a0 Consider the following, which are touted as examples of the sorts of things that are going to make for inclusiveness, when they clearly aren\u2019t:<\/p>\n From the perspective of inclusiveness, the key issue with all technology is not what it may or may not be able to do, but rather who owns it and for what purpose<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cNo; prosperity is actually becoming less inclusive!<\/strong>\u201d,<\/u><\/p>\n That is the answer given by people who are probably focusing on wealth concentration at the top of society: only 8 people now command as many resources as 50% of the world\u2019s population; last year the number of people who commanded that proportion of the world\u2019s resources was 62.\u00a0 In 2014, that number was 80. In 2010, it was 388.\u00a0 The trend goes back to the 1980s, highlighted by successive annual reports by Oxfam, Christian Aid and other NGOS. The reason for that trend is the rise in the popularity, among the elite, of philosophies such as those of Any Rand which resulted in Thatcherism, Reaganism and the disastrous actions of Greenspan.<\/p>\n Is the main obstacle resources, knowledge OR will?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The principal challenges are:<\/p>\n Genuine steps to make prosperity inclusive<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n There are \u201conly\u201d two things we need to do if we are to genuinely make prosperity inclusive:<\/p>\n The second blog describes how organizations might model inclusive prosperity<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n