Basic economics tells of supply and demand. With supply and demand comes the
concept of scarcity and surplus. When any good is less available than it is
wanted, it is scarce. Its value invariably increases. The opposite is also
true: when there is too much of a good, its value plummets. Economics offers a
cogent lens through which the world can be viewed, but its systematic
manifestations often fail to account for the inequalities they create.
Increasingly, the earth faces a so-called “surplus” of bodies, in the face of a
high rate of population growth. This “surplus” consists of marginalized populations
who lack access to basic health needs.
However, the presence of a large population is not the root of the
problem: it is their maldistribution, with higher populations existing
disproportionately in the global south, and the present global economic system
that stacks the cards against them. The global marketplace is rife with
mechanisms that drive inequality – creating a world wherein a lucky minority
has too much, and a vast majority has too little. These mechanisms are
sustained by policies embedded in our current economic system that
systematically deny rights from the poor and submit them to disproportionate
risk. The following paper will explore the mechanisms by which the value of
human life is diminished by structurally violent policies, resulting in
negative health outcomes on a global scale in the face of uncharted population
growth.
The rapid urbanization of recent decades has resulted
in an increase in structural inequality and resulting negative health outcomes.
With the expansion of urbanism in the developing world has come the expansion
of slums, as a corresponding growth in urban planning has not accompanied population
booms (Davis 7). The negative health effects of this rise in population have
been compounded by Western interventions aimed at including the developing
world in the global market, especially the 1980’s structural adjustment
programs implemented by IMF and the World Bank. These programs succeeded only
in structuring risk. Contingent upon liberalization of trade, privatization and
deregulation, these programs were based on the assumption that inclusion in the
world market would allow for growth of the developing economy. In actuality,
most developing economies’ manufacture of raw materials does not give them a
competitive edge in the global economy. Loans given as part of these programs were
eventually paid for with funds accorded by slashing social programs in a time
when they were needed most for burgeoning urban populations. The removal of
social programs results in a much higher health risk to already vulnerable slum
populations. Structural adjustment programs were founded on principles that
valued economic growth more than it valued individual experience within the
developing world—principles that blindly assumed that economic growth would
present a rising tide to lift all boats. In reality, these programs widened the
gap between the developed and developing world, creating parallel gaps in
health and experience between the rich and poor within developing world urban
centers. Other economics-based policies, including the “IMF-enforced policies
of agricultural de-regulation” as cited by Mike Davis, displaced rural farmers,
giving them no choice but to travel to cities in search of work (10). Just as
population began to rise, the need for labor began to decline in most
industrial cities—leading to a surplus of labor that eventually settled along
the edges of cities. Inherent within all of these changes is an implicit
devaluing of the human life of the “excess” population: the manner in which
slums are overcrowded and unaided represents an oversight of both the
international and national governance. This is exemplified by the fact that
reforms in favor of development tend to value the country’s economic stance in the global market
over the health of the majority of its citizens. These errors in prioritization—the
importance placed on the country’s position on the international scale over its
health on a national scale–lead to dire health outcomes for the world’s poor,
in the form of increased risk and lack of access to social services.
Attempts at population control in the name of
“development” have also reflected implicit devaluing of human life. In the
1970’s, the Indian government, under the leadership of Indira Gandhi,
implemented a slew of policies in the Emergency period that undermined the
rights of India’s poorest and most marginalized citizens. In favor of “beautification,”
slums were broken up and displaced peoples were moved to the outskirts of the city
(Tarlo 245), their placement by the government mirroring their placement in
society. The Family Planning scheme emphasized more the value of sterilization
than it did forethought; what really came of this policy was the creation of a “pyramid
of pressure” for sterilization (Tarlo 248). If a government official reached
his sterilization quota, he would receive a reward, while failure to meet the
quota would result in a punishment. These quotas would be fulfilled by two
methods. An official could force
his subordinates to be sterilized through coercion or threat in a top-down manner.
Conversely, to avoid submitting to sterilization, the official’s subordinate could
fulfill the sterilization quota by exerting pressure on his subordinates to be
sterilized. In this manner, pressure
for sterilization increased down the “food chain” of social strata, leaving the
most marginalized people of the society with no choice but to submit to it. The
so-called incentives for sterilization offered by the government exhibited a
gross devaluation of the livelihood of those facing sterilization; tins of
ghee, electric clocks and radios, and a small sum of money were considered a
fair exchange for the right to bear life (Tarlo 250). This gave rise to
underground markets where certificates of sterilization were eerily similar to
currency. Later, when the Delhi Development Authority had exhausted the number
of sterilizations it could obtain from its own staff, it made sterilization or
presentation of a sterilization certificate a requirement for settlement in DDA
housing for those that were displaced by urban development schemes also
implemented by the DDA. The pressure of sterilization closed in on all sides
around Indian slum-dwellers as part of an exploitative system that created a
motive for the poor to exploit the poorer. In the name of development, the rights
of the poor in this society were eroded by a system that directly targeted and
grossly undervalued their right to fertility.
The
global market puts the poor at risk by subtly tipping the scales against them
and by explicitly allowing their exploitation. In many cases, the poor pay
dearly for their attempts to earn a living, giving up their health in the face
of poor regulation of business and market practices. As Scheper-Hughes writes, “The problem is that markets are
by nature indiscriminate and inclined to reduce everything—even human beings,
their labor, and their reproductive capacity—to the status of commodities”
(193). The recent illegal trafficking of human organs shows how an economic
system can manufacture risk exclusively to the poor by allowing the
impoverished to give up their lifelong health for a quick sum of money, while a
wealthy person would likely never even consider such an action. This speaks to
the desperation that is arranged by the inequality of this system, and the lack
of regulation within the global marketplace.
A globalized marketplace allows also for direct
exploitation in the name of efficiency and expediency. Because of the lower
costs and regulations, corporations increasingly outsource labor to developing
nations. In many cases, this has resulted in a relaxation of both safety
standards and accountability in industrial settings. Notably, the Bhopal
disaster is an example of a Western company outsourcing its risk. In the early
hours of December 3, 1984, a toxic gas leak coming from the Union Carbide
pesticide plant covered the industrial city of Bhopal, killing thousands of
workers and civilians and leaving many others with lifelong health problems (Fortun
194). Compensatory efforts did not begin to cover the costs of the lasting
health effects on the population. The poor of Bhopal lacked the political might
that Union Carbide’s legal team had; they had no recourse. In the developing
world, failures of regulation coupled with economic exploitation can result in
irreversible negative health outcomes for underprivileged populations.
The
above examples represent a mere fraction of the ways in which the global
economy gives rise to increasing inequalities between the haves and the
have-nots. A measured examination of all exploitation and risk that the current
economic system affords is far beyond the scope of this essay; indeed, it is
likely impossible. The difficulty
in measurement lies in the fact that the subtle devaluation of the poor
underlies the system over which all commerce is built; the economic system is
structured on inequality. However, where economic models allow a restoration of
balance, there is no such balance in the real world. Use of a solely economic
mindset when considering global inequality is a mistake, as a misplaced belief
in economic development and growth as a panacea undoubtedly oversimplifies the
problem. This oversimplification undervalues humanity, causing a marked decline
in quality of life, as the disenfranchised fight to stay afloat, paying the
debts with their liberties and their health.
