One of the bottlenecks facing the sustainable development, as mentioned in the 2030 Agenda, is the existence of massive inequality in opportunities, wealth, and power. A key aspect of inequality is the rise in market and wealth concentration among a few multinationals and ultra-rich individuals, widening the Tech Wealth Gap Richer.
It was not an accident but the result of certain political choices that led to this trend to inequality. Fiscal and regulatory policies in most of the countries have caused not only the deterioration of the public sector but have also enabled the accumulation of human wealth unprecedented levels and growing concentration in the market. But there are quite strong and radical alternatives to these policies that may redistribute wealth and reverse the accumulation of economic power. These alternative policies will be a precondition to unlocking the revolutionary potential of the SDGs and to meet their.
Stratification of wealth
Vision of “having zero tolerance of human rights violation.” One of the strongest points of SDGs is the fact that one of the targets consists of eliminating inequalities, but this task is even bigger than the targets of Goal 10 propose. Whereas, income disparities have a focus point (10.1), inequality in terms of wealth passes unnoticed because it is one of the primary sources of disparity in all parts of the globe. Numerous researches proved that even a bigger and more malignant condition is wealth inequality, than income inequality. They estimate the lower half of the world population possesses less.
Than 1 percent of the world wealth in figures released by the Credit Suisse Research Institute. Conversely, it is in sharp contrast as the top richest 10 percent have occupied 88 percent of the world wealth, whilst the top 1 percent accounts to half of the global wealth. Wealth inequality is beyond income inequality as described by Branko Milanovic, because in all the countries where we have reliable data, wealth inequality is even greater than that of income inequality. Such differences further augment one another in the sense that income usually accretes to wealthin 2014, 67.4 percent.
Where did people go?
The corresponding concentration of wealth in the hands of the highest 1 percent of the population has continued to grow in the majority of emerging and affluent countries over the last two or three decades (see Figure). Other than economic security ownership of things like property, lands or stocks has its share of economic status, not forgetting social and political authority. In his article, Jeff Spross of The Week says, whoever controls wealth decides who rules.
This scenario forms a vicious cycle of inequality whereby expanded financial inequality intensifies political inequality thus giving corporations and the rich elites greater capacity in policy-making to help safeguard their wealth and the privileges of the rich elite. According to Milanovic, there is evidence that increased inequality benefits the rich (who can most of the time translate their inequitable dominance of the resources into inequitable power in the political and economic decision-making).
The Roots of Income Inequality
This is in major part due to the fact that wealth exerts influence even by direct funding of political campaigns. The 0.01 percent ultra-rich led the contribution of 40 percent of the total funds raised in the 2016 campaign in the United States. In most of the settings, law makers are almost purely members of richest stratum of the society. The rich can also purchase the services of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists who according to the New York Times are part of the income defense industry a phalanx of lawyers, estate planners, lobbyists and high-priced anti-tax activists who find and vigorously.
Defend a dizzying variety of tax dodges available to no one except the rich. There is a also likelihood of wealth to continue to subsequent generations hence a restriction to social mobility. Take wealth inequality along racial and gender lines as an example, it is more likely to be higher compared to income. Even though individuals might be the ones to lose when a financial crisis occurs, the poorest and most disadvantaged people are affected the most because of the lack of a cushion.
Conclusion
In the USA Black and Latino families have disproportionately suffered due to the recessions. Concentration of wealth has a direct or indirect impact on the entire aspects of the 2030 agenda. An example is extreme economic inequality, which is, in turn, completely associated with chronic and lasting poverty (SDG 1). Indeed, some studies have revealed that SDG 1 cannot be fulfilled without focusing on high levels of income and wealth disparity. The resources that have been accumulated by the rich people and organizations will be necessary to aggressively address the poverty situation.
As an example the wealthiest man in Nigeria would be Aliko Dangote owner of the largest cement company in Africa who earns enough interest on his money in a year to remove 2 million people in extreme poverty. Thus, there is nothing surprising that Oxfam and other civil society organizations come to the conclusion. To beat extreme poverty, we must also beat extreme wealth. Women were the main victims of the 2007-2009 global financial crisis (and the austerity that followed).