The effect of inequality in the world


The struggle against inequality in each domain of sustainable development should be the thread of the new think-action framework, says Belgian minister of development cooperation Jean-Pascal Labille. The challenge of the poverty goes for beyond surviving.  Dignified work, including universal social protection and access to natural resources and their sustainable management are key conditions for equality and justice.

Opinion of Bieze:

Those countries with lots of poor people are in fact very rich in way of raw materials and energy , the common goods, but those lie mostly in the hand of few people. There is a problem in division of power.  The power of certain players should be restricted for example by shorten the expire date of patents of very cheap medicines.


Worldwide four giant lithium mines are known. Three of them are in the hand of multinationals who  can attract the best scientists, so small companies are powerless and can barely compete because of the lack of knowledge.

The problem of equality often lies in the politics of the international market speculation. An example is food which is traded on the market through speculation. History shows that this model will fail sooner or later,  look at Greece, Spain and Italy.  The inequity has to be faced to obtain for example fair trade.

Belgium will always focus on fragile countries because those governments rely on it. This developing cooperation plays an important part in the struggle against inequality, in financing global collective goods and maintaining peace and stability in the world.
Thus these partnerships should be maintained despite the reduction of budget. To find new financial sources, the minister recommends that ‘tobintaks’ or auction incomes of CO2 emission permits are used to finance the climate policy in developing countries, in particular regarding the adaptation policy in the least developed and fragile countries.


Let me know what you think about Bieze’s opinion and Mr Labille’s proposal.



6 thoughts on “The effect of inequality in the world

  1. tijlcrauwels says:

    Well, this is the everlasting problem of capitalism and you can extend this problem from sustainable development to every other aspect in the world lead by capitalism.
    There are lots and lots of different theories on how to counteract these problems, but they’re all flawed in some way. Or the changes will not happen because the ones in power will lose too much to make it happen.

    This is especially the case with the ‘tobin tax’, when using the tobin tax it scares away possible investors and will lead to impoverishment of that country. (Sweden is an example of this) Those theories make a lot of sense in a theoretical point of view, but like every present-day problem that is hard to fix, politics and invested people make it practicly impossible.

    The biggest problem of globalisation and equality in my mind is the fact that we still don’t live in a globalised world. Global industry leads to unfair advantages if you don’t follow laws like kyoto, tobintax, co2 tax etc. The other problem is that people, or countries with great power are mostly funded by the multinationals they should be stopping (especially in American politics), which is still a guiding power in means of technology and other economical aspects. But even in Belgium you see that drastic changes, or high taxes lead to factories (Ford, Arcelor Mittal,..) and businesses going to other countries which is terrible for our (and not the global) economy.

    Tobin tax could be a solution if every country decided at the same moment to implement this, but this is again, purely theoretical. So for now, I think this problem can only be faced by the good will of governments, organisations and ofcourse the people that fund causes like that. Or changes in the governments, people with power of the 3th world countries (which we all know won’t happen, because most of them like to be rich and powerfull.)

    • Thanks for your extended opinion, it seem to me that you have great interest in this matter. The problem is indeed laying with the fact that multinationals have too much power. And the bad thing here is that governments are ‘owned’ by these multinationals. For example in the US the president is always funded by some multinational or more. You can never make it to president ship without funding (billions if I am correct?). And in this way the president is bonded with his funders. I won’t say anything more about the US because we will deflect to much from the subject . I think that the multinationals will always have some influence on the government but it have to be limited if we want a more stable economy.

  2. tijlcrauwels says:

    Another thing you mentioned was shortening the patent time, this could be done, but the problem is that the research budgets are based on the estimate income. Which would mean cutting in that budget as well, which could lead to less new medicine. This just shows that everything has two sides, and if the changes were that easy, they probable would have been made already.

    • Yes this is what I also said to Bieze during the interview. Extended research is needed and will only be done if there is a big possibility to high revenues, because research is very expensive.

      • woutcordeel says:

        I agree with your opinions. But access to a medicine can make a huge difference for those people, even if there is no money for further generations of that medicine.
        Recently I read an article about patients of throat cancer in India who could not effort an expensive American product. The Indian government refused a patent of that American company and so cheaper Indian products could be sold for $100 instead of $1400 while it had the same effect.

      • tijlcrauwels says:

        But think about the medicine that company made before they researched this medicine against throat cancer. If they didn’t make money on that, they might not have had the money for that throat cancer medicine. So research should never be held back.
        Another good example of this is in Belgium, where they want to give the hospitals subsidies according to the number of patients, instead of the number of research. Which will maybe be good for 5 years, but then the newer medicine will not be developed and the problem would eventually be bigger than it is now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: