#1311 Séamus Power - Inequality: A View from Manywheres

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello everyone. Welcome to a new episode of The Dissenter. I'm your host, as always, Ricard Lops, and today I'm joined by Dr. Seamus Power. He's associate professor of cultural psychology at the University of Copenhagen, and today we're going to talk about his book Inequality, A View from Manywhere. So Dr. Power, welcome to the show. It's a pleasure to everyone.

00:22 Séamus Power: Thanks so much, Ricardo. It's lovely to be here.

00:25 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so it's interesting because in your book, uh, of course, you also talk about the economic side of things, but since you are a psychologist, you, of course, tackle economic inequality mostly from a psychological pers. Perspective. So, what is the psychology of economic inequality? I mean, in what ways do you approach economic inequality as a psychologist and perhaps in what ways does it differ from how economists approach it?

00:56 Séamus Power: Yeah, it's a great question to start off, and as you said in your introduction, I'm a cultural psychologist, so which itself is a transdisciplinary enterprise somewhere between psychology but inspiration from other disciplines like anthropology, philosophy, history, sociology, and so on. So it's kind of a social scientific discipline. So I'm kind of located in this space, and of course the book is about. Economic inequality and capitalism. So traditionally, when people think about economic inequality, they're talking about differences between individuals and groups and nations in terms of the wealth accumulation, uh, and income as well. So, economists tend to really speak about this topic quite a lot, uh, of inequality and growing inequality and the separation, um, of different social Groups and nations as well. Uh, AND little has been done, um, from a psychological point of view, a cultural psychological point of view. So I wanted to kind of bring that lens onto one of these topics, uh, that's really definitional for the lives of, of almost everyone on the planet, at least hundreds of millions of people really think and care about this topic of inequality and stories of growing inequality as well.

02:04 Ricardo Lopes: But how would you say it differs from how economists approach economic inequality?

02:11 Séamus Power: Yeah, sure. I mean, so what I'm interested in is people's subjective understandings of economic inequality, above and beyond objective indicators of GDP per capita, GNP and these types of um um data that economists are typically interested in. So I'm kind of interested in how people think about, feel, experience, um, economic inequality and the economic systems in which they live. So I think that's the kind of fundamental differences jump between objective and subjective.

02:39 Ricardo Lopes: And what are the most common views that people, I mean people, when I mean people, I mean both regular laypeople and economists have about economic inequality.

02:56 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, there's lots of discussion, um, maybe, you know, since Piketty and his kind of his book Capitalism in the 21st Century really put this issue of economic inequality back on the agenda of academics and the public as well in 2014. Basically, the idea that's been perpetrated from this is this idea that the rich are getting richer and leaving the rest of us behind. So this is kind of, at least in the academic. World and social science, uh, economics and psychology. This is what people tend to focus on, this idea that the rich are getting richer, and this has this, uh, downstream, uh, consequences for much of humanity. Um, SO this is, this is mainly how it's thought about in social science. Uh, WE hear a lot about it in the media as well. Left-wing media pick up this narrative as well. But when you think about it globally as well, I mean, there's of course issues to do with economic inequality, but one of the issues I Also addressed in the book is this idea of poverty, uh, and hundreds of millions of people who live and die in poverty all around the world. And again, you know, at certain periods of history, these ideas of poverty and poverty reduction, uh, make the headlines and people talk about it in the kind of Western academic world and so on, uh, but often they're forgotten. And one of the arguments in the book is that we have forgotten and we ought not to forget, uh, poverty throughout the world as well when we talk about inequality.

04:17 Ricardo Lopes: And in the book you talk about two main global stories, I mean the most dominant global stories that seem to contradict each other when it comes to economic inequality and that we hear about in politics and the media. So what are those two stories?

04:37 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean this is this kind of narration of these two stories, which takes up a good chunk of part one of the book and echoes throughout the rest of the book. The other two parts are about these kind of two conflicting stories of economic inequality. On the one hand, we have this kind of dominant story we hear a lot about in the academy and then maybe left wing media and politics. AS well, the rich are getting richer, leaving us all behind, as I've stated, right? So this is kind of an omnipresent, uh, uh, argument. And of course people from different disciplines feed into this, whether it's economics, psychology, anthropology, and so on. Uh, SO this is kind of wooden bucket of, of narratives that kind of, uh, can be combined in this master narrative. But then on the other hand, I mean, there's another Story that's perhaps less popular to talk about, but it's this idea that despite economic inequalities between people, groups, and societies, that actually in a relatively short historical period of time, capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. It's created abundance and prosperity. That's, yes. Uh UNEQUALLY shared, but still on a, in a relatively short period of historical time, uh, the world has gotten far more prosperous than it has before. So, you know, I mean, there's so many things written across disciplines and philosophy, economics, social science, and so on about economic inequality. This kind of idea of creating these two master narratives, I thought was an interesting way to kind of frame the book, um, and, and to create these two narratives.

06:11 Ricardo Lopes: Right, so from a psychological perspective, I guess that one of the main things that plays a role here in terms of how people look at economic inequality has to do with fairness, right? And of course, uh, I mean there's a philosophical aspect which we could discuss here whether it's fair. Or not for economic inequality to even exist or what is a fair level of economic inequality and if rich people or whatever level of richness we're talking about, uh, millionaires, billionaires, whether they really deserve that kind of wealth. And, and, and if people who are at the bottom of, uh, bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy really uh deserve such a fate, I mean, really deserve to be poor and things like that, but from a psychological perspective, uh, how do people perceive, uh, fairness?

07:12 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really interesting question. One of the kind of key psychological ideas in the book is this discussion of fairness and the kind of multiple meanings that people have of fairness. I mean, there's also a long literature in psychology about this. You probably know the work of Jonathan Haidt. He and I share some kind of lineage at the University of Chicago and his book The Righteous Mind. He also talks quite a lot about Fairness. Uh, HE approaches it from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which I also think is interesting and shared with other people like Paul Bloom as well and moral developmental psychology. But making this kind of argument between them that there's kind of an ingrained sense of fairness of proportionality in the distribution of goods between people. Uh, WHICH I think is particularly interesting, right? It's kind of like in our nature to kind of think about ideas of fairness and how things are distributed in the proportionality. But what John does and, and, and so on and others as well who work in, in kind of cultural nature of morality and the cultural reasoning of morality is to show and to think about how ideas of fairness, um, vary across cultural context and across time. And that's when, you know, the evolutionary kind of basis, uh, meets the cultural psychology, um. And how it manifests, uh, non-uniformly across time. But then when it comes to, for example, uh, income inequality and wealth inequality, you know, the consequence of this kind of theorizing is that, yeah, sure, people have this, uh, something that they feel in the gut about a sense of fairness and what's right and wrong when it comes to the distribution of abundance or wealth, income, and so forth. Uh, BUT it's varied radically, uh, throughout the world, as you've already hinted at with your, with your question. So ideas of fairness and how things should be. Redistributed very differently in Chicago, for example, where I did my PhD, uh, versus in Copenhagen, where I'm a faculty member. It's very different cultural worlds and very different ways of thinking about economic inequality and the sharing and redistribution of wealth, uh, as well. So I kind of, in the book, I take this cultural psychological lens, uh, to try and understand, uh, how people think about fairness and different kind of lay theories of fairness and redistribution that underscore different cultural contexts around the world.

09:25 Ricardo Lopes: So referring to the subtitle of your book, what is the view from many wars? What do you mean by that?

09:33 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I have to give credit to Richard Schrader, who I know has been on your program before. Uh, Rick was my grad school advisor in Chicago and for my postdoc, and this is something that really permeated his work as a cultural anthropologist and a cultural psychologist and all his teaching and mentorship as well. So I definitely have to give credit to Rick for uh for the subtitle. But basically the view from many words is this kind of poetic attempt to frame a philosophical position where One stays on the move between multiple points of view in an effort to seek out something fundamental about a phenomena of interest. In my case, I'm writing about inequality and what the pursuit of a view from many words is, is to try and stand the move between multiple disciplines. So in the book, there's discussions of, you know, economic theory, there's philosophical foundations, there's mainstream experimental social psychology evidence. There's cultural psychology, ethical. Graphic works, there's discussions of anthropologists, so you get this kind of broad transdisciplinary view and different insights from different disciplinary perspectives. Uh, THERE'S methodological differences as well, um, between different sources of data. There's big data, economic data sets. There's more lived experience, phenomenological accounts, and almost everything in between is reported in the, in the book as well. So again, to try and have this kind of holistic understanding from it. And then the third kind of aspect of many words beyond the theories and disciplines and the methodologies is also, as we've already kind of talked about a little bit, is to stay on the move between these different stories and different kind of political and ideological viewpoints as well. One where we complain that the rich are getting richer, leaving us behind, and then the other narrative, for example, uh, where, uh, capitalism, uh, despite inequality has led to prosperity.

11:23 Ricardo Lopes: But in this view from many wars, could, uh, I mean, aspects of those two different sides of the debate still play a role here, but then we can expand on them, or how does it work, or should we just leave the more ideological aspects of the debate completely aside?

11:47 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, one of the motivations for writing the book is that I see a lot of kind of writing and discussion of economic inequality and capitalism and the future of capitalism, uh, being particularly polarized, right? That someone kind of puts a flag in the ground and you just want to argue from this one particular viewpoint. They marshal evidence to support this viewpoint and really don't engage on the other side, right? So we see it across disciplines, across methods, and then across topics. Uh, SO I guess one of the innovations and novelties of the book is, again, to try and stay on the move between these multiple points of view, to seek out a more holistic understanding. So I do try to put these two narratives, for example, from part one of the book, in conversation with each other, and then to assess the scopes and limits and to take seriously the arguments from either side of it, to take a moderate. POSITION to look at the evidence, to look at the uh uh how convincing arguments are, what are the blind spots, and so on. But really, you know, that's part two of the book is kind of that assessment. But part three, which I guess we'll talk about, but part three is to try and create a new story of capitalism and economic development into the future, uh, from presenting these two stories. So the, the hope and the aim of the book is to um is to really take seriously, uh, this view for many words to take seriously, uh, multiple different perspectives and arguments, uh, and to narrate them in a way that's engaging, I hope, for the reader, uh, and then to form something new from the serious engagement.

13:17 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so let's talk a little bit about the data then and the data that support each of these two different views. So what are, what are the best data out there that support the view that the wealthy are becoming increasingly wealthier to the detriment of most of humanity?

13:39 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think there's multiple different data sources. I draw a lot on Thomas Piketty and the work of his group and his collaborators around the world, from also from the Oxford-based resource Our World in Data that provide this kind of really lovely open access sort of data that people use throughout the world, which is really interesting. So I think, you know, those people have done incredible work compiling these very Interesting data sets and making them accessible to different researchers from different fields, but also, of course, the journalists and policymakers as well. So I think between our world and data, Max Roser, uh, who's the, the director of this, um, institute, as well as Piketty, um, and his World Inequality Lab, um, these are the kind of big data that I draw on. I mean, I think, um, and then of course, the work related to this, uh, really delves. AND interprets these data, but a lot of the evidence coming out, um, of these efforts are really showing the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. Uh, AND of course, you know, this is definitely not the most unequal time in human history and even people who write about this, like, uh, Thomas Piketty in his earlier book, um, Capital in the 21st Century shows that even Pre-World War One, that wealth and income inequality was greater than it is today. And of course, you've got this equalizing effect of the, the Boer Wars and the, and the um aftermath of both of those. But again, you see the increase in the 70s and 80s, uh, with the start of the neo-liberal kind of ideology and reinterpretation of economic development. Uh HERE we start to see our societies um Western liberal democracies and throughout the world becoming more and more unequal, and this trend has continued, and this is what we see from Piketty in the early 2010s with his book that again the wealthy are getting even wealthier at the rate of returns on capital supersedes. Uh, INCOME increases. Uh, AND again, this idea that the wealth, wealthy are becoming wealthy and then the emergence of the super rich. And of course, then it's, it's more obvious to see it with the second Trump administration as well. The role of the super wealthy, they're not trying to hide it in some way. Elon Musk has been involved with the re-election. And then with Trump's second inauguration, we see um all the AI and the social media company founders, you know, in the background, a row or 2 sitting behind Donald Trump in their inauguration. So again, you see the, the influence of uh of the super wealthy and politics, uh, in, in this way. And of course, uh, in the last two or so years, we've seen how, um, the impact of the second Trump administration, not just in the United States, but of course throughout the world.

16:21 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so I, I, I mean, there's at least something to this worry that some people have that economic inequality is going up and it's probably having some detrimental effects across the world, right, because particularly since the 2020, uh, the COVID-19 pandemic, uh, we've seen that most of the wealth has flown uh upwards to the wealthy. I, I mean, some of the The current richest people in the world like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and others have, uh, really, their wealth has really shot up since 2020 and, uh, not so much, it's, uh, and the trend has not been the same for people who are lower in socioeconomic status, right, particularly with uh raising rising levels of inflation and things like that,

17:20 Séamus Power: right. Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly right. I mean, this is, and you know, when Mosque a couple of weeks ago, at least temporarily became the world's first trillionaire, that again, it really symbolizes this and makes it very accessible for people throughout the world to show that the world has created its first trillionaire when many people are struggling, right, after the things that you said in the post-COVID world, due to inflation, you know, high cost of living, and so on.

17:47 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so how about the other view, the sort of opposite view? What kind of data support the view that capitalism, even with its associated inequality, has been beneficial to humanity in terms of lifting people out of poverty and creating prosperity?

18:08 Séamus Power: Mhm. And when you look at data from our world and data, for example, you see that, you know, in terms of GDP per capita and per person, um, that we see for most of human history that people lived, uh, without abundance and prosperity. Um, THEY lived in poverty, and then with the advent of the industrial revolution, uh, in the United Kingdom that Adam Smith talks about, you see this increase in prosperity, um, around this time, several 100 years ago. But then with this, uh, of course, increase in prosperity, the movement of people from the countryside and the cities and so on, you know, this kind of story of early industrial capitalism, it's unequal, it's highly polluting, um, and, and so forth, as I discussed in the book. But with that comes a rise in prosperity and then with prosperity created more opportunities for, you know, people to Uh, to study for universities to grow again, they're unequal and across many different lines of class and gender, uh, ethnicity and so forth. But again, uh, throughout aggregate time and even from the Marxist perspective, Uh, when people complain about the inadequacies of, of capitalism, the inequalities of capitalism, uh, you get this redistribution through people protesting through trade unions and, and so forth. But over the time, the distribution, um, at least from this perspective, the distribution of prosperity was fed back into, uh, uh, into societies, and with societies, universities began to bloom, the more knowledge was created with. Knowledge, germ theory, for example, that people uh were able to create uh different, you know, vaccines and medical procedures and, and so on. And of course this feed feedback loop continues, um, knowledge compounds and with that you get this kind of redistribution and an aggregate rise in in life conditions is the argument, uh, for, uh, the link between capitalism and the increased societal well-being on an aggregate level.

20:03 Ricardo Lopes: OK, but when it comes to capitalism lifting people out of poverty, Iver to arguments that I think from people who oppose that view that I think are very compelling, and I would like to hear your thoughts on them. So the first one has to do with historically how we classify people as living in extreme poverty or not, because I mean, particularly before the In 1800s or so there are many, there were many societies out there who didn't even use money, like for example, forager hunter gatherers and so on, and even in agriculture societies based on agriculture there were activities there that would sustain people that didn't really involve money, like for example the fact that people would have access to a common land. Where they could farm and they could feed themselves and their communities without really having or generating necessarily any wealth when it in terms of money. I mean there were no, there was no monetary exchange there. So I mean one critique would be that, yeah, OK, so you're saying that before the 1800s, the or the 1700s. Even uh people had no access to, um, I, I mean, that most of humanity was living in dire poverty, but actually if you take those aspects of people's life ways into account, maybe they were not necessarily not having access to the basics, uh, uh the uh the, to the basics of life, let's say so. And the other critique. I has to do with the way we calculate extreme poverty. I mean, because I don't, I'm not sure about the exact amount that the people from the World Bank and other places use right now, but until very recently, extreme poverty was calculated as below $2.15 a day, and many people have pushed back. On using such a low amount because, I mean many, most people in the world, if they would only get $2.15 or even $3.04 dollars, $5 a day, they would still not be able to to fulfill their basic needs. So I mean, do you think there's something to those critiques or

22:59 Séamus Power: no? Absolutely. I mean, I think you've hit the nail on the head with those. I mean, uh, so yeah, there's the two parts of how we kind of think about the past, and this is the importance of again this transdisciplinary perspective that I tried to discuss and bring into the book, and the importance of history and, and, uh, historians when you think and talk about, uh, inequality and capitalism and so on. So, yeah, this is not to say when you look at, you know, GDP per capita from the year zero until, you know, 2026, uh, when you see this kind of flat line for, um, Whatever, 17, 1800 years that people there were living impoverished lives, right? In, in, in this kind of way that they're just surviving. But of course people have ways of organizing or sustaining themselves and of thriving in, in various ways that looks and feels different. There was a really great book that was just out. I was reading it over the summer, a massive book called Capitalism, A Global History by the Harvard historian Svenn Becker, who looks at, uh, the early kind of engagement with, uh, with capitalist enterprises and showing these spikes of inequality via capitalistic enterprises, but also it's very charming, uh, history, um, describing, as you've kind of said that, you know, also people had different ways, and, and different ways of organizing their economies and thriving in their, in their own rights. And I, and, you know, as a cultural psychologist and primarily someone who uses politics. OF an ethnographic methods. I totally agree with the second criticism of this, uh, idealized version of capitalism, lifting people out of, out of poverty, and that is, it matters what's counted, how it's counted by whom, and so on. So I think this is, uh, those people who complain about this kind of overly simplified narrative of the rising tides, lift all boats, um, those people who critique that narrative. They were totally right, uh, on those grounds as well. So there's something more about kind of base level of poverty, non-poverty, uh, of GDP and these kind of figures, and this is something I try to, uh, critique myself in the book and develop new ways of thinking about economic development that are more meaningful for people rather than these blunt, uh, uh, economic categories, which, uh, I, I think also kind of predominate, uh, uh, the debate as well.

25:04 Ricardo Lopes: So apart from lifting people out of poverty, In capitalism, or at least people who argue for the contributions of capitalism also point to, for example, uh, rising levels of, uh, uh, ever rising educational levels, elongated and healthier lives. I mean, this kind of, uh, criticism coming from, uh, for example, socialists and Marxists, I don't find as compelling as the other two criticisms. Related to wealth distribution and wealth creation, but I've also heard people saying that, oh, OK, those kinds of things were not necessarily the product of capitalism, they were more the product of the state, and they could have been achieved through socialism or through other kinds. Of more equalitarian economic organization or economic system. So I mean, do you think that, uh, and then when it comes to healthier lives, they say that it was mostly through technological developments and medical advancements that could have been done even without capitalism. I mean, do you think that there's any merit. THOSE kinds of criticisms or not. Yeah,

26:31 Séamus Power: no, I take these kind of criticisms seriously as well. Um, BUT I don't conceptualize it as an either or, right? I mean, if you look at historically, you're always going to get this dialogical relationship. If someone asserts that, you deny it. If someone denies that, you assert it in this way. But I, you know, I think in the book it's something I try to trace out again, these tensions between different kinds of stories, but also between different theorists, right? I mean, those are kind of more pro-capitalist. AND think that it's the greatest thing uh in humanity, and then the kind of more Marxist side of things where, where people, you know, talk about communism and these different uh ways of organizing society, um, and these more egalitarian societies. But of course, I mean, you know, what I tried to do in the book, I think when any of these become kind of like hypercapitalism or really kind of dictatorial communism, when you reach these extremes, uh, I'm critical of both, right? Um, I mean, there's something about I spent some time earlier in my life, uh, traveling in Cuba, for example, right, where you have this kind of relatively, uh, egalitarian communist, uh, type of state. But a lot of people were poor, and I write about this kind of personal, you know, travel experience in the book as well. Uh, A lot of people are poor and they really kind of wanted to be engaged with the world, uh, in terms of, you know, commerce, travel, economics, and, uh, and, and socially as well. So there's something about societies that You know, have these kind of top-down communist kind of ideals that I don't think are, are so great as well. But then you can contrast it into the, you know, massive unequal American cities, for example, we have super rich and then you leave this fancy apartment building and, and there's poor people, homeless people outside your door. And I also think that's a problem as well with the hypercapitalism. So, um, so I think, you know, I do see this relationship as kind of dialogical, but I think when it reaches an extreme one way or the other, it's also problematic.

28:19 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, before we get into how people look at fairness and unfairness and Uh, uh, contexts of relative deprivation, which is more about the psychological aspect of things. Let me just ask you one more question about economic inequality from an economics perspective. So, um, I, I mean, I mean, do, do you take seriously as well the fact that at least according to, uh, economists who've been studying the Effects of economic inequality on politics and society. For example, I've had on the show Dr. Branko Milanovic, who's done a lot of work on that, and they say that economic inequality, particularly above a certain level, I'm not exactly sure about which level exactly, but it can have negative effects on society and politics, like, for example, the fact that Uh, billionaires or very wealthy people can buy politicians and they can make politicians pass laws and bills that favor them and then uh or tweak the economic system into money flowing more upward. Words and there being less redistribution to the bottom of society or the lower levels of society and also because of that there's lower, there's lower opportunity for people at the bottom because of course people who are wealthy or extremely wealthy. Uh, HAVE, uh, take, uh, almost all of the opportunity out there through their, uh, different kinds of influence. I mean monetary influence, but also the kinds of connections that they establish and the fact also that if they influence politics, then the The sort of the social welfare state gets is affected and people perhaps public systems and public institutions get worse and people no longer have access to. For example, uh, welfare and good public education, good public health and things like that. So, um, economic mobility goes down. I mean, do, do you think that those are issues that we should worry about as well?

31:07 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think so. I mean, you speak about Branko Milanovic, who I've never met, but I certainly read much of his contributions to our understanding of economic inequality. I think he's a very uh big thinker. Uh, I really appreciate that he takes a global perspective. I think he's right in some of those ways that you've discussed that there is, you know, he's not the only one, of course, talking about the problems of inequality, but I think he's, he used it so much and he's kind of omnipresent in the, in the discourse that, uh, you know, it's OK. TO center on him and, and this work a little bit. But of course, yeah, I mean, lots of people have documented the ill effects of growing economic inequality, particularly in the kind of this neoliberal hypercapitalistic state as well, where it's becoming just so obvious, um, to many people in societies, and, you know, I study primarily Western liberal democracies, even though in the book I try to take this kind of global perspective, but my own kind of ethnographic research, it tends to focus on Western liberal democracies, but there. Through my research and, and, and the people I speak to and, and study, um, that you see that people are really understanding and seeing clearly some of the problems of, of inequality, uh, as you rightly say, with the influence of the super rich on, on politics, of buying elections, of maintaining, uh, systems that benefit the status quo, and of course, the status quo is unequal, and therefore, you know, those who have, will have more and those who do not have find it more and more difficult to, uh, to gain some sort of advantage and, and freedom. Themselves from their, uh, from their status quo. And of course, you know, when we maintain the status quo, when the rich become even richer and so on, of course, we have this problem with climate change that's, uh, we can clearly see. I mean, you're, I guess you're in Portugal, I'm in Copenhagen. Uh, I was in Pittsburgh over the summer where we had this kind of sun blocked out from wildfire smoke in Canada. So wherever you go, you can see the ill effects of this. And of course, if you have super wealthy people maintaining How the system is, the, um, we're going to see more and more um negative impacts of, of climate change. Uh, THAT'S it. We, I know we'll speak a little more about relative deprivation, but when, you know, people compare themselves to other people and find themselves disadvantaged, um, through these comparisons, you get more civic discontent as well. People feel upset, they feel like they're being left behind, that they're being treated unfairly in, in some sense. Um, And of course, we'll take measures to, to feel better. Um, THE most prominent way of doing that is through voting, and I guess we'll talk about that, um, some more, but also more extreme ways in terms of radical social change in the form of rallies, riots, and revolutions that I also discussed in the book.

33:46 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. Yeah, so talking about relative deprivation, what, what should we consider here in terms of its effects on people's psychology and the way we compare ourselves to other people and how we feel about our material circumstances? I mean, why is, why is relative deprivation important?

34:11 Séamus Power: Mhm. So one of the kind of central tensions that I explore in the book is this idea that we live in a world of abundance, in a world of plenty, but we often feel like we don't have enough, right? So no matter how good things are, we never feel like we're quite where we want to be. So that's the kind of central psychological test. And one of the central ways I try to explain it is, as you've described, through this idea of relative deprivation, which actually has its origins in sociological field studies uh in the, in the 1940s, uh, with promotion rates in the, in the US Army. Um, The theory has been very generative in different disciplines over the years, but the bare bones of it is basically that when an individual or group compares themselves to a salient individual or group and through that comparison finds themselves lacking in some way, feeling behind or discriminated against, then this can lead to angry frustration. Um, SO that's the kind of bare bones of it, of course, it manifests in many different ways in different geographical and cultural, uh, regions and across, uh, different, um, periods of history as well. Um. So, you know, this is the core for me in explaining the psychology of, of how people are feeling left behind, many hundreds of millions of people feeling left behind when it comes to, um, uh, the economic system in which they live in. And, you know, maybe in, in aggregate GDP objective terms, um, that people have had it, you know, uh, super well, right, in, in terms of contemporary societies and the aggregate, um. Uh, ECONOMIC levels divorced from people's lived experiences. But when you talk to people and you figure out how they feel and think about these, um, uh, economic situations in which they are, you often get a different story from these people. Again, this tension between the objective indicators and subjective realities.

36:00 Ricardo Lopes: And this sort of, um, psychological effects can lead to civic unrest, right? I mean, can lead to people even organizing themselves to protest and sometimes even protesting violently against this sort of, uh, unfairness that they perceive in. Society,

36:23 Séamus Power: right? Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right, and that was, you know, I think it's nearly 15 years ago. That was my entry point into this, uh, kind of field of study, right? So I'm not an economist, I'm a cultural psychologist. And when I was starting my doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago with Richard Schrader, uh, in 2012, I had this kind of idea. That in Ireland following the economic collapse in, you know, 2008, 2009, and the aftermath of this, that, you know, we had lots of protests and riots in European countries, including in Portugal and Greece and Spain and Italy, where people are really upset with the government, uh, who are overseeing the kind of financial collapse within their countries. You see it in different parts of the world and across the EU, but in Ireland, Where I'm from, we had this much more muted response that people were not taking to the streets. They were not protesting. And yeah, you know, so I was kind of interested in this kind of comparison of what was going on in Ireland, why it was so unique, uh, in contrast to some maybe comparable European Union neighbors who are also suffering from economic hardship, from austerity, from high unemployment, and so on. So I wanted to kind of figure out what was going on. So my initial kind of studies in 2012 and 2014, 2015 were looking at some of the kind of cultural and moral reasons why people in Ireland were not protesting. I was happily pursuing this line of work when all of a sudden there are hundreds of thousands of Irish people out onto the streets protesting during this period of objective economic growth in Ireland. When our, you know, our politicians at the time were saying that, OK, we had austerity in Ireland, things were really bad, but now things are getting better. Ireland is once more open for business, we have our house in order. We were sick, we took our medicine, like these types of narratives. Uh, BUT then, you know, regular people were looking around and we said, hey, I'm hearing these stories that things are getting better, but I can see it's only getting better for some people and not other people. In society and around that same time, the Irish government introduced this new charge on water. So historically, water in Ireland was paid through general taxation, but now the government were putting a specific charge on water each household consumed, and then people thought this was incredibly unfair. So this kind of idea of unfairness was building for some years, this kind of gap between those improving, those who are not. But then you have this specific protest symbol, this idea of charging for water that felt almost like. IRONIC in Ireland where it's always raining and it's filled with lakes and rivers and it's an island surrounded by, uh, by a sea and an ocean, right? So it felt really weird for people, but really can consolidate these feelings of unfairness in Ireland. And then people took to the streets and they protested. So, I spent a year of my life, uh, following, um, this protest movement around in its various iterations and talking to hundreds of people, uh, about these, um, these feelings that they had. And of course, They were complaining about the water charge, um, but when he spoke with them, they had all sorts of, uh, feelings of, uh, being unfairly treated by the government or by elites in Ireland or by the wealthy, and so on. So you kind of get this, um, division in Irish society that I was, uh, um, available to document at that time. And of course, this is one particular case study, right? Like the Irish case study as a kind of detail in the book, but then you can see the same kind of pattern or similar pattern at least. Uh, ALL around the world, um, and I write about it in different global regions. Um, THE Occupy Wall Street movement that, you know, uh, listeners will remember in the US like didn't occur when the economy tanked in '07 and 008 in the United States, but, um, 2011 when it was clear that during the recovery, that it was the recovery for the rich and not the rest of people. So you have that famous trope that we are the, the 99%, right? So, Uh, then protests broke out there. You see it in France during a period of um stark GDP growth, uh, per capita, but the government introduced this surcharge on fuel that disproportionately impacted regular people, including truck drivers who wore the yellow vests, and they went out to the streets in protest and the famous yellow vest protest. And I document in the book similar dynamics in Chile and in Sudan as well.

40:38 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, uh, yeah, and, and that's the thing, right, because even when there's economic growth measured in terms of GDP growth and even looking at GDP per capita, we have to be a little bit careful about how we analyze those numbers because I mean if there's uh uh it, it's that uh very common and easy to understand example of if there's a people. WITH $0 in a room and then suddenly a billionaire comes in, then everyone there is a centimillionaire or a deca millionaire or something like that and I mean that kind of analysis of course doesn't really tell you at least enough about people's economic situation. We have, it's better perhaps to look at. Indicators like PPP and stuff like that to really have a better understanding of whether uh the growth of the economy is really improving people's lives in general or if it's going mostly uh upward and benefiting the ultra rich,

41:51 Séamus Power: right. Yeah, I mean, I absolutely agree with you. This kind of, you know, loops back to what we discussed a little bit earlier as well. It's really important how you uh quantify uh these things and if it's a meaningful quantification in terms of these objective economic indicators or not. Uh, AND it's also important of how, you know, policymakers, how politicians and members of the media are communicating and thinking about these, um, uh, you know, Bouts of economic growth or recession or whatever it might be, that's prevalent in the zeitgeist at the at the time. Um, BUT what really matters is exactly what you said, like what people can do, uh, and who they can be in their, in their lives, right, in terms of um the money that they have or finances available to them. What can they do with that? What kind of lives can they uh live? And do they think it's fair or unfair, uh, or not?

42:42 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. But when it comes to how people develop these feelings of unfairness that then eventually can turn into civic unrest and the other consequences we're going to talk about, um, I, I mean, because, uh, I, I want to ask you this because sometimes people make caricatures about uh feelings of unfairness where they say that, oh, the, I, I mean, people. At the bottom, at the bottom of the ladder, poor people or people from the middle class, uh, they have enough, they, they're just envious. I mean, the the reason why they think it's unfair, it's because it's just because. Uh, THEY don't have as big a house or as luxurious a car as the rich people, but it's not really because they are deprived, it's just because of envy and stuff like that. But I mean, these feelings of unfairness are also permeated or influenced by objective economic indicators, right? I mean, it's not just, oh, I, I think. Uh, MY society is unfair just because my neighbor has a Lamborghini or a Ferrari and I have a Opel or a Citroen or something like that, right? I mean, it's more, uh, complicated than those sort of simplified narratives,

44:15 Séamus Power: right? Yeah, I mean, I think you're absolutely right. Um, I just recently read Gabriel Zucman's little book We Need to Tax Billionaires where, uh, you know, the title kind of says it all. He's getting a lot of attention. FOR this type of work and his campaigns. Um, BUT you know, in one part of the book, he goes through these myths, these kind of legitimizing myths from billionaires of what they say to deflect attention from them and to show that they've earned their success and, uh, and so forth, right? And then kind of debunks each of these, these myths. But I mean, there is something about this kind of, um, envy argument as well that, you know, in this kind of neoliberal society, my colleague Thomas Kern at the London School of Economics writes about this in his book, The Perfection Trap. And that, you know, no matter how much we have, we never feel like we have enough and what's perfect or what's a really good life. Um, ONCE we try to reach that level, the level moves up and up, and this is kind of by design in the neoliberal society as well. So people who kind of do kind of feel like they have a lot in their lives and materially, maybe they're doing pretty well, uh, they can never really kind of reach where they want to be as, as well. Um, BUT what I think is kind of really kind of fascinating, and as I kind of mentioned earlier, a lot of what's missing from these types of debates of inequality is simply, um, uh, the lives of, of poor people throughout the world. And I think, you know, one of the complaints, and maybe it's a provocative complaint in, in the book, is that maybe we're overly focusing on, um, This idea of, you know, uh, redistribution and, you know, uh, this idea of alleviating inequality, because when most people are thinking about that, they're thinking about inequality in terms of Western societies that are already quite abundant, um, where, OK, maybe there's a squeezed middle class and so on. But I'm hearing, um, or maybe reading not enough, uh, arguments from, from colleagues and other people who are writing about this, about the world's poorest people. There's really great, um, uh, influential book, I think it was 2015, Harry Frankfurt, a small little book called On Inequality. He was a, um, was a professor of philosophy in Princeton, and basically he makes his argument that I found very convincing is that, you know, perhaps we're overfocusing on, uh, making the rich less rich, and what we ought to be doing is, um, making the poor less poor and alleviating global poverty is one of the, uh, or is the moral. PART of our, of our time, uh, is his argument. And of course, one can counter argue this and saying by taking from the billionaires, uh, we can redistribute, uh, and alleviate global poverty and so on. But, um, the way people are thinking and talking about, um, this redistribution, it's not always clear to me that a goal of redistribution, uh, is to, um, is to help people, uh, uh, escape or create conditions to help people escape, uh, global poverty, uh, throughout the world.

47:02 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and the global perspective, I guess, is also important to keep in mind here, right, because of course this is not to deny that there are people in the more developed countries who are really poor and really deprived, but there's also an argument to be made that perhaps we should also pay a little bit more attention to the fact that the so-called global South. OR people from the so-called global south are also exploited, at least to a certain extent in terms of being underpaid to produce cheap or or products that are sold, that are sold cheap in more developed countries and so that's one of the reasons as well why people in the more developed. Uh, GLOBAL north countries are able to live, uh, uh, in those, uh, or have that standard of living,

48:07 Séamus Power: right? Yeah, I mean, I think that's, that's absolutely right, and it's not just in the present as well, right, where you get this kind of, uh, unequal power relationships and, and, uh, wealthy countries kind of exploiting the kind of cheaper labor, uh, in different regions of the world. But I mean historically, right? I mean this is how a lot of The countries, as you say, in the so-called global north, uh, gained this kind of, uh, you know, wealth advantage and so on. Uh, PEOPLE clearly will think of the United States and the kind of basis of slavery at the basis of its capitalistic enterprises and, and so on. Um, OR, you know, the UK and England, for example, but also in Denmark, uh, where I'm from, like, I mean, you know, whenever I go anywhere, you say you're working in Copenhagen and, and people talk about What a lovely city it is, how safe the bike lanes, the social democracy, all these kind of things, the stereotypes that come to mind and they're absolutely true, right? It is a wonderful place to to live in these ways with various social security nets, protections and free, free education, healthcare and all those types of things. But of course, the intergenerational wealth in countries, uh, Denmark are also predicated on its kind of colonial past as well and the kind of, when you talk about Social democracy in this redistribution, but how it earned its initial wealth to kind of reinvest in people comes with a very kind of dark history in places like Denmark and other countries are spotlights on it. Um, YOU know, I know Piketty talks about reparations between France and Haiti and so on. People focus on the United States and England, but, you know, also there's similar paradoxes and historical contradictions that are often conveniently ignored in places like Denmark as well.

49:48 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so let's talk more about the consequences of people developing these feelings of unfairness and then civic unrest that might result from that. Is there a connection between that and the rise of populism and the slide toward more authoritarianism or even sometimes dictatorship, but particularly authoritarianism as we've As we've been seeing rec in recent years in uh Europe and the US as well uh with people is uh increasingly supporting uh more far-right figures or figures who have more authoritarian uh values and policies.

50:37 Séamus Power: Mhm. Yeah, I mean, I absolutely think so, right? I mean, I think this has been documented in multiple ways and across different disciplines, this connection between uh growing economic inequality that people feel is unfair, um, how they feel unfairly treated, and so forth, and then the rise of, um, of populist leaders and with populist leaders, you open the potential for them to become, uh, dictators, right? Um, And you can see this, you know, throughout the world. I mean, obviously most famously in, in the United States with the, the election of Donald Trump in the, in the first term. But what you saw in the United States following like the Occupy protests, the unequal recovery from the financial recession, and so on, but, you know, some people were benefiting, um, having good lives, and other people are feeling left behind, and you can see this in sociology, this, the famous book, Strangers in Our Own Land, um, uh, documenting these kind of people in Not in the east, west coast, cosmopolitan, uh, uh, maybe economically progressive regions of the United States, but you know, in the kind of heartland of America who are feeling like they did not belong to their country. They felt disconnected from centers of power, uh, from where the decisions are being made. They felt, you know, uh, overlooked, unfairly treated, discriminated against, and so on. Um, AND then, you know, you, you get the The emergence of this character of Donald Trump, who really kind of feels and understands this, um, and, and takes advantage of it, you know, through his early political campaigning, his rallies, and so on, creating this kind of cohesive in-group identity, identity that, you know, he's with them, he supports his regular workers who feel unfairly treated or disenfranchised in different ways. Uh, AND then, of course, we all know the story that when he comes to power in this way. Uh, DURING the first, uh, election of it. Then of course, when Biden comes in, you know, in terms of the classic complaint was that although the economy again improved under Biden and, and, and people were wealthier than ever at the time in the United States, it wasn't fairly um felt. Or evenly distributed by the people. And again, that created even more fertile ground for, uh, in an age of abundance that it's unfairly distributed. And then again, Trump comes back in once more. And we can see this kind of pattern, you know, all over the world as well, um, with the, with the election of kind of populist leaders. Boris Johnson in the UK and and and so on. But of course, you know, there's alternatives that open up, you know, I mean, Trump takes advantage, but an alternative possibility with someone like Bernie Sanders, who's a populist on kind of more of a left wing populist, right, who probably would have been better, at least in an economic sense. Um. Uh, HAD he been, uh, got the nomination from the Democratic Party to run as president, uh, instead of Clinton, Hillary Clinton, uh, in this way, maybe he was better for the people who ultimately voted for Trump. So I mean, it opens up the inequality, opens up the possibility for different styles of leaders and different forms of government as well. But what happens, you know, you've asked about populism and it's linked to authoritarianism, but what happens when people come to power. Uh, THEY promise, like, as I've described in one of my papers with Bob Sternberg and Arazu Dastaki and Cornell University, they promise a wonderland. They promise this kind of shortcut to solve all your problems of feeling disrespected, unfairly treated. They promise all these things, and yet when they come to power, they're often corrupt. They often don't really help the people that they say they will help, and they often You know, grow inequality and create systems that benefit them and people like them rather than, you know, tens of millions of people who voted for them as well. And you can see this pattern. So again, you get, you know, this promised wonderland, and then you get the emergence of these toxic leaders who do not improve a lot for people in their country and also do not do it for humanity more broadly.

54:30 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and the thing is that that can also connect to the erosion of civic rights of human rights, because they also tend to resort to these oversimplistic and mostly false narratives where they come up with a scapegoat. I mean, usually it's the Immigrants, but sometimes it's also even poor people or people who are on welfare in their own countries, LGBTQ people, sometimes it's even women, sometimes it's the left in general where they say that, oh, it's not the people in power, it's not the rich, it's not people. With influence that are screwing you up, it's basically those minorities that are really screwing the system, and you should place yourself against them. You should be against them and you should vote for the conservative right or the far right because those are the real culprits here, right?

55:43 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think, and it also kind of, you know, really taps into classic uh experimental social psychology, right? It's kind of in-group, out-group, people want to have a kind of a cohesive in-group of, for example, Trump is a leader, and he's very kind of a large group of followers, for example, that you need an out-group with a common enemy and so on. I mean, the common enemy with Trump is, of course, uh immigrants, right? Um, AND that's, you know, you demonize them as an out-group, and you can see it happening with the rise of the far right in the UK, uh, murmurs, murmurings, and some reality in Ireland, where I'm from, in Germany as well, right? You get these kind of outgroup of, uh, of immigrants who any kind of issues or whatever it might be are exaggerated or exploited and so on, by these far right leaders. And of course, you know, on the other hand, with left wing populists, you get the same kind of uh attempt at least with uh uh forming an outgroup, you know, for example, Uh, billionaires, uh, wealthy elites, and so on who are not in your interests or whatever it might be, right? You kind of get the same kind of thing that people do not represent you and people like you. Um, BUT I think the last decade has shown us that, uh, the right wing populace over the left wing populace have been, uh, quote unquote, more successful in, um, uh, informing their outgroup that the drum up hate and draw up the attention, support, and even love, uh, for them.

57:06 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, WHAT is the equality difference paradox that you talk about in your book?

57:13 Séamus Power: Yeah, so this is something I first came across in, in grad school at the University of Chicago, uh, via Rick Schrader and, uh, Michael Jindra, who's a cultural anthropologist. Um, SO over the years, different people have been writing about it in different ways, but the bare bones of it basically. Of the, of the paradox is that countries uh that have relatively um high levels of uh ethnic and racial, religious diversity, um, when you're high on those categories, you also tend to have high income inequality. Uh, SO think of places like the United States that are Very diverse, uh, racially, ethnically, religiously, and so on, also has high inequality. Um, AND in contrast, countries that have, uh, low levels of income inequality, uh, places like Denmark, for example, also tend to have, uh, low levels of, uh, of racial and ethnic, um, Diversity. So it kind of presents this kind of uh um tension, right? Um, THE paradox between do you value diversity and multiculturalism, allowing immigrants and migration and a plurality of different values of life. If that's the case, then you might also then have to accept some levels of income inequality between groups, uh, because different groups have different, uh, Um, income and wealth starting points, for example, but they also have different economic aspirations as well. Not all groups, cultural groups, value the accumulation of, uh, of wealth and, and income, uh, to the same degree as other groups. But the other side of the tension then as well is that If you value, um, or if you value economic inequality like you do in places like Denmark, uh, one way to maintain this inequality, um, is to maintain cultural uh homogeneity, um, and not leave in immigrants and not, uh, accept, um, uh, refugees or asylum seekers, for example.

59:10 Ricardo Lopes: But, uh, uh, I mean, is there enough evidence to say that the societies who are more homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, for example, um, I mean that that there's less uh civic unrest there or not.

59:32 Séamus Power: No, I don't know if I would go that far. I mean, it's a descriptive correlation, but when you see it presented, and I presented in the book, I mean, it is quite a stark, um, especially in countries where there's money, uh, more wealthier countries where there is a possibility of redistributing, uh, uh, uh, finances, right? Um. But yeah, you see this kind of correlation. You can see the Scandinavian countries and Eastern Europe kind of clustered together. It's a very specific way where there's low income inequality, uh, but also low uh homogeneity, uh, and then other places where it's, you know, high, uh, inequality and high diversity, uh, as well. So, I mean, I think it's open for further empirical work, but I thought, you know, as a descriptive correlation, it's really interesting and it helped me frame some of the discussions I have towards the end of the book. I mean, one of the kind of things that we hear a lot about, um, in, in Scandinavia and Denmark in particular is this kind of high level of social democracy and the redistribution of wealth and how, you know, things are pretty good here. But the kind of dark side of Scandinavian societies is that it comes with this kind of uh um Closed-mindedness, I would say, to, uh, to having immigrants, uh, refugees and asylum seekers, uh, come into Denmark. Um, SO it's the redistribution is predicated on sameness, on this kind of shared imagined community that if I pay taxes, and other people who are like me reap the benefits of those taxes and vice versa down the lines. So when, you know, newcomers come, um, they often feel like they're, you know, excluded from. From this system or with with it comes heavy levels of assimilation that one ought to become, um, in a very quick way, uh, think like, act like and speak like the host nation as well. And that stands in contrast to the United States, for example, right, where there's a plurality of worldviews, values, languages that are spoken as well. And with that, uh, different views of economic development and, and, uh, uh, visions for living the good life.

1:01:34 Ricardo Lopes: So let's talk a little bit about how we should think and theorize about the future, and this is not about predicting the future, but more about how we should theorize about it and consider the different possibilities out there. So in the book you explore three different possibilities. The first one has to do with, I mean, basically what The left has been worrying about, about the possibility of continued exponential economic inequality and aggravating climate change and the planet becoming more uninhabitable, more unequal, more unfair, and things like that. So, um, how should we explore that possibility?

1:02:29 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think um this is one of the kind of maybe unusual parts of the book, kind of you're trying to end it by mapping out potential futures. As you rightly say, these are definitely not predictions, but, you know, just to kind of present plausible future narratives to readers of the book and as the ideas echo through to kind of have these kind of possibilities for people. As you say, possibility one, is this kind of, uh, uh, maintenance of the status quo, the rich getting richer, they have disproportionate influence on politics, uh, on climate and climate change, and, and so on. Uh, WITH the rich getting richer again, as we discussed, we get the civic discontent, uh, so more likely the, the rise of, um, populist and authoritarian leaders. As well to mitigate it. But of course, you know, um, and how we think about this, I mean, it's, I think it's a distinct possibility because even since I wrote it and drafted it, whatever it was two years ago, we can see further evidence of its continuation, uh, as well, with how, you know, Trump and, and, and so on, uh, is impacting the, the world. So I think it's Becoming self-evident, um, that this possibility is, is living out. But what we're also seeing is kind of counter voices and people are trying to think about different ways of, uh, organizing, uh, uh, economic development of thinking about morality and human development, and so on. So we're seeing kind of, you know, growing kind of counter voices in a different direction, uh, as well.

1:03:54 Ricardo Lopes: And the second possibility is basically almost the opposite one. So that has to do with even if there's still economic inequality, we prize the creation of greater economic inequality. So what do you think we should examine when it comes to this second possibility?

1:04:19 Séamus Power: Yeah, I mean, I think that the first possibility, for example, it becomes so extreme and, you know, so real for people, uh, that it calls for a counter opposite. And this is kind of what I'm seeing with the main ideas that are contrasting uh possibility one from possibility two. TRY to group them together under the kind of banner of equality now. People who want to end economic inequality, they think it's the worst thing in the world? Uh, WHAT are the kind of ideas in equality now? I mean, One of them that I, I talk about is this emerging policy of de-growth, uh, which I think rightly, you know, the idea of kind of purposefully slowing down and de-growing aspects of the economy, right, that that disproportionately impact uh the climate and, and lead to the climate change that we're seeing as well. Uh, SO I think there's a right diagnosis there. Um, I think, you know, some aspects obviously of the economy are really detrimental, uh, to causing, uh, climate change and leading to climate change. But I think overall the policy of de-growth as a way of creating equality, I mean, it comes with the loss of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of jobs and different ideas that there's something about kind of like, uh, making people unemployed and not kind of thinking about these possible futures by this kind of argument that we must end inequality now is a little, I think, unbecoming. I don't think the solution quite, um, is congruent with the diagnosis of the problem. Uh, OTHER possibilities you hear kind of more communist or kind of socialist, uh, forms of government that will introduce suites of policies, um, to make, uh, equality, uh, more of a reality. I, I present some examples, uh, of the downfalls of, of communism and this way of thinking, uh, in the book, if we look at China under Mao, for example, and the so-called Great Leap Forward, and these types of issues. Report, you know, some writings and experiences with Cuba, these communist regimes where things were not so good for, you know, tens and hundreds of millions of ordinary people. Socialism, as I've tried to articulate with the Danish example, comes with a dark side as well. It's not also rosy when he keeps these social democracies. So I kind of cluster those in this kind of equality now. I mean, probably the one that You know, has probably most legitimacy is the idea of taxing, right, and redistributing through taxing. A lot of people are talking about this, you know, I mean, there's obviously different arguments for what is fair and unfair rates of taxation. I think it differs in different kind of cultural contexts as well. Uh, THE rate of taxation in Copenhagen is a lot higher than in Chicago where I previously lived, uh, and people will think about fairness in different ways. Given our unique cultural context, uh, and the kind of master narratives at the basis of their societies that, uh, that differ, right? So I think, um, this is something to keep in mind. But out of the suites of kind of creating more, uh, equality within countries, I think taxation in a form that people seriously think about progressive taxation and take seriously ideas of fairness and unfairness, uh, is one perhaps meaningful way forward.

1:07:19 Ricardo Lopes: And then the third possibility is perhaps the most interesting one because we don't hear about it often. That has to do with the implementation of ethical pluralism. What is ethical pluralism in this context of economic inequality?

1:07:38 Séamus Power: Yeah, so kind of, it's basically this idea that what people think is good and bad, and right and wrong, uh, varies systematically throughout the world and across time. So again, kind of drawing on this kind of cultural psychological theorizing. Um, SO when it comes to ethics and what is good and right to do in relation to developing the economy and how we think about our financial systems and, uh, and people's lives within those economic worlds, um, The idea is that it now looks like and likely will into the future, um, people will draw on different forms of ethics of what is good and bad, right and wrong, to develop, uh, these particular economies, um, and different ways of distribution and redistribution of innovation and entrepreneurialship and so on. So the idea with uh ethical Pluralism based on kind of value pluralism that people have different kind of values, right? Uh, AND different desires and wants, uh, and this varies systematically in different cultural regions throughout the, throughout the world. Um, SO the idea of this kind of part of the book is going to lay some kind of foundations for how we think about the plurality of different economic systems into the future, but also the Provide some guidelines, like some ethical guidelines, uh, despite the non-uniformity, uh, of them, uh, but that might help guide, um, you know, citizens, policymakers, governments, um, to think about, uh, ways to improve their economies into the future that are congruent with, um, these ethical principles based in cultural histories and master narratives.

1:09:07 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and finally, with that in mind, you suggest three principles in your book, right? Creating fairness, escaping from poverty, and pursuing human capability. So could you explain those principles and how they tie with ethical pluralism, perhaps?

1:09:28 Séamus Power: Mhm. Yeah, I mean, one of the things I think we're kind of missing perhaps in this kind of moment. History is maps for the future and guidance of, of where we go. Um, SO I end the book with this kind of articulation, as you've said, this idea of alleviation of poverty from all my reading on, you know, psychology, economics and poverty and all these different disciplines. I think it's so ignored this, this role of, of, of, uh, uh, of global poverty and its alleviation. I think for me, like Harry Frankfurt when I first Read this little philosophy book. I think, I think it's a moral imperative of our time to help, um, alleviate, um, global poverty. I mean, maybe one of the ways I can, you know, I can see from growing up in Ireland, as I write in the book, I was born in 1985 and I have this memory, uh, of my initial years of Ireland being a poor country, right? Um, AND then it was with EU funding through the 19. Uh, LATE 1990s and 2000s that the country, you know, it's kind of the stimulus package or where people were working and universities were getting more money, education became free, you know, the kind of, you get this kind of injection of, uh, of, of financing based on the EU and it kind of led to this more capitalistic enterprises and increased a lot of people in Ireland and now it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Um. But I can see this when it comes to alleviation of poverty, right? I mean, there's other countries that I can see that are poor now. I read that Sierra Leone, for example, in the book in different sections, but there's no reason why. Uh, THERE'S a possibility for these countries in a relatively short historical period of time to also escape, uh, uh, poverty through innovation or developing their economies. You know, we mentioned Branko Milanovic earlier on, and he writes in one of his books about the great escape of India and China, uh, from, um, Uh, uh, from, uh, poverty, right, um, and the lifting of hundreds of millions of people in those countries out of poverty, but via capitalistic enterprises, and there's no reason other countries can't do this. But to your question about ethical pluralism, it'll look different in different parts of the world. Um, BUT I do think the You know, there's something to be said about, um, not just, you know, distributing aid or having people migrate and send remittances and so on, even though I think these things are important, but also to kind of build up their local economies, um, in ways that are meaningful and useful, uh, in, in places that are currently poor is something that's important. Then of course we talk about fairness as we've already described quite a lot. I mean, this idea of fairness and creating sense and narratives of fairness, tends to be something that's very important. Uh, PEOPLE get upset when they think it's violated, no matter how good things are. Uh, IF it's not feeling like, uh, You're on the, you're in the right place, uh, in your societies, um, I think people will be upset. So I think kind of creating a greater sense of fairness that might come with a more fair distribution of economic surplus, uh, something that really ought to be on people's agendas. Then the final issue is human capabilities, and here I'm drawing on Martha Nussbaum, who's a um a legal scholar and philosopher at the University of Chicago who's going to really develop this kind of human capabilities approach, which is really predicated on two main questions. Um, AND she's also critiquing these mainstream economic indicators of growth and, and non-growth and so on. Uh, SHE talks about who can people be. And what can we do in the societies in which they live, and this should be the focus point for policymakers and governments and for citizens to be concerned with above and beyond the issues with aggregate economic growth, but actually regular citizens throughout the world in different societies. He should have these set of principles, uh, where he can be, who do you want to be and, and to try and do and pursue the things that they find meaningful in their cultural context. So again, the book ends not with specific kind of, you know, uh, policy recommendations or specific implementation in whatever country people are interested in, but rather it's kind of a broad mapping of the potential. POSSIBILITIES, um, for future avenues and within the third possibility, uh, these guidelines that will look, and be implemented in different ways, but hopefully people can find some inspiration to get out of the kind of current quagmire we kind of find ourselves in with these discussions of inequality and have a roadmap for, uh, perhaps a brighter, gentler future.

1:13:55 Ricardo Lopes: Very interesting. So the book is again in equality, A View from many wars, and of course I will be leaving a link to it in the description of the interview. And Dr. Power, apart from the book, would you like to tell people where they can find you and your work on the internet?

1:14:12 Séamus Power: Yeah, sure. Um, I guess you can just Google my name, uh, Seamus Power or Seamus Apower.com is my personal website. University of Copenhagen, Seamus Power, uh, will, will get my academic profile at the University of Copenhagen. So you can, you can find, uh, lots of links to my papers and some uh reviews of the book and, and so on. So, uh, I'm highly Googleable at this stage, I think.

1:14:35 Ricardo Lopes: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show. It's been a really fascinating conversation, and of course, I couldn't recommend the book enough to my audience. Please go and buy it. It's really a fascinating book and it's been great to talk with you.

1:14:53 Séamus Power: Thanks so much, Ricardo. I appreciate it.

1:14:55 Ricardo Lopes: Hi guys, thank you for watching this interview until the end. If you liked it, please share it, leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by Enlights Learning and Development done differently. Check their website at enlights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or PayPal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and PayPal supporters, Perergo Larsson, Jerry Muller, Frederick Sundo, Bernard Seyaz Olaf, Alex, Adam Cassel, Matthew Whittingberrd, Arnaud Wolff, Tim Hollis, Eric Elena, John Connors, Philip Forst Connolly. Then Dmitri Robert Windegerru Inai Zu Mark Nevs, Colin Holbrookfield, Governor, Michel Stormir, Samuel Andrea, Francis Forti Agnun, Svergoras and Hal Herzognun, Machael Jonathan Labrarith, John Yardston, and Samuel Curric Hines, Mark Smith, John Ware, Tom Hammel, Sardusran, David Sloan Wilson, Yasilla Dezaraujo Romain Roach, Diego Londono Correa. Yannik Punteran Ruzmani, Charlotte Blis Nico Barbaro, Adam Hunt, Pavlostazevski, Alekbaka Madison, Gary G. Alman, Semov, Zal Adrian Yei Poltonin, John Barboza, Julian Price, Edward Hall, Edin Bronner, Douglas Fry, Franco Bartolati, Gabriel Pancortez or Suliliski, Scott Zachary Fish, Tim Duffy, Sony Smith, and Wisman. Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Georg Jarno, Luke Lovai, Georgios Theophannus, Chris Williamson, Peter Wolozin, David Williams, Dio Costa, Anton Ericsson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralli Chevalier, Bangalore atheists, Larry D. Lee Jr. Old Eringbon. Esterri, Michael Bailey, then Spurber, Robert Grassy, Zigoren, Jeff McMahon, Jake Zul, Barnabas Raddix, Mark Kempel, Thomas Dovner, Luke Neeson, Chris Story, Kimberly Johnson, Benjamin Galbert, Jessica Nowicki, Linda Brendan, Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensleyman. George Ekoriati, Valentine Steinmann, Per Crawley, Kate von Goler, Alexander Obert, Liam Dunaway, BR, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Perpendicular, Jannes Hetner, Ursula Guinov, Gregory Hastings, David Pinsov, Sean Nelson, Mike Levin, and Jos Necht. A special thanks to my producers is are Webb, Jim Frank Lucas Stink, Tom Vanneden, Bernardine Curtis Dixon, Benedict Mueller, Thomas Trumbull, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carlomon Negro, Al Nick Cortiz and Nick Golden, and to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Sergio Quadrian, Bogdan Kanis, and Rosie. Thank you for all.