Nothing Against Chile

I have a nasty feeling that some Chileans reading this blog might ask themselves why this Gringo criticises their country so much, and why he doesn't go back to where he came from if he doesn't like it here... If this is so, my last post will only have aggravated this perception. To set the record straight, my intention is not to pick on Chile but to learn about it, and to make some small contribution to the debate about issues that are important to this country. I would do the same if I were living in the UK, and I would probably be just as critical, as similar patterns of inequality can be seen there, and in many other parts of the world.

For example, Jonathan Freedland recently wrote an interesting article on the growth of inequality in Britain, (The Guardian, 23 November 2005). He notes that "When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, just under 6% of national income went to the top 1%. That figure stood at 9% a decade later, but under Tony Blair it has risen to at least 13%: a tiny group taking nearly an eighth of our collective wealth." These statistics are income statistics (as were the Chilean statistics in my last post); the distribution of wealth would most likely be even more unequal if one were to consider family savings. This is something that is probably impossible to do, as many of the super-rich will keep their savings in offshore accounts, out of sight and out of reach of the taxman - might sound familiar to any of you who have been following the Pinochet case.

I suppose the thing that is most troubling about the unequal distribution of income, in whichever country, is that there is no reason to believe that the accumulation of wealth is in all cases related to merit. On one hand, communist systems have in general produced dismal results, dragged down by corruption, suppression of individual freedoms, the lack of incentives to innovate and excel, and the consequent "brain drain" of their best talent. On the other hand, the relatively-unfettered capitalism that has become the norm in many countries too often offers freedom and hope in the style of a grand "national lottery": everyone can participate, everyone has a chance of being a winner, but the poorer you are, the higher is the relative cost of participation, and the slimmer are the chances of success. To be fair, the problem is widely recognised and there have been some positive steps taken to improve the situation, for instance the Child Trust Fund or "baby bond" that was recently implemented in the UK (not without controversy). But there is still a long way to go until the day when the benefits and opportunities enjoyed by all members of society are proportional to what they deserve.