Although income tax changes would be a good first step towards a global meritocracy, far bigger steps toward that goal are possible through the establishment of global equality of opportunity. I think that the clarity I see on this issue compared to the others makes it one of the most important goals to focus on in the 21st century.
Unlike my proposed income tax changes, which would affect 167,000 people (166,000 high income earners in Canada making over $250,000/yr and 1000 contribution-prize winners), global equality of opportunity has the potential to help 95% of the people on the planet. Even if my income tax provisions were applied globally, they would probably affect less than 5% of the world population. Therefore, this goal has to be considered much more critical.
As I outlined in the first post of this series, I see two major components necessary to achieving global equality of opportunity. The first one is obtaining equality of opportunity between countries. Significant progress has already been made on this goal, with many more countries being welcomed into the developed world in the last 50 years. Chinese and Indian incomes are rising fast, and their educational systems are sufficiently robust that most children in China, and a significant number in India, now have the foundation necessary to accomplish virtually any goal they may set for themselves.
In China and India, the work that remains to be done is the equalization of probabilities - that is, it is still much more likely that an American kid will grow up to be rich and powerful compared to his Chinese counterpart. This equalization will gradually materialize if China and India continue to integrate globally and pursue sensible economic policies, and the west should encourage that rather than fear it.
There are a number of other countries, however, where the probabilities of achieving a western standard of living are infinitesimal for most people. In China and India, to some extent, we can stand by and watch the global market begin to equalize opportunities and standards of living, but for other countries, more help will be required.
The countries that are the farthest from equality of opportunity are primarily located in Africa and Central/Western Asia. The biggest common denominator among them is the lack of an adequate education system, but other commonalities include high birth rates, corruption and AIDS prevalence. These are all issues we can do something about.
In terms of education, my belief is that a large percentage of our foreign aid should be going towards the development of secular education systems in these countries. Ideally this would be done in conjunction with a Canadian civil service program, as I discussed in my post Across the Sea. Intense political pressure should be applied to all these countries, particularly with respect to education of girls, as many studies have shown that education of girls is extremely effective at lowering birth rates and fostering development. Health care and microfinance would also be key initiatives, as the above linked post describes.
In tandem with this, we should aim to bring these countries into the global economy more effectively, especially with regard to trade. As I have previously pointed out, the competitive advantage that many of these countries have is in agriculture. The elimination of agricultural subsidies in developed countries could go a long way towards bringing some of the world's poorest countries forward.
Those few initiatives will not be enough, but they would be a good start. Further initiatives could come from looking at the experiences of successful developing countries in Asia and Eastern Europe and modelling development of their experiences. As ardent of a free-trader as I typically am, I recognize that the evidence does show that some protectionism in the early stages of development followed by a later entry into global markets has been very successful in places like South Korea, Taiwan and even China. There are other lessons that can be learned from the experiences of those countries as well.
A final obstacle to the type of global integration that would bring about true equality of opportunity is the fragmented worldwide immigration system. I believe that the ideal we should be aiming for on immigration is of a free flow of people between nation-states, with those states essentially competing for the best people worldwide. People would be able to go to the country whose moral and organizational systems most appealed to them, and this would encourage countries to provide high-performance government as they would be essentially forced to compete for human capital in a competitive market.
Such a system is not possible in today's world, because economic disparity is still too great. If free migration was allowed, the massive influx of immigrants would destabilize the developed countries and destroy the societies that those immigrants wanted to participate in in the first place. For this reason, I think that the first priority has to be equalizing levels of development globally, which can then be followed by the loosening of immigration rules. However, it would not be a bad idea for developed countries to continue relaxing restrictions on immigration, perhaps with the intermediate-term goal of having a relatively open labour market within the OECD. I still have a lot of thinking to do on short-medium term immigration policy before I can get much more specific than that.
Although achieving a more equal balance between countries is probably more critical, equality of opportunity within countries is also important, and I will address that in my next post.
