Imperialism and global inequality: The article intends to analyse economic changes between advance and less-developed countries and the issues of catching up. Our approach would be to analyse the evolution of developing countries less-developed in the world economy in a historical perspective.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract The problems of the haves differ substantially from those of the have-nots. Individuals in developing societies have to fight mainly against infectious and communicable diseases, while in the developed world the battles are mainly against lifestyle diseases.
Yet, at a very fundamental level, the problems are the same-the fight is against distress, disability, and premature death; against human exploitation and for human development and self-actualisation; against the callousness to critical concerns in regimes and scientific power centres.
While there has been great progress in the treatment of individual diseases, human pathology continues to increase. Sicknesses are not decreasing in number, they are only changing in type.
Poverty is not just income deprivation but capability deprivation and optimism deprivation as well. While life expectancy may have increased in the haves, and infant and maternal mortality reduced, these gains have not necessarily ensured that well-being results.
There are ever-multiplying numbers of individuals whose well-being is compromised due to lifestyle diseases. These diseases are the result of faulty lifestyles and the consequent crippling stress.
But it serves no one's purpose to understand them as such. So, the prescription pad continues to prevail over lifestyle-change counselling or research. The struggle to achieve well-being and positive health, to ensure longevity, to combat lifestyle stress and professional burnout, and to reduce psychosomatic ailments continues unabated, with hardly an end in sight.
We thus realise that morbidity, disability, and death assail all three societies: For those societies afflicted with diseases of poverty, of course, the prime concern is to escape from the deadly grip of poverty-disease-deprivation-helplessness; but, while so doing, they must be careful not to land in the lap of lifestyle diseases.
For the haves, the need is to seek well-being, positive health, and inner rootedness; to ask science not only to give them new pills for new ills, but to define and study how negative emotions hamper health and how positive ones promote it; to find out what is inner peace, what is the connection between spirituality and health, what is well-being, what is self-actualisation, what prevents disease, what leads to longevity, how simplicity impacts health, what attitudes help cope with chronic sicknesses, how sicknesses can be reversed not just treatedetc.
Studies on well-being, longevity, and simplicity need the concerted attention of researchers. The task ahead is cut out for each one of us: Each one must do his or her bit to ensure freedom from disease and achieve well-being.
Those in the developed world have the means to make life meaningful but, often, have lost the meaning of life itself; those in the developing world are fighting for survival but, often, have recipes to make life meaningful. This is especially true of a society like India, which is rapidly emerging from its underdeveloped status.
It is an ancient civilization, with a philosophical outlook based on a robust mix of the temporal and the spiritual, with vibrant indigenous biomedical and related disciplines, for example, Ayurveda, Yoga, etc.
It also has a burgeoning corpus of modern biomedical knowledge in active conversation with the rest of the world. The means that the developed have could combine with the recipes to make them meaningful that the developing have.
That is the challenge ahead for mankind as it gropes its way out of poverty, disease, despair, alienation, anomie, and the ubiquitous all-devouring lifestyle stresses, and takes halting steps towards well-being and the glory of human development. While individual diseases have to be tackled, patient welfare safeguarded, and scientific progress forwarded, it also has to address the social forces that impinge on, regulate, modify, and at times derail many an earnest effort at disease control.
Socioeconomic and political factors, along with public awareness, are three crucial areas that cannot be neglected if the fight against disease and for positive health, well-being, and human development has to succeed. The main culprits here are poverty in the have-nots and lifestyle stresses in the haves, and both are interlinked with callousness in those who have the power to change things.
The problems of the haves differ substantially from those of the have-nots. Their concerns are different, as are their diseases.
The social issues, interpersonal problems, and cultural ethos in the two groups are markedly different. Yet, at a very fundamental level, their problems remain the same—both fight against distress, disability, and premature death; they struggle against human exploitation and for human development and self-actualisation; and they struggle against callousness to critical concerns in regimes and scientific power centres.
The haves are not any better off than the have-nots on these parameters, although they may appear to be so. It is only that the issues of disease, well-being, development, and the fight against callousness adopt different forms in these two groups. We will see later how this is true.
Also worth noting is the fact that the number of people falling sick has not reduced. While individual disease treatment is progressing, so also is human pathology; sicknesses are not reducing in number; they are only changing in type Singh and Singh, Health awareness has increased.
So has average life expectancy. Medical science boasts of a vast array of treatment modalities for an equally vast array of diseases.
Distress has been ameliorated, disability curtailed, death postponed. And yet, if the booming medical practice and pharma industry are any indication, the patient population has not reduced.
In fact, it has multiplied. Not all of this is because of increased health awareness.1) ‘Poverty and the path to inclusive development in South Sudan”, forthcoming, African Development Review, with Audrey Chouchane, 2) ‘Aid, employment and poverty in Africa’, forthcoming, African Development Review.
Both for their feet, policy of poverty line. over 87, , families in economics essay has on poverty is a must look bestessaywriters. Counteracting the photos of global evidence on poverty line. Libertarianism and wealth social watch poverty in the reader, australian philosopher, psychosocial outcomes.
vol. Eradicating extreme. Yujiro Hayami. Development Economics: From the Poverty to the Wealth of Nations. 2d yunusemremert.com York: Oxford University Press, Pp. $ (cloth). Louis Orth Kelso (/ ˈ k ɛ l s oʊ /; December 4, – February 17, ) was a political economist, corporate and financial lawyer, author, lecturer and merchant banker who is chiefly remembered today as the inventor and pioneer of the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), invented to enable working people without savings to buy stock in their employer company and pay for it out of its.
Global Urban Development CREATING A WORLD WITHOUT POVERTY: SOCIAL BUSINESS AND THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM Muhammad Yunus 1.
A New Kind of Business capitalist systems—in Western Europe and North America—we see evidence of great wealth. We also see remarkable technological innovation, scientific discovery, and educational and social.
Using data from a national living standards survey undertaken in late , this paper disaggregates and explores the economics of livelihood generation and class in rural South Africa in an effort to contribute to the ongoing and vociferous debate in South Africa about poverty and its alleviation.