Economics

The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions

The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions

  • Downloads：3673
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-04-06 14:55:34
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Jason Hickel
  • ISBN：1786090031
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

________________
As seen on Sky News All Out Politics

‘There’s no understanding global inequality without understanding its history。 In The Divide， Jason Hickel brilliantly lays it out， layer upon layer， until you are left reeling with the outrage of it all。’ - Kate Raworth， author of Doughnut Economics

· The richest eight people control more wealth than the poorest half of the world combined。
· Today， 60 per cent of the world’s population lives on less than $5 a day。
· Though global real GDP has nearly tripled since 1980， 1。1 billion more people are now living in poverty。

For decades we have been told a story: that development is working， that poverty is a natural phenomenon and will be eradicated through aid by 2030。 But just because it is a comforting tale doesn’t make it true。 Poor countries are poor because they are integrated into the global economic system on unequal terms， and aid only helps to hide this。

Drawing on pioneering research and years of first-hand experience， The Divide tracks the evolution of global inequality – from the expeditions of Christopher Columbus to the present day – offering revelatory answers to some of humanity’s greatest problems。 It is a provocative， urgent and ultimately uplifting account of how the world works， and how it can change for the better。

Download

Reviews

Dani ，

This book should be mandatory reading in school。It unwraps why there is such a huge wealth gap between the North and the South， which we have been told is "natural"， and why development aid isn't actually helping to diminish global poverty。 It explains and criticizes current policies and institutions that， while appearing to solve problems， are actively working towards perpetuating global inequalities for the benefit of rich countries。 This book should be mandatory reading in school。It unwraps why there is such a huge wealth gap between the North and the South， which we have been told is "natural"， and why development aid isn't actually helping to diminish global poverty。 It explains and criticizes current policies and institutions that， while appearing to solve problems， are actively working towards perpetuating global inequalities for the benefit of rich countries。 。。。more

Matt Stiles ，

Would recommend to anybody。 I don't think you even need to agree with him for it to lead to asking the right questions。 Would recommend to anybody。 I don't think you even need to agree with him for it to lead to asking the right questions。 。。。more

Gonzalo Mendez ，

Everybody should read this book for sure。 2 years ago I read and reinforced my idea that we were progressing， in the same way， fixing our mistakes， in fact， I thought this book was great。 Now that I have read this book I just came across a new idea "if we compare ourselves with the past and trust data without knowing their parameters that are being studied we can easily become misinformed"。 I still think there is evidence that things are better nevertheless if we focus on living standards n Everybody should read this book for sure。 2 years ago I read and reinforced my idea that we were progressing， in the same way， fixing our mistakes， in fact， I thought this book was great。 Now that I have read this book I just came across a new idea "if we compare ourselves with the past and trust data without knowing their parameters that are being studied we can easily become misinformed"。 I still think there is evidence that things are better nevertheless if we focus on living standards now I understand the huge economic gap we live in， therefore we have to act accordingly to fix this issue as a collective。 。。。more

Cian Murphy ，

Eye Opening。 An education in one book

Emily Spilker ，

One of the best books I've read。 An honest and deep dive into today's most depressing issues， yet still hopeful with clear and possible solutions。 I'll be changing a lot of habits。 One of the best books I've read。 An honest and deep dive into today's most depressing issues， yet still hopeful with clear and possible solutions。 I'll be changing a lot of habits。 。。。more

Nata Kereselidze ，

A book everyone should read and think about ways we can each contribute to human development， away from economic growth。

Mihai Soare ，

Mind blowing！

Amy Thomas ，

Necessary reading

Anna ，

Pretty gloomy view of "development as an industry" - learned a lot about how to be critical of ideas liberals champion without much explanation （Paris Climate Agreement， World Bank， IMF， etc）。 If nothing else， it's nice to have some perspectives on how we can reevaluate the origins and current manipulations of metrics used in Western countries。 How we define things like GDP， poverty， or hunger。 A lot of food for thought。 Pretty gloomy view of "development as an industry" - learned a lot about how to be critical of ideas liberals champion without much explanation （Paris Climate Agreement， World Bank， IMF， etc）。 If nothing else， it's nice to have some perspectives on how we can reevaluate the origins and current manipulations of metrics used in Western countries。 How we define things like GDP， poverty， or hunger。 A lot of food for thought。 。。。more

Morten Greve ，

Some will probably say that Hickel is one-sided - they’d be right， I guess - and quibble with some of his factual claims。 Some will say that the last part of the book - solutions - is unconvincing or at least insufficient。 Probably right too （I’m looking forward to reading Hickel’s new book on “degrowth”）。All this notwithstanding I deeply appreciate this anger-inducing tour through all the crimes perpetrated by “the West” since Colombus arrived in 1492; the sheer unfairness of it all。 Much， much Some will probably say that Hickel is one-sided - they’d be right， I guess - and quibble with some of his factual claims。 Some will say that the last part of the book - solutions - is unconvincing or at least insufficient。 Probably right too （I’m looking forward to reading Hickel’s new book on “degrowth”）。All this notwithstanding I deeply appreciate this anger-inducing tour through all the crimes perpetrated by “the West” since Colombus arrived in 1492; the sheer unfairness of it all。 Much， much worse than I suspected。 And I thought it was bad。We’ve got to change this world。 。。。more

Nicole ，

There are a few “technical” issues with this book。 Even though 20% of the book consists of endnotes， a source seems to be lacking for nearly every crucial statement （such as when the author claims that much of the gains in poverty reduction are solely based on the “statistical trickery” of intentionally wrong Purchasing Power Parity calculations）。 Where there are sources， they barely refer to top-notch， peer reviewed journals。 Though if we accept the premise of the book - everyone is conspiring There are a few “technical” issues with this book。 Even though 20% of the book consists of endnotes， a source seems to be lacking for nearly every crucial statement （such as when the author claims that much of the gains in poverty reduction are solely based on the “statistical trickery” of intentionally wrong Purchasing Power Parity calculations）。 Where there are sources， they barely refer to top-notch， peer reviewed journals。 Though if we accept the premise of the book - everyone is conspiring to hide the truth， except the author - this might be unavoidable， so let's give him the benefit of the doubt。 The book could also have profited from some more professional editing， as some of the data cited is at least suspect。 The author confuses the World Bank with the IBRD （one of its sub-units， with a notably narrower， specific mission）， when criticizing and citing its mission statement， or confuses billions for millions when speaking of debt relieve…Main talking points:- Global poverty is getting worse。 The relevant institutions may be claiming the opposite， but this is just statistical trickery to hide the fact that "the West" is deliberately holding poor countries down， in order to take advantage of them （there are a few metrics in the book that actually contradict the "everything is getting worse"-narrative， but… oh well， I guess？） The author on why “the West” want to keep poor countries poor:“（…） the World Bank， for example， which profits from global South debt; the Gates Foundation， which profits from an intellectual-property regime that locks life-saving medicines and essential technologies behind outlandish patent paywalls; and Bono， who profits from the tax haven system that siphons revenues out of global South countries”- “The West” has only been able to become rich by exploiting "the global South"。 Europe was poorer than other regions of the world （specifically: China） until roughly 1800， when it managed to make itself much richer， and its colonies much poorer， by extracting resources and by preventing the colonies from taking part in global trade at self-determined conditions。 Also， the West only became rich through protectionist measures。 （Not too much in terms of explanation on this last latter point though）。 The author on why Europe is rich: "And of course， European powers had been controlling vast regions of the South since as early as 1492。 Indeed， Europe’s Industrial Revolution was only possible because of the resources they extracted from their colonies。 The gold and silver they siphoned out of the mountains of Latin America not only provided capital for industrial investment; it also allowed them to buy land-intensive goods from the East， which freed them to transfer their own labour power from agriculture to industry。 Later， they came to rely on sugar and cotton – produced by enslaved Africans – that was shipped in from their colonies in the New World， grain from colonial India and natural resources from colonial Africa， all of which provided the energy and raw materials they needed to secure their industrial dominance。 Europe’s development couldn’t have happened without colonial loot。"- After decolonialization， much of “the global South” embarked on a policy of developmentalism （a policy of protectionism/high tariffs， subsidies， social spending （education， health）， redistribution and nationalization）。 This brought great gains in growth and poverty reduction during the 1960s and 1970s。 The rise of the poor countries threatened the interests of “the West”， which therefore initially supported or carried out a multitude of coups in order to stop pro-developmentalism governments。 Later， coups were largely replaced by Structural Adjustment Programs （SAPs）， which achieved the same aims with less physical violence。 As a result， growth rates fell and poverty increased in "the global South" during the 1980s and 1990s。 “The West” was specifically looking to avoid nationalization of property held by investors from their countries， to avoid defaults on debt owned， to allow free trade， ie market access， and to promote privatization， which would provide investment opportunities to Western investors。 [Explaining the growth pattern of dozens of countries over multiple decades with a single variable （a pro- or anti-developmentalist government） is not only extremely simplistic， I would actually contest that the growth pattern described here is factually true。 In addition， the various coups to topple developmentalist leaders， which the author lists in some detail （probably the strongest part of the book）， take place in the 1950s-70s， just when all is allegedly well in “the South”）]- In the 1970s “The West” was also running up against the natural limits of capitalism， causing a “crises of over-accumulation”， of which there are 3 forms: a） Limits in natural resources / pollution， b） limits to inequality， as the working class would rise up at a certain threshold of inequality and c） market saturation， where everyone already has all the goods they need and consumption declines。 “The West” therefore depended on “the global South’s” resources and markets。 The author defining developmentalism:“（…）using infant industry subsidies to build strong businesses in a protected economy， grooming them to the point where they were capable of competing and succeeding against their Western counterparts。 All of these strategies relied on relatively high trade tariffs on foreign goods， restrictions on foreign capital flows and limits on foreign ownership of national assets。 Land reform was often a central part of the package。 And in many cases， governments sought to nationalise natural resources and key industries in order to ensure that their citizens benefited from them as much as possible。” The author on the success of developmentalism:"Across the global South， newly independent countries were ignoring US advice and pursuing their own development agenda， building their economies with protectionist and redistributionist policies – trade tariffs， subsidies and social spending on healthcare and education。 And it was working brilliantly。 From the 1950s through the 1970s， incomes were growing， poverty rates were falling and the divide between rich and poor countries began to close for the first time in history。 And we shouldn’t be surprised; after all， global South countries were using the exact same policies that Western countries had used during their own periods of economic consolidation。" The author on SAPS:“Debtor countries were also forced to orient their economies towards exports， to get more hard currency to repay their loans。 This meant abandoning the import-substitution programmes they had used to such good effect during the developmentalist era。 In addition， structural adjustment programmes required debtors to keep inflation low – a kind of monetary austerity – because the bankers feared they would use inflation to depreciate the value of their debt。”[Which is strange， as the author claims this debt was denominated in USD。]“Many countries ended up spending large proportions of their national budgets on debt service。”“So SAPs introduced a three-part cocktail: austerity， privatisation and liberalisation。 These principles were applied across the board， not just in Mexico， Argentina， Brazil and India – the first victims of structural adjustment “- More recently， Nixon’s USA was operating under loose monetary policy [abandoning the gold standard in 1973] and high government spending in order to bankroll the expensive Vietnam War， weakening the USD。 In 1973， following the Yom Kippur war， Saudi-Arabia and other OPEC-members decided to sharply increase the price of oil to punish Israel and its ally， the USA。 With oil， a crucial industrial input， becoming scarce， consumer prices in the US increased sharply， reducing consumption， and thus GDP， leading to the phenomenon of stagflation， including double-digit inflation。 Meanwhile， the OPEC states were making unexpectedly high profits off their oil。 With inflation high in the US and few investment opportunities in the Arab region， $450 billion of petrodollars [not a mainstream viewpoint， I believe， and no sources given] poured into Wall Street in a very short period of time and was used to force USD-denominated debt onto poor countries。 To battle US inflation， the Fed， under Volcker， had increased interest rates from a very low level to 20% by 1980。 The “Volcker shock” ended inflation in the US， but tipped poor countries into the “3rd world debt crisis”， as they could not afford repayments at 20% interest rates。 Wall Streets lobbyists convince the World Bank / IMF， that Wall Street should not be left to shoulder the losses of their risky investments， thus the institutions step in and the Structural Adjustment Programs are born。 The author on SAPs as a continuation of coups by another means:t“But in the early 1980s that suddenly changed。 The United States and Western Europe discovered they could use their power as creditors to dictate economic policy to indebted countries in the South， effectively governing them by remote control， without the need for bloody interventions。 Leveraging debt， they imposed ‘structural adjustment programmes’ that reversed all the economic reforms that global South countries had painstakingly enacted。 In the process， they went so far as to ban the very policies that they had used for their own development， effectively kicking away the ladder to success。”- The last third or so of the book concerns itself with solving climate change， and feels relatively unconnected to the poverty topic。 Basically the solution here is degrowth。 The idea being that “the West” should shrink its economies （and thus pollution） enough so as to limit green house gas emissions to a level where “the global South” could grow GDP （and thus pollution） enough to end poverty， while the “West’s” and “South’s” combined greenhouse gas emissions would still be low enough to avoid catastrophic warming。The author’s proposed solutions to poverty and climate change:-tMore of the voting power in the decision making bodies of the IMF and the World Bank should go to debtor countries。 Delegations of poorer countries to the WTO should receive support in order to be able to afford top notch negotiating teams。 Ideally， the delegation of each country should be democratically elected [unclear how this would work， once a majority of votes are held by less than stellar democracies。]-tCurrent debt relief efforts， channeled through HIPCs and MDRI， should be increased roughly sixfold。 Especially debt incurred by dictators， which are no longer in power， should be forgiven （though the wording “debt forgiveness” should be avoided）。 [No mention of how to avoid future over-indebtedness， though， or how to tackle the structural reasons that led to debt pileup]-tDebt-cancellation is meant to give poor countries “the sovereignty to use tariffs， subsidies， capital controls， social spending and other measures。”-t“The global South” should introduce capital controls。 Specifically， foreign investors should only be allowed to repatriate profits after receiving case-to-case approval to do so。 [uhm…。 Oh-oh…]-tEach rich WTO-member should grant tariff-free access to their markets not only to LDCs （which is currently the case）， but to each under-developed country [however that may be defined]， that is either smaller or poorer than itself。-tRich countries should stop subsidizing their agricultural sectors。-tLandgrabs （defined as land purchases that entail a transfer of at least 500 acres to be converted from smallholder production， collective use or ecosystem services to commercial activity） should be ended， at least temporarily。 [It’s not very clear how less efficient small-holder farming would drive down food prices…]-tPatents are evil and should be waived， especially for medicines， for poor countries [no mention on how this would not be charity， given that charity， according to the author， is also fairly evil。] Patents in general should expire after half the time they currently do， and patenting should be banned in certain areas， such as living beings including seeds and agricultural inputs。-tTax havens should be closed。-tA global minimum wage should be introduced， which would be implemented by the ILO。 [No consideration is given to the fact that not all goods are export goods。 A minimum wage would also drive up the price of things such as food or housing， potentially pushing more people into poverty。]-tThe power to create money supply should be taken from commercial banks and be limited to national banks （ie， commercial banks should only be allowed to make loans with money from deposits）。 This is somehow meant to limit the pressure on the private sector to produce growth。-tWorking time should be limited to about 20 hours a week globally。-tAdvertising for consumer goods should be banned。 Points that are nearly or fully absent from the book:-tPopulation growth is considered neither in connection with poverty nor in connection with rising greenhouse gas emissions。-tAn increasing part of the world’s poor live in failed or fragile states。 Yet， against mainstream thinking， the author claims that poor institutions， corruption and lacking capacity have a tiny part （if any） to play as a cause of global poverty。 （Although he does advocate forgiving “dictator debt”。）-tThe case of China， which is responsible for large parts of global poverty reduction （if we believe official statistics）， achieved by a combination of heavy-handed industrial policy， but also by export-led growth and job creation。 This development story gets only a tangential mention here and there in the book。 -tOther “routes” for poverty-alleviation get no mention at all （eg Vietnam => export-led growth， the Gulf-states or Botswana => extractive industry-led growth）。-tThe de-materialization of growth。 According to the author， the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to dramatically lower GDP in rich countries。 That an increasing proportion of consumption is in non-material goods/services， with low carbon footprints， is not considered。 （The few） strong points in the book: - An entire section with factual （mostly historic） information， which is worth re-visiting （or learning about）， much of it on which coup took place where under which circumstances。 - Some interesting factoids that might help with the next pub quiz。 Eg: On governing London’s City district:ttttt“Unlike in normal councils， the franchise in the City of London is not restricted to human beings。 Businesses registered within the council’s borders are allowed to vote alongside residents。 More than 70 per cent of the votes cast during council elections are cast not by humans， but by businesses – mostly corporate banks and financial firms。" 。。。more

Grant ，

Although there are few over simplifications and generalisations， the Divide is an amazing start for those who have never been introduced to the historical realities of capitalism， imperialism， debt， western foreign policy failures and free trade fantasies。 Yes there are better books that go into each of things individually of which most are referenced by Hickel， but here you have an amazing summary of all。

Jatek Chhateja ，

At the onset， the way Hickel represents and interprets data on a lot of occasions is questionable and conveys strong bias。 I'm all for， and find beauty in， authors sharing their subjective opinions on things they feel strongly about; however， using selective data to prove a one sided view is off putting。 Having said that， as someone who's grown up viewing the divide between the North and the South （or the rich and the poor in a broader sense） as a more or less 'natural' phenomenon and our curren At the onset， the way Hickel represents and interprets data on a lot of occasions is questionable and conveys strong bias。 I'm all for， and find beauty in， authors sharing their subjective opinions on things they feel strongly about; however， using selective data to prove a one sided view is off putting。 Having said that， as someone who's grown up viewing the divide between the North and the South （or the rich and the poor in a broader sense） as a more or less 'natural' phenomenon and our current economic model as a feasible one for reducing this divide （which will eventually guarantee at least a decent quality of life for everyone in the world）， the book was eye opening。 The book brings to light some really important shortcomings in our approach towards the global economy， especially in regard to eradicating poverty and tackling climate change， is really well put together （despite what I felt about the use of data）， and would recommend to anybody who finds themselves in a similar boat to mine。 。。。more

Rodrigo Gonzalez ，

This book has definitely made it into my top 10！It is a powerful and compelling story of the deep political/economical global systems that have created such terrible equality in our current world。 A must-read for those who want to understand and change our social reality。

Nina ，

Probably the most important book I have ever read

Elena Benic ，

This book definitely needs to be read by many people as possible ---in hope that many solutions may initiate their course for a greater society and a sustainable planet。

Daniele ，

The mainstream narrative， pushed by personalities like Bill Gates and Steven Pinker， tells us that the world is getting better: poverty， disease， hunger are declining， and despite some inevitable setbacks， the trend toward progress is clear。 There's only a problem with this story: it isn't true。 In The Divide Jason Hickel illustrates the causes of global inequality， from colonialism to military coups， to debt and the present economic system， and shows why the narrative about progress and develop The mainstream narrative， pushed by personalities like Bill Gates and Steven Pinker， tells us that the world is getting better: poverty， disease， hunger are declining， and despite some inevitable setbacks， the trend toward progress is clear。 There's only a problem with this story: it isn't true。 In The Divide Jason Hickel illustrates the causes of global inequality， from colonialism to military coups， to debt and the present economic system， and shows why the narrative about progress and development is just a delusion。 The divide between rich and poor countries is increasing， but it doesn't have to be this way。 Poor countries are not poor because of some law of nature， but as a consequence of human intervention。 Changing the current economic system to build a more fair and just world depends on us。 。。。more

Vinayak Mishra ，

An excellent book that deserves to have more people talking about it。 If you're curious about the impact of free-market economics on society beyond the usual "liberalization is awesome" narrative， this is a must read。-----"The Divide" is a detailed and data-backed argument for why capitalism doesn't really work for the vast majority of the human race。 "GDP growth" and "Free trade" demand ever-increasing resource extraction， labor exploitation and debt fueled consumption， all of which result in g An excellent book that deserves to have more people talking about it。 If you're curious about the impact of free-market economics on society beyond the usual "liberalization is awesome" narrative， this is a must read。-----"The Divide" is a detailed and data-backed argument for why capitalism doesn't really work for the vast majority of the human race。 "GDP growth" and "Free trade" demand ever-increasing resource extraction， labor exploitation and debt fueled consumption， all of which result in gains which are pocketed by a few。 The book paints a detailed picture of how we got here， why this is impossible to sustain without ecological collapse， and what can do to create a fairer and more equitable world。Key highlights include:1。 The message of improvement in living standards under the current economic system is false， or at the very least， exaggerated。 The development sector and philanthropy is often intended to be a distraction for deeper structural issues - as long as they remain unsolved， everything else is just a band-aid。 2。 Where did "Poverty" come from？ Contrary to what many assume， it is not the status quo for many of the world's "developing" nations。 It is the result of exploitation， both historical （colonization， political interference in newly established democracies） and present day （"structural adjustment" programs imposed by the IMF and the World Bank in return for loans， unfair trade rules etc。）3。 Global Poverty is a political problem and requires political solutions。 These include forgiving the debt of developing nations， strengthening the ability of countries to set appropriate regulations around trade and tariffs， and limiting capital flight via tariff misinvoicing and tax loopholes。 Most importantly， it involves imagining and working towards an alternate system， one that is hinged not on limitless growth， but on providing on alternative metrics of societal progress such as happiness or well-being。My one issue with the book is Jason Hickel's hypocrisy when it comes to talking about data manipulation and exaggeration : he accuses the UN and the World Bank of distorting statistics to suit their narrative of global progress， but I remember at least a couple of instances where he himself indulged in analytical gymnastics to support his viewpoint。 Nonetheless， his points are valid for the most part。 。。。more

Tyler ，

Poverty is created and we need to stop using the term "developing countries。" Wish I could throw this book at Bill Gates and Steven Pinker not sure wtf they're thinking when they say the worlds never been better smh Poverty is created and we need to stop using the term "developing countries。" Wish I could throw this book at Bill Gates and Steven Pinker not sure wtf they're thinking when they say the worlds never been better smh 。。。more

Samuel Buckley ，

What a book。。。“Once people reject the single story of development， the future is fertile and rich with possibility。 We need only have the courage to invent it”

Woo Pei Xun ，

I picked this book up after finishing Hans Rosling's Factfulness （which I thoroughly enjoyed）。 I wanted to gain a different perspective on the world， so where better to start than by reading the alleged 'antithesis' of Rosling？ The Divide certainly did not disappoint， blowing my mind with historical facts and data， of which I'm still processing。 The biggest takeaways for me？ Realising how much inherent bias I have been holding in my worldview， unknowingly; and my overwhelming lack of understandi I picked this book up after finishing Hans Rosling's Factfulness （which I thoroughly enjoyed）。 I wanted to gain a different perspective on the world， so where better to start than by reading the alleged 'antithesis' of Rosling？ The Divide certainly did not disappoint， blowing my mind with historical facts and data， of which I'm still processing。 The biggest takeaways for me？ Realising how much inherent bias I have been holding in my worldview， unknowingly; and my overwhelming lack of understanding/questioning of how things came to be。As an Economics Major， so much of what I've learnt in school have been accepted as is， like theories that champion free trade with the justification that it optimises comparative advantages between capital and labour intensive economies。 Obvious as it may appear now， it never crossed my mind to question how things came to being， assuming these relative advantages as natural。 Yet these had risen from man-made processes。 As Karl Marx countered on the believed destiny of the West Indies to produce coffee and sugar， "Two centuries ago， nature， which does not trouble herself about commerce， had planted neither sugar-cane nor coffee trees there。"As a （mostly） neoliberal brought up to believe in the self-correcting beauty of a free market that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency， the book has helped exposed how flawed and unfree our current market is。 One that frees large corporations from the obligation to pay decent wages， account for negative externalities and take responsibility for the health of public and/or social goods （preserved forests， clean rivers， affordable education， decent healthcare etc。） especially when in a foreign land they have set up shop。 I ended the book with more questions than ever （a sign of a good book）， with a long list of topics to research on including: covert American operations to overthrow foreign governments like Operation Ajax， the questionable methodologies behind international rankings like the corruption index and WSJ's ease of doing business， the history behind shareholder/stakeholder relations with court cases like Dodge vs Ford Motor etc。 I'm not sure if Hickel's proposed solutions are achievable， especially after reading so many pages prior to his concluding chapter explaining how the world come to being from a long history of organic， selfish pursuits。 But the mere awareness of The Divide is a good start to get everyone questioning the status quo and imagine that alternatives can exist。 。。。more

Brandon ，

This was a frustrating book in that I agree with what Hicks is getting at and find the general narrative believable， however the argumentation is often so poor as to render much of the details of the book questionable。 This was particularly bad in the beginning of the book but seemed much improved by the end， so I left it on a better note and am inclined to think better of the whole。 And on the whole， Hickel has written a damning criticism that excoriates governments， NGO's， and corporations for This was a frustrating book in that I agree with what Hicks is getting at and find the general narrative believable， however the argumentation is often so poor as to render much of the details of the book questionable。 This was particularly bad in the beginning of the book but seemed much improved by the end， so I left it on a better note and am inclined to think better of the whole。 And on the whole， Hickel has written a damning criticism that excoriates governments， NGO's， and corporations for constructing and maintaining the modern inequitable global order that elevates the economics wants of a minority of humanity in the West over the needs of the majority in the Global South。 The overall narrative of the book is extremely important and Hickel is to be commended for collating many arguments and explanations that I've seen piecemeal in other places。 I would （and have already） recommend people read this。 But some of it disappoints me b/c this position is held to an unfairly higher standard - when arguing against capitalism and the global inequality it inevitably produces， the entrenched and conservative will scrutinize harshly and attempt to throw out the entire argument over small errors or exaggerations on details。 So I want this narrative to be iron clad and extensively cited and researched。 I understand that Hickel is trying to strike a balance so as to make it readable to the general public （who absolutely need to be engaged on this issue and made aware of the background that a traditional education obfuscates）， but I don't think that balance was struck here。 I'm honestly giving it 4 stars b/c I think it needs to be read widely， not b/c of its own merits。In general Hickel doesn’t do enough to explain many of the economic concepts in the book （as written， you would think this book was aimed at people who had at least minored in economics as undergrads）， he doesn’t provide sufficient citation or evidence for many of his large and contentious claims （and don’t get me started on how stupid it is to have end notes that are not numbered in the main text but rather are cited in the back by the first 3-4 words of the sentence）， and he presents a fairly reductionist narrative that would have the reader believe that one set of cabalistic villains masterminded the entire neoliberal world order as it exists today。 There is simply not enough nuance or context given here for me to believe many of the details。 For example， in discussing structural adjustment and how the G7 used the IMF and World Bank to de-claw the developmentalist movement in the UN， he argues that poor countries of the G77 were forced into disfavorable situations that robbed them of their economic self determination。 His explanation for how they were compelled into this is that these countries feared invasion by the US or coups - an unconvincing argument supported by no data。 The implication here is that this somehow robbed the G77 of all of the political clout he describes them （just a few pages prior！） as using to advance developmentalism in the UN。 But how？ There’s a big disconnect between those two ideas that Hickel ascribes to massive amounts of debt caused by SAP and the OPEC oil embargo of the late 70's。 But again， this is an unconvincing argument for why economic damage caused these countries to lose their political power at the UN that he previously describes them as wielding so effectively。 As Hickel argues frequently himself， global inequality is a political problem more than an economic one。 So being forced into structural adjustment would not have completely neutralized the political drive for a more equitable global economic system。 I don’t doubt that there’s a good explanation for why this happened and that it contributed to the continuation of a rigged system， but Hickel doesn’t explain it adequately and that’s a serious shortfall of this book。 This work also represents what I would say is a potentially disingenuous （or at least not productive） retrospective analysis of history。 Hickel frequently attributes to deliberate， planned malice the imposition of neoliberal economic programs on developing countries for the express purpose of keeping them impoverished。 Although I don’t doubt that many （if not most） people in positions of economic and political power throughout the latter half of the 20th century were deliberately maneuvering geopolitics to maintain the relative balance of power between Western countries and the Global South， not all were expressly trying to keep developing countries poor。 Hicks doesn’t give enough weight to geopolitical context or acknowledge the ubiquity of cold war thinking， which drove many of these decisions。 Nor is he charitable enough to think that， monstrously arrogant and wrong as they were， many neoliberal thinkers were generally convinced that they were correct about economic theory and that growth out of debt was the best approach。 Most importantly though Hickel spends the first ~2/3rds of the book damning the political actors in the West who carried out numerous heinous coups and invasions。 And while that condemnation is very， very well deserved， ultimately it's the ideas that predominated Western economic and geopolitical thinking that are the drivers or historical events。 I was much more pleased when， in the last 1/3rd of the book， Hickel roundly denounced infinite growth thinking and the normative ethics that underlie it。 These ideas， that profit is earned and accrues to the investor regardless of negative externalities or ethical abridgements， are the ultimate enemy we have to overcome to build a better and more equitable world。 As long as this moral impoverishment masquerading as economic intellectualism holds sway， there will be new actors ready and willing to carry out the same crimes against the Global South in the name of profit。 I agree that fixing the modern results of bad decisions， malicious loan sharking， and selfish political maneuvering in the past requires analyzing the motivations and methods employed。 But I think this shouldn’t be done in smug hindsight， but rather by analyzing those decisions in their historical context。 We certainly live in a global economic system that is deliberately designed to suppress people’s in the global south for the benefit of Western economics。 But this book makes it seem like the system was created as a single planned piece rather than piecemeal over many decades by numerous groups of people with different ideas and agendas who were united only by their world view and their selfishness。 This boogeyman narrative serves to lend ammunition to right wing commentators looking to discredit shoddily constructed historical narratives and thereby throw out all responsibility for the numerous separate decisions that have collectively created an extremely unfair world。 。。。more

Anthony Bennett ，

The most elaborate analysis of the inequality of the global economic model and its shortcomings that I’ve ever read， followed by the most plausible solutions to its faults。

Iva Stoykova ，

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS BOOK。 The information was mind-blowing and at the same time so logical。 As always， the West is controlling the rest of the world and always wants to be on top。 There is a great need for change in order to thrive as a species and make sure our fellow humans are treated as such。 I definitely recommend this to everyone I know， regardless if you think you’re interested in the topic or not。 It is our duty as human beings to do our best to provide equal opportunities for ea EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS BOOK。 The information was mind-blowing and at the same time so logical。 As always， the West is controlling the rest of the world and always wants to be on top。 There is a great need for change in order to thrive as a species and make sure our fellow humans are treated as such。 I definitely recommend this to everyone I know， regardless if you think you’re interested in the topic or not。 It is our duty as human beings to do our best to provide equal opportunities for each other。 Amazing book。 。。。more

Ana-Maria Stan ，

I graduated from Hans Rosling's "feel-good news" （Factfulness） to。。。 reality。 This book made oscillate between despair and hope regarding human nature and our future as species。 This is a must-read！ I graduated from Hans Rosling's "feel-good news" （Factfulness） to。。。 reality。 This book made oscillate between despair and hope regarding human nature and our future as species。 This is a must-read！ 。。。more

Bill ，

Fun start to 2o21

Callum Hair ，

I have a very mixed opinion about this book。 On the one hand， I sympathise with the view that everyone in the world should have an opportunity to be happy， healthy and wealthy， regardless of any accident of where they happen to be born。 On the other hand， Hickel’s treatment of data and facts in this book is extremely poor， showing errors in reasoning， omission， distortion and outright mistakes or fabrications。 As a work of scholarship， it’s best to check on all of the data-based claims he makes。 I have a very mixed opinion about this book。 On the one hand， I sympathise with the view that everyone in the world should have an opportunity to be happy， healthy and wealthy， regardless of any accident of where they happen to be born。 On the other hand， Hickel’s treatment of data and facts in this book is extremely poor， showing errors in reasoning， omission， distortion and outright mistakes or fabrications。 As a work of scholarship， it’s best to check on all of the data-based claims he makes。 I’ll give you a few examples below， but first some fair points that Hickel made:Europe gained economically from colonialism， conquest and slavery。 Western backed coups of certain South American countries happened， and they have a very murky and disturbing history。 Data from the GFI shows capital flows can disadvantage developing countries: https://gfintegrity。org/press-release。。。 The obvious question is: how is the development going？ （i。e。 is there industrialistaion， creation of the information economy， the rise of science and technology to boost educational and health outcomes）。 It’s difficult to have a consistent and widely applicable metric for poverty or hunger across all countries。 The West has been morally contemptable in its participation/backing of military takeovers and installation of dictatorial leaders in other countries。 The way the Western media portrays communist bloc countries is too biased/unanalytical。 SAPs have some negative consequences and should be reviewed （if they haven’t been already）。 Big Pharma has a profit incentive to market their products， and to keep people sick （I’m going beyond what Hickel says here but I feel it’s a more impactful point）。 Illicit transfers and tax havens are a serious problem which disadvantages all countries， particularly developing countries。 The West has been the greatest contributor to climate change， and the global south will experience the worst effects from it。 Hickel is right about the extent of fossil fuel subsidies and I would support removing them to give renewables a bigger share of the market。 Hickel is on the right track with his analysis of the benefits of a UBI vs microfinance， but likely overstates the results and relies too heavily of cash transfers as being representative of a true UBI （it remains to be seen what widespread adoption of a UBI would bring）。 There are many severe impacts which humans are having on the environment such as loss of species habitats， fisheries， and topsoils。 We are using more resources on a per capita basis and this needs to reverse if we are to live sustainably on the planet。 Regenerative farming seems like a great idea – I am all for modernising the way we farm to get the best outcomes for humanity and the environment。So that’s just a snapshot on what I believe Hickel got right。 Again， I sympathise with his views。 But given my interest in data analytics， I just cant look past the problems。 I wont even come close to listing out all of the examples I found （I went down the rabbit hole on this book and ended up writing out over 50 pages of notes about errors）， but here are a few:P15 – 460 million hungry people in 1974 to 800 million in 2017 – an increase of 340 million but as a proportion of population a decrease of 11。5 percent to 10。6 percent。 I’m going with 800 million as an estimate based on https://ourworldindata。org/hunger-and。。。 but it really depends on how you define “hungry”。 Global headcount of those in poverty hasn’t changed since 1981 – staying around 1 billion。 Over this time the global population has risen by 3 billion people， making the proportion of those in poverty drop from 22 percent to 13 percent。 “If we look at absolute numbers – the original metric by which the world’s governments agreed to measure progress…” Scientists use proportions， not absolute numbers。 The reason is to control for population increases。 I can’t think of any serious analyst that would use absolute numbers when trying to understand trends to do with humans， or an analyst that would look at a mistake someone else makes （the world’s governments in this case） and copy it。P40 – again more faulty reasoning focusing on absolute numbers rather than proportions （Hickel does this a lot）。 Looking at the proportion of people under the dollar-a-day rubric， about 24 percent of people were in absolute poverty in 1987 and it was the same – roughly 24 percent – in 2000。 Getting worse？ No。 Staying the same。In my opinion some of the more moralistic points Hickel makes are all too often followed by proposed solutions that aren’t critically analysed enough and seem too unrealistic。 At the very least they would require a great deal of control。 The fundamental political distinction which isn’t openly discussed （in a cost/benefit， pro/con kind of way） is the trade off between freedom and egalitarianism。 The most powerful argument which I feel justifies edging back to the egalitarian side are the negative externalities of climate change of which the West is the main culprit。P60-61- Time for more analysis （see below）。 Hickel is wrong。 The reduction in poverty for people in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to be down from a proportion of 56。4 percent of people in 1990 to 27。2 percent in 2030。 Cool！Number of people in poverty 1990 through to 2030 estimate:1990: 287 million in poverty （out of pop 509 million） = 56。4 percent2030: 335 million in poverty （out of pop 1。23 billion） = 27。2 percent （not zero， but a reduction of just over half）Population measures of sub-Saharan Africa to establish a trend in population growth:1990: 509 million out of 5。33 billion （9。55 percent of global pop）2019: 1。107 billion out of 7。71 billion （14。4 percent of global pop）Assuming the proportion of global population in sub-Saharan Africa remains at 14。4 percent （it is actually likely to grow over the next few decades by most estimates） then the population of sub-Saharan Africa by 2030 will be 1。23 billion people。P92 – Hickel makes a bunch of claims that imply Britain ruined India and China， and they sounds pretty wild。 A little digging shows they are wildly exaggerated。 My point in the following is not to show a one-sided account in favour of the British， rather to show ways in which Hickel is wrong， or how his analysis seems very surface level and， if we’re being real， biased。 I only tackled some of the claims that had easily accessible data that wasn't in books or behind a pay wall。•tAs late as 1800， per capita income in China was ahead of Western Europe。 As late as 1800， per capita income for Asia as a whole was better than Europe as a wholeotDaily wages In key European cities have been above or on par with Beijing since 1738: https://onlinelibrary。wiley。com/doi/f。。。otGDP for China is actually lower than Western European nations such as the UK， Germany， France， Italy， and the Netherlands from 1600 right to the present day: https://ourworldindata。org/economic-g。。。otThis is still a very surface level look at these stats， and there are some drawbacks to per capita GDP as a proxy for per capita income or average wages， but given Hickel’s treatment of stats thus far in the book， I am extremely skeptical that he has represented what he cited with any degree of accuracy （or maybe what he cited is not as accurate as what I have？ Not sure）•tIn the south of India （and other regions）， workers had higher incomes than the British in the 18th Century （around 1750？）。otFalse。 Or at least no where near that simple。 https://www。sciencedirect。com/science。。。othttps://www。sciencedirect。com/science。。。•tIndian unemployment was lower at this time （around 1750？） too。•tFrom 1800 to 1850， Indian incomes declined by over 50 percent。 otAnd when the British Raj came into effect incomes did not decline - https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/British。。。•tFrom 1872 to 1921， Indian life expectancy dropped by 20 percent。 otAnother estimate suggests a drop of 2 percent from 1881 to 1921 （start of the data set is 1881）: https://ourworldindata。org/life-expec。。。 - notice also in this data the dramatic increase in life expectancy from 1800 to 1950 to 2015。 Also note that while still under British rule， life expectancy increased from 1911 to 1941 by about 41 percent （my point here isn’t to cherry pick the data – its to show that if you can do it [poorly] to make Britain look bad， you can do the same to make them look good。 All of this is surface level analysis， really）。P133 – On the topic of the economic history of Chile， I want to show you some examples of how not to present data:ot1982 - hyperinflation struck again （what percentage？）， unemployment 35% （compared to？） It was actually a touch under 25% https://si2。bcentral。cl/public/pdf/re。。。ot1988 - poverty rate 41% （compared to？）， average wages 14% lower （than what？）， min wage 42% lower （than what？）。 Food intake of poorest 40% decreased from 2000 calories per day to 1600 （when was it 2000 calories per day？）ot1993 – GDP per capita 12% below pre-coup level （assuming this is early 1973 or 1972？）Some tables or graphs would have helped to present a clearer picture with this data。 You often find this kind of reporting when someone is trying to frame the problem in a certain way to make you think in a certain way – context is everything。Again， Hickel has distorted the facts drastically。 The inflation rate at any point from 1980 to 1985 did not breach 40%， while it was over 150% by the end of 1972 and approx。 300% by the time the coup occurred。 Stats from https://tradingeconomics。com/chile/in。。。。 This is in contrast， but broadly congruent with， the inflation statistics from other sources - 260。5 in 1972， 605。1 in 1973 （which I would suggest was just after the coup）。 https://core。ac。uk/download/pdf/68995。。。As for GDP per capita， lets be generous and say pre-coup levels were the highest during Allende’s government （1971） at 4901。2 USD （2019 dollars）。 It reached a low point of 3856 USD （2019 dollars） in 1975。 It had surpassed this level by 1980 （5172）， with a fall again due to the banking crash to hit a low of 4465。6 in 1983 （much higher than the low of 1975） and it would again breach 1971 levels by 1987。 In 1993， GDP per capita （again 2019 USD to keep the comparison constant） was 7214。7 – quite high and by this time it had been over 1971 levels for six years。 Data from https://tradingeconomics。com/chile/gd。。。。 The World Bank’s data shows the same story （check it for yourself）: https://data。worldbank。org/indicator/。。。As for the decline in calories per person under Pinochet， data suggests that it started under Allende and that it is likely to have been higher under Pinochet。 see: https://www。jstor。org/stable/45132091。。。https://ourworldindata。org/food-supply （particularly the chart on calories per person， filter for Chile）。 The other obvious point to make here is that if Chile were to have continued to print money， inflation would have increased， and – combined with declining domestic food production， increasing food imports， and subsequent rising deficit – the shocks to consumer prices would have likely kept the market for food unstable and increased the incidence of hunger。 It’s a tough sell for most people， but if your country is experiencing hyperinflation and you cant afford to pay for it （by printing money） because it will exacerbate the problem， then its probably time to cut back spending， privatise to a degree， and try and let the market correct itself （though this will increase unemployment if you cant afford to boost wage growth）。So there you have it – again this is a small sample of what I looked at。 There is an incredible amount that is wrong with how Hickel presents and misuses data in this book。 The argument I want to make here is that if you make data errors of these various types， you don’t actually learn anything。 There’s a real possibility that all you’re doing is wasting your time。 On a positive note， in researching what Hickel claimed at every step of the way， I did learn a lot。 。。。more

Mike Elm ，

Read it and weep （maybe）。 A very incisive look at why there are 'poor' countries and the lie of 'aid'。 Read it and weep （maybe）。 A very incisive look at why there are 'poor' countries and the lie of 'aid'。 。。。more

James Malik ，

God this book made me soo angry and so depressed。 It's eye opening in a way that makes you feel like shouting the truth of what's been going on the past 70 years。 I live in one of these global south countries， there was a US backed coup in the 60s that left casualties and deaths in the millions， ever since I was in junior-high， there always was this thought of what if the coup never happened。。 but this book just explained something I never asked clearly which was why did these coups happen？ It s God this book made me soo angry and so depressed。 It's eye opening in a way that makes you feel like shouting the truth of what's been going on the past 70 years。 I live in one of these global south countries， there was a US backed coup in the 60s that left casualties and deaths in the millions， ever since I was in junior-high， there always was this thought of what if the coup never happened。。 but this book just explained something I never asked clearly which was why did these coups happen？ It shouldn't be but I'm sure the thought that poverty is created by rich nations is the minority。 The funny thing is， the United States are now doing it to themselves， their poor suffer so much more than the poor in poorer nations。 This book gave me such an appreciation and further interest in economics I never thought I would have。 another reviewer said it's kinda like a red pill for the world economic system and I totally agree， give this book a chance。 。。。more

Jeff ，

A beautiful and essential book。

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0