Perhaps owing to a somewhat idiosyncratic resentment towards what the Economist terms “undeserving rich”, like many other thousands of followers of this debate, my immediate knee-jerk reaction, given the dire state of economic conditions and public finances throughout the world, was to be inclined towards Professor Piketty’s arguments that was in favour of taxing the rich more. But as the debate progressed, I found my dogmatic conviction waning in no time. And by the end of the debate I was confused, to say the least.
Arguments on income disparity have been one of the most frequently used populist political tools throughout the world. And the Maldives certainly is no exception. During the political upheaval of the last four years, the phenomenon was particularly widespread. On the one hand Gayoom and his supporters espoused arguments attributing the country’s relatively high per capita income to the government’s policies. At the same time they were quick to vehemently brush aside any criticism by the then opposition MDP, on issues such as the high incidence of poverty and skewed income distribution, as an inevitable price the country had to pay for economic growth and entrepreneurial dynamism.
Much of the criticism during this period was buttressed on the findings of the first VPA of 1998 which put a staggering 45 percent of the population below the poverty line (based on a poverty line of Rf 15 per person per day). However, by the second VPA of 2004, the figure was down to 19 percent. The Gini coefficient – a measure of inequality in income distribution expressed as a ratio between 0-1, with lower values indicating more equal distribution – in the meantime, improved from 0.39 to 0.33 in Male and 0.40 to 0.36 in the atolls during the same period. Contrary to popular belief, this makes our Gini coefficient comparable even to developed countries like the UK and the US.
It has been four years since the second VPA was published. Gayoom’s extravagance and the populist backlash catapulted Mohamed Nasheed to the highest office in the country late last year. It is a little too early to say how President Nasheed’s government’s policies are going to shape, over the long term, the stubbornly perverse affairs of the malefactors of the great resort-wealth and the multifaceted dynamics of the question of inequality. However, with stories like that of the alleged failure of the government to safeguard the interests of 23,000 individual shareholders of MTDC rife, the early indications are that establishing dominion over the all-powerful, party-hopping robber barons are easier said than done.