Opinion

The 100-person village

By Douglas Lummis

Some readers may have noticed a little book in the bookstores called "If the World Were a Village of 100 People." Frankly, though I am partly responsible for it (I did the English translation), I can't help wondering why so many people are buying it.

The book gives a portrait of the situation of the world's people. By imagining the world as a village of 100 people, the statistics become simple and vivid.

In particular, the statistics showing the rich-poor gap shocked many readers. The numbers show that the great bulk of the world's wealth is controlled by a minority, while the majority is left with little.

But why are people shocked? Is it possible that there are adults who hadn't known this? Isn't the fact that readers were shocked by these statistics ... shocking?

But there is another aspect. I think part of the shock effect comes from the word "village." A village is not any crowd of people. A village is a group of families living together. Traditionally, villagers hold some of their resources in common, distribute wealth pretty fairly, and follow an ethic of mutual aid.

You cannot find a village where some people have nice houses and others no shelter, where some people have access to clean water and others don't, where some people are overweight and others are undernourished. People in villages don't treat each other like that. In short, a real village that has the statistics of the "100-person village" (i.e. the modern world) simply cannot be found.

Something conspicuously missing from the book is any explanation of how the rich-poor gap has come into being. Do the poor live in regions with fewer resources? No. Is it because the poor don't work hard? If you think so, get a job in a sweatshop or a banana plantation in some country in the global south and you will soon change your mind.

Is it because the poor countries are less "developed?" Many people believe this, but it is a great mistake. In the more than half century since the project of "developing the underdeveloped countries" was begun (1949), the rich-poor gap has widened. In 1960, the wealthiest 20 percent of the world's people had incomes 30 times that of the poorest 20 percent. By 1990 the gap had doubled: 60 to 1.

That's what "development" does. It doesn't abolish poverty, it inducts poor people into the world economic system, and uses their poverty to generate wealth, which is then mostly exported to — guess where?

Should we, who live in one of the wealthy countries, feel guilty? Not at all. People are not responsible for where they are born, but only for what they do, or fail to do.

But it does mean that our "100-person village" is both unjust and unstable. And so there is much to be done, and many changes to be made, before we can call it a decent and safe place to live.

Shukan ST: May 10, 2002

(C) All rights reserved