Drug money and ambulance

IT IS a breeze through the Bangladesh economy. And, it tells a part of the economy.
A report in Dainik Ittefaq, a leading Bangla national daily from Dhaka, said: The number of persons addicted to Yaba, a sort of drug, is about 7.7 million in Bangladesh. They consume, on an average, two tablets a day. Each tablet is sold at Tk 300 ($1=approximately Tk 80). Thus, the total amount of the taka consumed daily in the form of Yaba is Tk 4.62 billion. (‘Dainik char sha bashatti koti takar yaba khachchhe ashaktara’ (Yaba-addicts are consuming Tk 4.62 billion daily), June 5, 2018, p 1) However, the report claims the actual number is higher than what is cited in the report.
Thus the total monthly and yearly amount of money on that account — Yaba consumption — stand as Tk ‘Something’ or a huge amount of money in terms of Bangladesh economy. The information tells a few aspects of the Bangladesh economy, society and politics although the political aspect tainted by class interests goes unidentified.
The drug money moves further as another report in the same daily newspaper said: About 50,000 drug addicts in Rupganj, now a suburb of the capital city of Dhaka, annually spend about Tk 1 billion on account of drug. The number of wholesale drug dealers is about 400 in the area; and their trade is operated by about 1,200 retailers. Drug trading is being done in 112 of the total 128 villages under the Roopganj upazila, an administrative unit. A part of younger generation is getting involved with the trade to have a huge quick money. (Should it be named huqumo? (‘Roopganje madak byabasayi panchash hajar, bachhare byay shata koti taka’, May 25, 2018, p 5)
On the next day, May 26, 2018, a report in the same daily newspaper said: Two ambulances with the public-owned Sadar Hospital of Rajbari were not operating for the past 15 days. The reason: the filling station supplying fuel to the medical vehicles has stopped the supply as the hospital authority owes about Tk 3.4 million to the station on account of fuel. The amount of the unpaid fuel bill has accrued over three years, from mid-2015 to mid-2018. Consequently, it is the public that suffer. Members of the public are to take service of privately operated ambulances, which charge higher than those public-owned ambulances. According to a driver of the ambulance, rate for each kilometre charged by the public-owned ambulance is Tk 10, and that stands as Tk 660 and Tk 4,400 for a service up to Faridpur Medical College Hospital and up to Dhaka Medical College Hospital respectively while the privately owned ambulances charge Tk 2,000 for the Faridpur and Tk 8,000 for Dhaka Medical College Hospital. Moreover, the privately owned ambulances are not equipped to carry patients with serious condition while the public-owned are better equipped. (‘Rajbari Sadar Haspatale ambulence seba bandha’, ‘Ambulance service is not available with the Rajbari Sadar Hospital’, p 13)
There are many similar stories. A random pick from or a purposive scanning of newspapers/media reports presents similar info related to money — money (mis)spent or money needed or ‘something else’. These range from rural roads, bridges and culverts to health care to educational institutions — all are spheres of public, the tax payers in the common category, which is the largest segment among the tax payers.
These — the infrastructures and institutions — are required by the ordinary persons — the people. Educational institutions catering to the rich face no problem. Those are problem-free. The usual movement pattern of the rich produces no problem for the wealthy segment of society.
Money dearth problem is usually linked to the areas linked to the lives of the poor. It is a clear bias of the problems — inclined to the poor as if the problems ‘love’ the poor. Even, the poor can be cursed as they ‘invite’ or ‘create’ the problems. These ‘sustain’ as long as money, to use the term in a loose fashion, accumulation process is not affected. Any wealthy person can claim: problems love the poor as the poor are themselves a problem. The wealthy person’s claim will be accepted as fact as that is the powerful voice.
But, serious issues are there even someone likes to ignore these ‘silly’ aspects — ‘problems’ poor partiality’ or the ‘poor’s problem partiality’. The issues are serious: from where the money or the problems come?
Drug luxury is one of the cases cited above; and the question is: who is creating the huge amount of money consumed in the form of drug? Is it a win-win situation — the consumer wins as wins the drug capital? Or, is the situation such that many within the rank and file of the parties related to the drug luxury — drug trading and consumption — are victims of predation? An affirmative answer to the latter question shall stand against the drug capital, part of the capital that dominates the economy.
Ultimately it is the owner of the capital invested in drug magic — huge, quick profit by trading types of substances. The payment — a huge amount of cash — is, ultimately, made by the entire society; and the money paid as price of drug is part of the surplus labour appropriated from labour in society. A part of this drug payment also comes from the money that the Bengali labourers send back home; and the money that the labourers send back home is part of necessary labour time — an essential for the labour’s survival. Thus the drug trading turns into a crueller character in capital’s ‘drama’ with drug and drudgery. It not only harms individuals and families, it also turns into a super-exploiter. (Other aspects of the trading like the money’s different roles, its contributions, etc are omitted in this lightly composed article.)
The rate of profit made by the part of the commercial capital invested in the drug trading is higher than the profit it could make in other areas of commerce and in manufacturing. This allures the part to the trade. Its power is perceptible as its pawns fall — a ‘supreme sacrifice’ for profit — while the aristocrat owners of the capital behind scene stay safe — a magic!
Therefore, on the basis of the three news reports, a breeze through a part of the Bangladesh economy, it appears as:
— The reports are not representative; but a part. Moreover, there is space to thrust questions into the info cited in the reports, which include source of the info.
— The info cited in the reports tell a part of the economy if these are not totally falsified; and the Bangladesh media or any other source has not yet questioned the info.
— It is a part of a market, where drug and healthcare services are traded, or of a number of markets, where private capital operates in drug market and in healthcare market, and the market is free — free market.
— These markets bring profit; a part of the profit from ambulance service and a part from drug-peddling; alluring parts of capital to these markets, which is an efficient performance of free market.
— It is safe for the part of the capital to operate in these markets as long as captains of the capital remain safe and pawns pay for the mishandling of the trade.
— An allocation of capital is there: a part of capital to the privately owned healthcare service and a part to the drug trading.
— It is a free market scene: move capital where the profit is higher; it does not matter whether or not society, especially the poor tax payers, suffers.
— Two spaces appear: one, the space owned by the public, the public-owned health care service; and the other, the private capital’s free ‘loitering’ – to anywhere to any trade to higher profit without taking into consideration the cost the entire society pays for greedy capital’s higher profit.
Now, the questions:
— Is it an efficient and rational allocation of capital in an economy, within which millions of working people are putting their labour power to have a better life?
— Is the way capital allocates parts of it safe for society and beneficial for the poor tax payers — the majority?
— How much public-owned space is there in comparison with private capital; and should the public accept it?
The questions deserve answers; and the public, in a bold political move, shall search for answers to the questions tomorrow.

The Ambiguity: The Case Of Democracy

The Great Financial Crisis, the Occupy Wall Street rising, Wikileaks and Snowden exposure, imperialist interventions in Iraq-Libya-Syria, the economic-political developments in Greece, and the on-going string of revelations in the US politics take away all ambiguities related to democracy, development and state. With broad and fundamental connections and character the incidents and processes – parts of democracy and development – being witnessed by the contemporary world are significant with far-reaching implications, and helpful to comprehend issues of democracy, development and state.

No ambiguity: Ambiguous and confusing narratives of democracy and development are vigorously sold in markets despite the reality of repeated exposures by the merciless incidents and processes mentioned above. However, the time is still dominated by the forces that try to benefit from confusion they create. Now-a-days even the conservatives like to “challenge the status quo”. Carly Fiorina, a runner for the Republican presidential nomination in the US, expressed similar views while she was discussing her foreign policy expertise in the first debate in early-August. (The Washington Post, August 9, 2015, “Distinguished pol of the week”) Isn’t the tact uncovered?

With the same tact, a part of academia and media massively and persistently propagate (1) democracy and capitalism are synonymous, (2) democracy is the normal and natural political form of capitalism, (3) democracy can’t be conceived without capitalism, (4) democracy is an integral part of capitalism, and (5) the issue of development conceived within capitalism can ensure people’s interests, their entitlements, their empowerment, their freedom of choice. Their propaganda tries to show:

(1) democracy is class-neutral;

(2) its universal form fits all societies, economies and interests of all classes: and

(3) the issue of development can be perceived and implemented without taking into consideration the issues related to class and class conflicts within a political system including democracy.

But variations in democracy don’t support the propaganda. The bourgeois democracy is fully exposed today with the political developments in the advanced bourgeois democracies. Former US president Jimmy Carter’s response to a question about his opinion on the US Supreme Court’s decisions in the 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon that allows pouring of unlimited secret money including foreign money into US political and judicial campaigns tells a lot about the type and character of the democracy.

The former US president said: “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and US Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.” (The Thom Hartmann Program, Jimmy Carter’s interview, July 28, 2015) Any careful reader in any peripheral society will see the same image around.

The US “story” was started long ago. Charles Austin Beard’s illustrious book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States says: “The economic corollary of this system is as follows: Property interests may, through their superior weight in power and intelligence, secure advantageous legislation whenever necessary, and they may at the same time obtain immunity from control by parliamentary majorities.” (ch. VI, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1921) Beard’s survey of the “distribution of economic power in the US in 1787 and property holdings of every delegate to the Constitutional Convention of that year led him to conclude that at least five-sixths of the delegates stood to gain personally from the adoption of the constitution, mainly because it would protect the public credit and raise the value of the public securities they held.” (“Beard, Charles A.,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968) Chapter V, “The Economic Interests of the Members of the Convention”, of the book presents the survey in detail and says: “The overwhelming majority of members, at least fifth-sixths, were immediately, directly, and personally interested in the outcome of their labors at Philadelphia, and were to a greater or less extent economic beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution.”

The next chapter “The Constitution as an Economic Document” says: “[T]he concept of the Constitution as a piece of abstract legislation reflecting no group interests and recognizing no economic antagonisms is entirely false. It was an economic document drawn with superb skill by men whose property interests were immediately at stake …”

“At the close of [the] long and arid survey” that he conducted his conclusions include:

“No popular vote was taken directly or indirectly on the proposition to call the Convention which drafted the Constitution.

“A large propertyless mass was, under the prevailing suffrage qualifications, excluded at the outset from participation (through representatives) in the work of framing the Constitution.

“The members of the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the Constitution were, with a few exceptions, immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantages from, the establishment of the new system.

“In the ratification of the Constitution, about three-fourths of the adult males failed to vote on the question … either on account of their indifference or their disfranchisement by property qualifications.

“The Constitution was ratified by a vote of probably not more than one-sixth of the adult males.

“The Constitution was not created by ‘the whole people’ as the jurists have said …”

Now, there’s the famous study in the US: “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” by Martin Gilens, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, and Benjamin I. Page, Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University, in Perspectives on Politics, the journal of the American Political Science Association [Vol. 12, Issue 03, September 2014 doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.]. Their multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impact on policy of US government while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

The study results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination (EED) and for theories of Biased Pluralism (BP), but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy (MED) or Majoritarian Pluralism (MP). The empirical study, first of its kind in social sciences in the US, found: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” The study said: “The preferences of economic elites (as measured by the [study] proxy, the preferences of ‘affluent’ citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.”

The scientists tested, first of this type, each of the four theoretical traditions – EED, BP, MED and MP – in the study of US politics. Until recently it was not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. They used a unique data set that included measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues during the study period 1981-2002.

The study findings indicate: “In the United States … the majority does not rule – at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.” [emphasis in the original] The research essay concluded with the following sentence: “[W]e believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” [Are peripheral societies free of this observation?]

Recent findings and incidents show the advanced democracy today is much in favor of the propertied minority classes than those days. A close look at the US politics, especially elections in the political system takes away all confusion, and supports the above claim.

Advanced capitalist democracies are appropriate cases for debate on the issue of democracy today as democracies in variations in the periphery actually are under-developed that make the debate on bourgeois democracy inconclusive. Moreover, democracy or similar systems and arrangements in peripheral societies without experiencing bourgeois revolution or its type, and without developing their political arrangements and institutions are not comparable to advanced bourgeois democracy.

Hotchpotch business: There is lumpenocracy or lumpen-democracy, democracy for lumpen interests, characterized by immaturity, inefficiency, near-to-absolute dependency, unaware about self-interest, incapable of even carrying out its businesses with bourgeois tact, utterly unstable – sometimes behaving to a standard below medieval level including carrying out medieval style assassinations, murders and palace-conspiracies, sometimes taking moves that “strangely” touch the level of maturity but always lurk near the border of failure, always engaged with suicidal factional fights, always fighting for legitimacy but de-legitimating ruling machine, failing to secure institutions/machine for class rule, sporadically resorting to populist measures. Lumpenocracies also are not the samples to study bourgeois democracy. Deliberations within lumpenocracies, especially within its legislative and other branches of its government most of the time provide a picture of a reality which is worse than a hotchpotch business, worse than to be despised.

Many tags: Donor-driven/designed democracy (DDD), which is funded by the so-called donors, and is part of low-intensity conflict, and intervention-democracy (ID), and non-neutral position of these arrangements are starkly evident in countries that are experiencing or have already experienced these. American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies and Impacts (Michael Cox, G John Ikenberry and Takashi Inoguchi (ed.), Oxford University Press, 2002) discusses the DDD. These two types of democracies, DDD and ID, a lot other tags these carry, are not only for the peripheral countries. These have been/are being implemented in near-center countries also.

A group of theoreticians try to classify democracies into liberal and illiberal types, which don’t show the class character of these systems. Democracies considered liberal behave in illiberal way in actual terms whenever it feels the demand. In countries, political system considered liberal didn’t/don’t hesitate for a moment to resort to brutal repression and encroachment of minimum available, if any, democratic space for people, an illiberal act, whenever the interests felt threatened. These “liberal” systems don’t shy away from illiberal acts or being characterized as tyrannical. Recent exposures, and a careful examination of the systems claimed to be liberal democracy show the illiberal character of these systems. No democracy claimed to be liberal has behaved in liberal way whenever it has faced a situation that it considered to be threatening to its power, authority and interests. Each of these democracies supports respective interests, constituencies, classes and factions within these classes/interests. Citing cases from Latin America Andre Gunder Frank writes: “[T]hese very liberals were the first to resort to repressive measures and even to military dictatorship to serve their economic interests. Such was the course of events in Porfirian Mexico, in the ‘banana republics’ of Central America, and in the sugar producing countries of the Caribbean.” (Lumpenbourgeoisie: Lumpendevelopment, 1974) In Asia, similar cases are many. Europe and North America are not free from the style.

Transitional: Peoples’ struggles in countries have helped emerge types of democracies which are transitional and experimental in character, and are defined in different ways. These include, as Leslie Sklair mentions in “The Transition from Capitalist Globalization to Socialist Globalization” (Journal of Democratic Socialism, 1 (1), 2011), and Nadia Johanisova and Stephan Wolf mention in “Economic democracy: A path for the future” (Futures, vol. 44, issue 6, August 2012), economic democracy that brings private firms, or “the economy” under democratic public control, producer-consumer cooperatives playing a role in the generation, allocation and mobilization of resources, regulation of market mechanisms and corporate activities, support for social enterprises, democratic money creation processes, reclaiming the commons, redistribution of income and capital assets; social democracy, as Atilio A Boron discusses in “The Truth About Capitalist Democracy” (Socialist Register, 52, 2006) and Kathi Weeks discusses in The Problem with Work (Duke University Press, London, 2011), which along with regular election and popular participation in decision making process ensures universal access to employment, basic income, housing, health and educational services, and better living standard. The economic democracy, as Boron cites Gøsta Esping Andersen’s argument, “strengthens the worker and debilitates the absolute authority of the employers”. There’s political democracy, as Patrick Heller discusses in “Moving the State: The Politics of Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre” (Politics and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, March 2001) that tries to find out effective ways for popular participation in decision making process, political representation and division of powers. Ben Selwyn refers a number of these in The Global Development Crisis. Ben Selwyn also mentions electoral democracy that regularly holds elections “but only acts to fill the posts of executive and legislative functions of the state who then serve ‘market forces’.” Noam Chomsky in Deterring Democracy (Verso, London 1991) describes the arrangement as “Low Intensity Democracy”.

All these and other systems and arrangements, with whatever nomenclature these are identified, show a single fact: Democracy as all other political systems is neither free from class contradictions nor class-neutral as all these move along respective class-line, as all these are/were designed to serve class interests and ensure class dominance.

Historical period & institutions: The system – democracy – does not transcend specific characteristics of historical periods. “[I]n order to be meaningful, discussions of democratic [and developmental] prospects … require a real grasp of the historically generated and limited situation.”(Bill Freund, “The weight of history: Prospects for democratisation in South Africa”, in Jonathan Hyslop (ed.) African Democracy in the Era of Globalisation, University of the Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, 1999, cited in David Moore, “Zimbabwe 1997-2007: A democracy of diminished expectations or
- Toward a political economy of renewal?”, October 24, 2007; also in David Moore, “The Weight of History, a Broad Sense of the Possible: Economic History, Development Studies, Political Economy and Bill Freund”, African Studies, Lance van Siddert and David Moover, eds., spl. issue, “Festschrift for Bill Freund”, 65, 1, July 2006)

There’s no single, universal design of democracy that fits all societies, countries and all regions of the world with their respective historical phases, levels/stages of development, all classes and class alignments in the societies. This fact invalidates (1) intervention- and donor-driven/designed democracies in societies, and (2) perception or thesis that a particular type of democracy in a particular society is the standard or yardstick for all societies.

Institutions embedded in interests of non-people sector of society neither serve democracy of people nor development for people; but the institutions don façade of equity, equality and democracy, which are mostly misunderstood, confused by a part in society, and are sold among people by another part. The later part’s stupidity and shallow statements come to light gradually. Moreover, institutions carry mark, characteristics, limitations of historical period. At times, institutions starkly show their incapability to carry forward, materialize and safeguard people’s rights, interests, struggles for a humane life. This nullifies the institutions, and the time delivers historical verdict: ignore the institutions incapable to carry forward people’s interests, set aside the incapable institutions, replace the institutions with appropriate institutions, and thus a rationale for radical change is constructed.

These – the historical phase and institutions – are integral part of the questions of democracy and development in all societies. Mere slogans, and absence of critical analysis of these – institutions, historical perspective, etc. – don’t facilitate charting path to democracy and humane development as humane development requires humane institutions at all levels.

Political system crops up from economy, and economic system can’t operate without social relations. “[T]here is not an economic system that operates without being under any social relations. Thus, it makes no sense if we talk about the rationality and viability of an economic system without considering the context of social relations. For example, given the capitalist social relations, productive forces can be developed only if the capitalists are allowed to exploit the workers, and consequently only the economic system that allows the capitalists to exploit the workers can be ‘rational and viable’. This certainly does not suggest that what is ‘rational and viable’ for capitalism is also ‘rational and viable’ for any other society. On the contrary, capitalist exploitation, by repressing the creativity of working people, is a great obstacle to the development of productive forces.” (Li Minqi, Capitalist Development and Class Struggles in China, Amherst, US)

Democracy isn’t a system, which is free from an economic system, is not a system, which can roam freely without taking into account its masters’ desires, and no economic system is not without social relations; and these in turn, shape the character of a democracy – who’s served, who’s safeguarded, whose rule prevails. This contention is not limited at national level only. Rather, this should be applied at regional, local and community levels, and in all types and forms of institutions and organizations including cooperatives, educational institutions, project implementation committees or bodies, water control structure management/maintenance bodies, NGO-organized and microcredit-driven groups, etc. also. This all encompassing view provides a more realistic, full picture of democracy in a society. The full picture helps perceive the type, character and ownership of democracy, and its role – effective or ineffective – in the area for development in the society.

Absence of an all encompassing view, focusing on only a particular area, narrowing down on only top and ignoring the ground or base is nothing but hypocrisy, nothing but turning into ally of the system, and nothing but exposing self-identity – cohort of the system. Absence of specific programs for all these – democracy and democratization at all levels and in all institutions and organizations – make demand for democracy a script for a comedy. All discussions on democracy turn into idiotic slogans and statements, and fail to design a system capable of delivering a humane development if these aspects are not considered while trying to build up a system named democracy or extending support to a system claiming to be democracy.

Inequality: Food Follows Class-line

Class doesn't allow anyone and anything to get out of its clutch. Food and health are not class-neutral areas. These, rather, have to faithfully follow class-line. Inequality is one of its outcomes. It's a fact not only from one or two countries like the UK and the US , but from scores of advanced capitalist countries, and the fact has emerged over a period of decades.

It's not a single country-story

Inequality in food isn't a trend found only in a country. The pattern is wide. Nicole Darmon and Adam Drewnowski in their “Does social class predict diet quality?” ( The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , vol. 87, no. 5, May 2008) find diet quality follows class stratification. The fact stands as: the poor have only the bad while the rich consume only the best.

Their study was based on a large body of epidemiologic data from scores of cross-sectional studies conducted in at least 15 countries in Europe, North America and Australia . The countries covered in the studies included Australia , Canada , Denmark , Finland , France , Germany , Greece , the Netherlands , New Zealand , Norway , Portugal , Spain , the UK , the US . In their study Darmon and Drewnowski covered about 200 studies published in medical journals during the period 1982-2007.

Citing 22 studies Darmon and Drewnowski write in the “Introduction” section of the study report:

“Morbidity and mortality rates in industrialized societies follow a socioeconomic gradient. The more disadvantaged groups suffer from higher rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, dental caries, and some forms of cancer. All of these diseases have a direct link to nutrition and diet. It has been suggested, more than once, that dietary factors may help explain some of the observed social inequities in health. The more affluent population subgroups are not only healthier and thinner, but they also consume higher-quality diets than do the poor. Diet quality is affected not only by age and sex, but also by occupation, education, and income levels — the conventional indexes of socioeconomic status (SES) or social class.” As SES, they consider education, income, and/or occupation.

Their conclusion includes:

1. “[H]igher-quality diets are, in general, consumed by better educated and more affluent people. Conversely, lower quality diets tended to be consumed by groups of lower SES and more limited economic means.”

2. “Increases in food availability and ongoing marketing incentives to consume large quantities of low-cost energy-dense foods may be particularly damaging to the health of lower SES groups, for whom such foods represent a source of affordable calories.”

In the section “Evidence of a social gradient in diet quality” the researchers refer to scores of studies and write:

1. “Higher values of the Healthy Eating Index, Diet Quality Index, dietary variety and diversity scores, and other diet-quality measures have all been associated with higher SES. The same positive relation with SES was observed for dietary patterns.”

2. “[T]he consumption of whole grains was associated with higher SES, whereas the consumption of refined cereals (white bread), pasta, and rice was associated with lower SES.”

3. “Lower SES groups also consumed significantly more potatoes.”

4. “Higher SES groups were more likely to consume vegetables and fruit, particularly fresh, not only in higher quantities but also in greater variety.”

Citing a meta-analysis of studies from 7 European countries they write: “[F]ruit and vegetable consumption was consistently higher in the highest than in the lowest SES group …”

They add: “In Australia , a 3-fold difference was found between bottom and top quintiles of income for not consuming fruit on the previous day. In the Netherlands , women with a basic education level were almost 3 times as likely to be low consumers of fruit than were the most educated groups. In a recent Canadian analysis of food budget surveys, the strongest positive relation between income and the quantities of food purchased was found for fruit and vegetables. … Studies from the United Kingdom and the United States suggest that SES disparities in fruit and vegetables consumption have increased over time. … The consumption of lean meats, fish, and other seafood was associated with higher SES in a large number of studies. Lower SES groups tended to consume larger quantities of fatty meats instead of the recommended lean meat items. Fried, breaded, and canned fish were all consumed in greater quantities by lower SES groups, who also consumed more stews and fried foods. Diets of lower SES groups were also characterized by more added fats …”

Children are not spared

Children of workers and the poor are not spared by inequality.

Referring to a study in France Darmon and Drewnowski write: “[C]hildren of semiskilled and unskilled workers consumed significantly more sweets, bread, potatoes, cereals, and deli meats than did children from the upper SES group.”

In the US , the researchers write, “children and adolescents from low SES households consumed less fruit and vegetables and a more limited variety of produce. Children from families with lower education levels had the lowest fruit intakes and the highest consumption of sweetened beverages.”

Referring a number of European studies they add: “[L]ow fruit and vegetable intakes and a high frequency of soft drink consumption among low-SES children and adolescents.” On the opposite, the researchers write, “higher SES groups had consistently higher intakes of most vitamins and minerals and fiber than did lower SES groups.”

“Low-SES groups”, Darmon and Drewnowski write, “had the lowest consumption of vitamin C, ß-carotene, and folate, vitamin E, and plant-based polyphenols. Low iron intakes among low-SES populations were found in most studies and so were lower intakes of calcium and potassium.”

The rich can pay

Other evidences found by the researchers include:

1. “[H]ealthier foods are associated with increased monetary and time costs.”

2. “The observed SES gradient in diet quality may be mediated by food prices and diet costs. It follows from economic theory that food price is an important determinant of food choice. Not surprisingly, the lowest-cost diets are also the least healthy. In general, high-energy-density diets are associated with lower costs, whereas nutrient-dense diets are associated with higher costs per megajoule.”

3. “Diets composed of low-energy-density nutrient-rich foods are more expensive than are diets composed of refined grains, added sugars, and added fats.”

4. “Food costs are a barrier to the adoption of nutrient-dense diets, especially by the lower income groups.”

5. “One recent study, based on the US Department of Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan, reported that the cost of substituting healthier foods can cost up to 35–40% of an American low-income family's food budget.”

6. “Other studies have shown that food costs are an obstacle to reducing fat intakes or to increasing the consumption of fish, whole-grain products, or vegetables and fruit.”

7. “In a recent US study, women who considered food price very important were likely to live in low-income households and to have energy-dense diets.”

8. “Several studies have emphasized that food budgets of the poor are insufficient to obtain a balanced diet. Even when low-income groups develop efficient purchasing strategies, the food budget may not be adequate to procure the recommended diet.”

9. “Poverty may lead to the selection of low-cost diets that are both energy rich and shelf stable. … The emphasis on maximum calories and least waste and spoilage is another characteristic of poverty. Because trying a new food represents a risk of waste, diets of low-income households are often monotonous. Poverty is often accompanied by isolation, boredom, and depression — behaviors that may encourage snacking, simplifying or skipping meals, and sedentary behavior.”

The rich-poor inequality, as the references show, in the area of food is stark.

A lot and a nothing

The world system owns a lot for a few, and has nothing for many. An arrangement has thus been made. “Access to foods”, Darmon and Drewnowski said, “can also be a function of the physical environment. Whereas supermarkets and grocery stores may cluster in the more affluent neighborhoods, some lower-income neighborhoods have been characterized as ‘food deserts'.”

The areas the poor live bear signs of the poor and poverty. The researchers write: “Living in lower-income neighborhoods has been associated with lower consumption of fruit, vegetables, and fish. The quality of food choices was directly influenced by the ease of access to a supermarket as well as to the availability and variety of healthy foods in neighborhood stores. For example, foods recommended for the self management of diabetes are less likely to be stocked in East Harlem than on the Upper East Side .” It's not a New York-reality.

Dhaka is no exception: Jurain, Tallabag, Mugda, Basabo, Jatrabari, Madartek in the capital city are completely different from Gulshan and Baridhara in the same city. The shops with their appearance, the commodities sold in shops in the two groups of areas in the city, the names, type and quality of food the people purchase, and the cookies children in the two groups of areas in the city are happy with, the amount of money consumers spend in the shops, even the sound and noise, the smells and odors, are completely different: one, for the “unpolished” low-income persons, and the other, for the “sophisticated” well-off, and rich. Socioeconomic differences in dietary patterns are stark. In Luanda , Kolkata, Delhi , Mumbai and Manila , the same divide, the same line of demarcation dominate. It's, the line between the rich and the poor, difficult, but not impossible, to cross.

The poor can only afford low-cost foods that satisfy their hunger, and those “nice” foods are available in low-income areas. The rich don't even know names and tastes of those foods as foods of the poor are “nasty”. A slum dwelling woman in Dhaka , found a study, collects discarded rotten vegetables from a wholesale market. A portion of the collected rotten vegetables is consumed by the woman's family while the rest is sold to petty traders, and the traders sell those to the poor. (Farooque Chowdhury, “Urban poor: Neverending quest for energy”, People's Report 2002-2003, Bangladesh Environment ) In areas in the city of Dhaka , lower part of chicken legs, chicken intestines and chicken skin are sold. These are purchased in 250-300 grams by the low-income families. Sometimes, these are sold in smaller “shares”, pieces kept together. Smaller meat pieces from cattle heads are cheaper. These are purchased by the low-income families. The fish sold at around 10:00-11:00 PM at Malibag crossing, near Shantinagar Bazaar, Nandipara in the capital city are cheaper. These are purchased by the poor. These, most of the time, reach to the state of rotting down. But, these, the near-rotten fish, the chicken skin, are the only opportunity to taste “a better food” for large section of the society living at the lower strata. Darmon and Drewnowski add: “[F]or low-SES groups, the ability to adopt a healthier diet may have less to do with motivation than with economic means.” (op. cit.)

Travel to health & kitchen

None will question the connection between food, health and transportation. “Low-income families”, write Darmon and Drewnowski, “are less likely to own a car and may find it more difficult to reach out-of-town supermarkets, in urban as well as in rural areas. Deprived neighborhoods may limit not only food access but also opportunities for physical activity, because of the lack of facilities or because of security issues. Physical activity levels are lower among low-SES groups…” A visit to the Ramna Park in Dhaka in the morning will describe the same fact in a periphery-country. Sometimes, members of Dhaka-neo-elites drive to Mawa, kilometers away from the city, on the Padda, the lower part of the Ganga , to buy fresh Hilsha fish. The Dhaka-poor don't even have the time to dream it. The poor neither have the time and money required to travel there, nor the money to buy the fish while the rich have all.

Inequality is widespread. Darmon and Drewnowski write: “In very poor families, the lack of cooking equipment will in itself discourage cooking.” Kitchens, if those are considered kitchens, of the poor, of the low-income Dhaka families bear the same signs of inequality if compared with the kitchens the Dhaka rich use, the appliances they own.

It's not only lack of cooking equipment in advanced capitalist economy, but lack of kitchen in the periphery is also a problem the poor face in an unequal reality. In many Dhaka slums, one oven is shared by a number of slum-poor families. Even, many lower middle class families share a single oven. In many Dhaka slums, there are long single room with 5, 7, 10 ovens, each of which are used by a number of poor households. Sometimes, poor households rent in oven in a lower middle class household near to their place of residence. Doesn't the reality hurt food quality of the poor? It's an economy of the kitchen-poor, and an economy of inequality.

Economy determines access to food, nutrients, health. “A nutrient density standard for vegetables and fruits: nutrients per calorie and nutrients per unit cost” (Darmon N, Darmon M, Maillot M & Drewnowski A., J Am Diet Asso , 2005, 105) and “Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling” (Maillot M, Darmon N, Darmon M, Lafay L, Drewnowski A, J Nutr , 2007, 137) discuss the issue. “Diet quality is influenced by socioeconomic position and may well be limited by financial access to nutrient-dense foods.” (Adam Drewnowski & Nicole Darmon, “The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost”, The Am J Cli Nutri , vol. 82, no. 1, July 2005) They mention the broader problem of increasing disparities in incomes and wealth, declining real wage, etc. while discussing obesity and its links to the low-income persons.

Another study said: “[T]he low-income group derived fewer financial and nutritional benefits than the medium-income group from both price manipulations.” (Nicole Darmon, Anne Lacroix, Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, “Food price policies improve diet quality while increasing socioeconomic inequalities in nutrition”, Int J Behavioral Nutri and Physi Activity , 2014, 11:66, doi:10.1186/1479-5868-11-66)

Citing “Widening socioeconomic inequalities in mortality in six Western European countries” (Mackenbach JP, Bos V, Andersen O, Cardano M, Costa G, Harding S, Reid A, Hemström Ö, Valkonen T, Kunst AE, Int J Epidemiol 2003, 32(5)) and “Socioeconomic inequalities in premature mortality in France: have they widened in recent decades?” (Leclerc A, Chastang J-F, Menvielle G, Luce D,Soc Sci Med , 2006, 62(8)) the researchers mentioned “the widening gap in socio-economic inequalities in health in Europe , including in France …” (op. cit.)

The link is being discussed for long although a group tries to deny the link. Nicole Darmon and Adam Drewnowski write: “The links between food, diets, and incomes have indeed been remarked on by a diversity of authors, ranging from Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin in 1825 to John Boyd Orr in 1936.” (“Reply to RJ Karp”, Am J Clin Nutr , vol. 88, no. 4, October 2008)

They also cite Margaret Chan, the Director General of the WHO: “Food choices are highly sensitive to price. The first items to drop out of the diet are usually healthy foods — fruits, vegetables and high quality sources of protein….Nutrient-poor staples are often the cheapest way to fill hungry stomachs.” (WHO, Statement at the high-level Conference on World Food Security in Rome , June 3, 2008).

Referring to “Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling” (op. cit.) they write in the “Reply to RJ Karp”: “Energy-dense foods that are nutrient-poor are the cheapest option for the low-income consumer.” Referring to “A cost constraint alone has adverse effects on food selection and nutrient density: an analysis of human diets by linear programming” (Darmon N, Ferguson EL, Briend A, J Nutr , 2002, 132) they write in the “Reply …” : “ Computer optimization programs, driven by cost constraints only, consistently create diets with compositions that resemble those that are consumed by disadvantaged groups. In contrast, higher-quality diets not only cost more but are more likely to be consumed by the more affluent.”

Referring to P Monsivais & A Drewnowski's “The rising cost of low-energy-density foods” ( J Am Diet Assoc , 2007, 107) Nicole Darmon, Adam Drewnowski write: “The recent rise in food prices that has begun to affect the middle class has helped put our earlier work in a new and much sharper perspective.” (“Reply to RJ Karp”, op. cit.)

The researchers add: “The dual burden of disease, undernutrition and overweight, now faced by developing nations is an economic issue that is directly linked to poverty and food costs. … The major policy and political challenge for global nutrition is to ensure a supply of affordable healthy foods to all.” (ibid. )

Existing glaring food inequalities, as evidenced above, raise a few “simple” questions: (1) Shall the world system eliminate the inequality? (2) Does the system posses the capacity? (3) Shall it feed all those failing to afford food? (4) What's the reason of the failure to arrange food, to get out of inequality? (5) Is there any reason/interest that stands as obstacle in formulating appropriate policies and effectively implementing those to ensure equality in accessing better food?

Profit And Corruption Widens Energy Inequality

Profit is the opposite side of poverty and deprivation, which is ignored by mainstream although the mainstream takes the posture of crusader against poverty. Profit fattens itself by pushing many to the world of poverty and deprivation. The sphere of energy is not free from this equation.

A comparison with the amount profit of the oil companies helps understand the inequality. The oil industry, Antonia Juhasz writes, is the most profitable industry in the world. Six of the ten largest corporations in the world are oil companies: ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Total. With over $40 billion in profit in 2007, ExxonMobil is the most profitable corporation both in the world and in world history. Its profits are larger than the entire economies of 93 of the world’s nations ranked by GDP. ExxonMobil had the most profitable year of any corporation ever in 2003 and then proceeded to surpass its own record every year for the next five years. ExxonMobil’s profits were more than twice those of the next three US companies on the Fortune 500 list combined: Chevron with $18.7 billion; General Motors, which lost $38.7 billion; and ConocoPhillips with $11.9 billion. Similarly, in 2006 ExxonMobil’s profits were nearly twice those of the next two US companies combined: United Airlines with $23 billion and Citigroup with $21 billion. ExxonMobil is not alone. Each major American oil company — ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, and Marathon — has surpassed its own record-breaking profits in almost every year for the last five years. Combined, they earned more than $80 billion in 2007 profits. There is simply no comparison with any other industry in the United States. The 10 largest global oil companies, according to the Fortune’s 2007 Global 500 listing, took in over $167 billion in profits in 2006 alone, about $50 billion more than the top 10 companies in the second most profitable industry, commercial and savings banks. (The Tyranny of Oil: the World's Most Powerful Industry and What We Must Do To Stop It, 2008)

Not only oil, other sources of energy also reap profit. These are lucrative. Reports on business, trade, investment in energy sector and its sub-sectors show the fact. Force, political, diplomatic and military power, manipulations and conspiracies, assassinations and murders, which are applied in areas of deals, labor, politics, geopolitics and regime change in countries and regions are indicators of power of profit in the area of energy. Identifying the source of profit helps locate source of poverty, and energy poverty is no exception. Section of political economics has long ago identified both the sources that have still not been possible to refute and nullify by the other section.

Any common person from a Fourth World country or from strife-torn Nigeria or from energy poor Bangladesh can ask: what the profit could have done in the lives of the billions living in dark, struggling daily with energy expenses, walking miles to collect biomass for cooking, in hospitals facing power outages? Even, many citizens in the US, in the low-income part of a municipality can raise similar questions. But, the true path of profit does not go along those outposts of life. Its survival and expansion depend on depriving many. Thus it creates crisis, crisis in the form of civil strife, violation of human rights, and ultimately for itself. This aggravates the energy poverty situation.

Corruption

The energy poverty situation turns grave with the factor of corruption in the entire energy business, and corruption hurts the poor most. A World Bank study said: corruption “perpetuates or deepens inequality, as the few amass power and wealth at the expense of the many.” The study defined two types of corruption: petty corruption by petty employees and “grand corruption in the allocation of lucrative monopolies” by company managers and mid-level bureaucrats associated with energy purchase or sale contracts or debt instruments. Both types of corruption hurt the common people, but the later one hurts the country, the broader public interest, the economy.

Grand corruption, according to the study, involves political campaign contributions and the personal enrichment of political leaders. It mentioned election finance scandals in industrial countries, and politicians in “new” democracies acquiring illicit sources of campaign funding. As example the study mentioned that in a south Asian country losses of two organizations related to electricity amount to more than US $100 million each year. Corruption is more common in unsolicited bids, supplier’s credits, and crash program–type procurement initiatives.

The study cited a few examples of corruption: A former prime minister in Ukraine personally granted exclusive rights to a gas trader that was reportedly controlled by him and his associates. The trader imported gas from Russia at a price of US $50 per thousand cubic meters and sold it to captive industrial consumers for US $80. The prime minister used the financial wealth generated by this lucrative monopoly to establish a political party. Diversion of utility revenues had become such a problem in Pakistan that in 1999 the government mobilized the army to supervise meter reading and billing. The scale of theft surprised the authorities, especially the extent to which the affluent benefited. Industries, shopping centers, and large residences accounted for a large share of the stolen electricity. Subsidies in power sector in one country, the study mentioned, amount to more than US$100 million a year, more than expenditure on health. The beneficiaries of the subsidies are the relatively affluent 16 percent of households that have electricity service.

The World Bank study commented: “The poor lose from the budget subsidies to the power sector in two ways: lower rates of economic growth and less social expenditure from which they would benefit directly.” Corruption that grows along the modus operandi of the dominating classes contributes to energy poverty.

With intensified competition among capitals and accelerated and almost complete globalization by capitals, corruption is a tool in the hands of capitals. Each of competing capitals aspire and demand a fair game for all but self. Each of competing capitals

Political economy of the crisis should not be missed

The energy crisis is part of the world crises now overwhelming the planet. The fundamental aspect of the energy crisis will be missed if it is only viewed in terms of the prospect of dwindling oil supply and is viewed without connecting it to the world production and distribution system. The approach pushed by the donors in the poor countries in the name of development, part of the world production and distribution system, is contributing to the crisis. A major part of this approach is oil intensive. The life style the dominating segments in the poor countries have jealously adopted is contributing to the energy poverty, and widening the gap.

Plundering of public property is the lifeline for the dominating segments in many poor countries, and the process of plundering increases energy disparity. The plundering process and the plundering class/segment is part of the present world system while the plundering of the energy resources from poor countries is an act of the world system.

Metropolitan states with their all might stand by their owners: the energy giants. The world power structure stands by their compradors, the junior partners in appropriating/plundering and squandering of public resources including energy.

Increased energy poverty is the consequence of energy loot from the poor countries. The political economy of energy poverty is thus connected to class rule and the world system. Degradation in environment and changes in climate is worsening the energy poverty situation. All these are part of the energy crisis.

The energy poverty situation puts forth a few tasks: (1) Explain this disparity and deprivation to the masses so that the possibility of drying up of oil, a major source of profit, could not be depicted by the mainstream as the only aspect of energy crisis, so that the people at the bottom turn aware of the way they are being deprived, and so that the private sector could not make the pockets of the poor a big market. (2) Demands for energy equality, environment-friendly energy for the common people, affordable energy not harmful to health should be raised. An equitable distribution of energy will stop many of the luxuries that squander energy. (3) Cooperatives for energy could be organized at community level. This will provide people, through mistakes and failures, space for debating related issues, getting mobilized, practicing democracy, running organizations, fighting bureaucracy, and articulating greater demands. (4) The designs and attempts to take control of energy sources by external actors should be exposed. (5) Popularize the approaches: (a) the lower the more, and (b) no transparency no deal. The first one is for proportionately more subsidy in energy to the poorer, more participation from the bottom in planning and decision making while the next one is for demanding all energy related deals to be made public and to be debated. Debating the energy squandering life style of the energy rich and the “development” approach prescribed by the donors will create scope for broader space.

[This section, 4th in the series, modified and elaborated, is the last part of the chapter “Energy Inequality and Energy Poor” in The Age of Crisis (2009) by Farooque Chowdhury, a Dhaka-based freelancer.]