I went camping with friends. Some brought tents, others brought cooking gear, while some went fishing or prepared the food. Then, one friend said, "Since I started the fire that allowed us to eat, I should get half the meat today, right? That way, I’ll be motivated to start the fire again tomorrow." While his fire-starting skills made the camping trip more comfortable, we all felt uneasy.
Where does this discomfort come from? Political philosopher G.A. Cohen raises this question while explaining the principles of equality and community. The friends on the trip did not believe that one person deserved a larger share simply because they possessed more talent. Furthermore, it was hard to agree that doing so would benefit everyone. We came camping to share and have a good time together, not to pay a fee for starting a fire. Underlying this is an innate sense of equality and reciprocity that we naturally accept within a community.
The problem is that this sense tends to fade as society grows. When vast numbers of people live amidst anonymous relationships, it becomes difficult to see who is creating what, who is bearing what burdens, and who is taking what share. Yet, a city is no different from a giant campsite. Social infrastructure—such as roads, railways, power grids, and water supply systems—are built through public finances, citizens' taxes, and extensive social cooperation. Corporate activities, the labor of workers, and the daily lives of local communities all contribute to the process of creating new value.
However, when the value of land and housing rises as a result of such public investment and social cooperation, what happens if the benefits translate into increased assets for property owners while resulting in higher rents for tenants? At that very moment, a distributional gap is already emerging within the growth process. Simply collecting taxes after growth has occurred and redistributing them through welfare programs does not automatically resolve this issue. This is because the very method of growth is, in itself, a method of distribution.
Therefore, we must first examine who reaps the greater benefits and who bears the heavier burden from growth and development. Producing more and living together fairly are not the same issue. A society’s wealth does not equate to its equality. Social equality—essential for a "better life"—is not merely a matter of dividing up the spoils after growth is complete; it is also a matter of the process by which people create wealth together and the social relationships formed during that process.
Pope Francis views housing not as a mere commodity, but as a fundamental condition linked to human dignity and the common good (*World Popular Movements and Our Social Doctrine*). What matters is not the intention behind growth, but the choices made during the growth process, the opportunities provided to whom, and how people's actual lives change as a result.
At a press conference at the Blue House last month, President Lee Jae-myung remarked, "I failed to provide a more proactive answer to the question: 'They say economic indicators are improving, so why isn't my life changing—or rather, why is it getting worse?'" The President also stated, “We will continuously pursue recovery and growth, while ensuring that everyone shares in the opportunities and fruits of that growth.” I hope to find one of the answers to this here. To mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty on October 17, a conference themed “Poverty and Inequality in Asia” is being held at the Catholic Center in Myeong-dong, Seoul. It is an occasion to examine the realities of poverty across Asian nations and propose alternatives for social security and public assistance.
Good policies are not created merely through intentions or declarations. What matters is the social attitudes and practices within which a system operates, and what the policy actually enables in people's lives. Without this, no matter how much growth indicators improve, the question “Why isn’t my life getting any better?” will persist. An increasing number of people are questioning the true nature of the President’s good intentions. I hope the administration does not align itself with those who claim half the meat simply because they lit the fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment