Increased national wealth did not result in equitable distribution of its benefits. It has created only some “enclaves of modernity and prosperity for a small minority at the cost of the majority.” Justify. (150 Words)
Increased national wealth has not always led to equitable distribution of benefits, often creating enclaves of modernity and prosperity for a minority while leaving the majority behind.
- Income inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor has widened, with wealth concentrating among a small percentage of the population.
- Trickle-down fallacy: The belief that wealth will eventually trickle down to the lower classes has not materialized as expected.
- Globalization: Global economic integration has disproportionately benefited certain regions and industries, leaving others struggling.
- Tax policies: Regressive tax systems and tax havens have allowed the wealthy to accumulate and retain more wealth, exacerbating inequality.
- Lack of social mobility: Limited access to quality education, healthcare, and opportunities has hindered social mobility for the majority.
In conclusion, the increase in national wealth has not resulted in equitable distribution due to factors such as income inequality, globalization, and regressive tax policies. To address this issue, policies promoting social mobility, progressive taxation, and inclusive growth should be prioritized.
![Rakesh was working as a Joint Commissioner in Transport department of a city. As a part of his job profile, among others, he was entrusted with the task of overseeing the control and functioning of City Transport Department. A case strike by drivers’ union of City Transport Department over the issue of compensation to a driver who died on duty while driving the bus came up before him for decision in the matter. He gathered that the driver (deceased) was plying Bus No. 528 which passed through busy and congested roads of the city. It so happened that near an intersection on the way, there was an accident involving the a middle-aged man. It was found that there was altercation between the driver and the car driver. Heated arguments between them led to fight and the driver gave him a a blow. Lot of passerbys had gathered and tried to intervene but without success. Eventually, both of them were badly injured and profusely bleeding and were taken to the nearby hospital. The driver succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved. The middle-aged driver’s condition was also critical but after a day, he recovered and was discharged. Police had immediately come to the spot and FIR was registered. Police investigation revealed that the quarrel in was started by the bus driver and he had resorted to physical violence. There exchange of blows between them. The City Transport Department management is considering of not giving any extra compensation to the driver’s (deceased) family. The family is very aggrieved. depressed and agitated against the discriminatory and non-sympathetic approach of the City Transport Department management. The bus driver (deceased) was 52 years of age, was survived by his wife and two school-college going daughters. He was the sole earner of the family. The City Transport Department workers’ union took up this case and when found no favourable response from the management, decided to go on strike. The union’s demand was two fold. First was full extra compensation as given to other drivers who died on duty and secondly employment to one family member. The strike has continued for 10 days and the deadlock remains. [2022]](https://www.iasexpress.net/wp-content/uploads/content-views/cvp_default_image-600x300.png)
Responses