The main findings show that income distribution at large is skewed in Jordan: the richest 30 percent of the population own around 60 percent of total income, with 30 percent of that income owned by the richest 10 percent. The richest two percent of the population own 13 percent of total income, while the poorest 30 percent own 11 percent. By way of comparison, the richest ten percent’s share of total income in 2002 in Brazil was 46.63 perccent, in China it amounted to 32 percent, while in France it amounted to 22 percent, 24 percent in Denmark and 19.12 percent in the Czech Republic. Despite economic growth at an annual average of 6 percent, there has been very little achieved in the way of inequality reduction as can be seen by minimal improvement in the Gini coefficient from 0.379 in 1997, 0.361 in 2002, to 0.355 in 2006. After dividing the population into ten consumption groups, a change in the distributtion of households is observed whereby the number of families in the richest deciles declined between 2002 and 2006, and the number of poor families increased. With regards the middle consumption groups, they have been most affected by low wages and increased their dependence on other sources of income such as remittances from migration and self-employment. That the middle classes were difficult to locate may be interpreted as a sign of their precarious class position, with many previously middle class household having either become part of the working class or the upper classes.
Expenditure on education shows just how rigid the Jordanian class structure is when
| Bookmark this post: | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Add a Comment
I agree with Mohanned. Wasta and the lack of a meritocracy are in large part responsible for this.
from Jordan
said:
I disagree.
Jordanians are incapable of appreciating democracy as there is no democratic culture. I have a hypothesis that democracy is not a means to development, but a means for further development, that is to say, when society advances socially, democracy is the crowning moment of that society for further development.
You can't ask children whether they want to go to school or not, they don't know better. Put simply, society hasn't matured to the point where democracy will take them to the next level. I believe some (limited) democracy is required.
I would say that the problem is actually a result of both government & social under-development. Keep in mind, the study. For instance, there is a perplexing trend in that people with low income have more children, & it would appear that poverty tends be a cause of over-population (not an effect). Yet social responsibility or family planning programmes have not been especially successful (or even obvious) & social attitudes are such that people don't actually hold themselves responsible for producing too many children.
I believe that the solution is twofold:
1. Creation of real economic opportunity for citizens. As people expect higher income & wealth they are likely to postpone marriage.
2. Effective laws & education on family planning, especially for new couples. This includes aspects of saving & financial management.
Add a Comment
<<Home






said:






from United States
The inequality can be tackled by providing a true equal opportunity platform. The idea that the government should redistribute wealth has proven to be unsuccessful to say the least, what is needed is a true democracy on all levels whether it is political, economic, or social. This will provide a leveled playing field where competition and competence-Both on individual and organizational levels-are the determinants of success and wealth distribution. The role of the government should be limited to ensuring that this playing field remains democratic.
The deformities we are saying in Jordan are a result of a combination of factors, but the main factors in my humble opinion are the lack of equal opportunity, nepotism, social dependence on government-oriented band-aids, and the exploding size of the government.