TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan: The case for better income distribution

OKONOMOS

Why more egalitarian countries win wars.

What wins you wars "" better firepower, economic depth, superior organisation, national character, better espionage, superior strategy, mistakes by the enemy? None of these.

In a recent paper for the University of Texas Inequality Project, James K Galbraith, Corwin Priest, and George Purcell* say, ceteris paribus, it is a better distribution of income that pretty much guarantees a victory. It seems between 1816 and 1962 more egalitarian countries have won 119 of 148 times.

In their own words, "given the occurrence of war between two countries, the country that is more egalitarian at the moment of military decision is likely to emerge the victor." The evidence, they adduce, is hugely convincing. They have examined 80 wars between countries between 1816 and 1962. Some of them involved dozens of countries.

They also say that since democracies tend to be more egalitarian, they are more likely to win but, alas, not always. "There have been a handful of wars in which democracies were pitted against states more egalitarian than themselves...these were the twentieth century's wars over Communism... in all these cases the Communist country prevailed..."

Indeed, it seems the communists never lose to a less egalitarian state. India had, therefore, better watch out against China (assuming, of course, that China is Communist or more egalitarian). "In 1962, the Chinese People's Liberation Army made short work of the Indian forces defending the Northeast Frontier Agency and Ladakh. In all of these cases, the more egalitarian side prevailed, notwithstanding a much weaker industrial system and lower per capita income." China had a better income distribution than India in 1962? Is that for sure?

Another example from India relates to the old Manipur-Burma wars. "...we do know that Manipur adopted a highly stratified caste system in the centuries prior to their disastrous wars with Burma. Burmese society was largely pastoral with relatively egalitarian land tenure."

Then there is the Mughal conquest of India. The authors say it was because India, thanks to the caste system, was a highly unequal society then. After 1947, of course, they say that India always wins against Pakistan because it is more egalitarian.

So what? "All of this raises questions that ought to be disturbing to those who believe a free-market economic order can be combined with sustained military dominance in the modern world." Ergo if the US thinks that it can win wars in spite of rising income inequality, it had better think again. Defeat is almost certain.

Why do more egalitarian countries win more wars than less egalitarian ones? The authors offer three explanations. First, social solidarity and therefore military morale are higher in more egalitarian countries. Second, in inegalitarian countries the forces are more equipped to deal with internal security. Third, in unequal countries loyalty of the lower ranks can't be taken for granted.

Most people will disagree with these explanations. After all, luck also plays a part.

Likewise, one must also wonder what a better income distribution had to do with Hermann Goering's decision to switch from the daylight bombing of England to night bombing which served no purpose at all. That one decision was to cost Hitler the war eventually.

Going back a bit further, I have for long maintained that Napoleon lost at Waterloo in 1815 because he started the battle late owing to an upset tummy kept him busy most of the previous night. He was to have started the battle at 8 am but waited till noon for the runs to stop. This gave time for the Prussian, Blucher, to arrive and help Wellington. (The official version is that the ground was wet).

But Galbraith, Priest and Purcell don't agree. "It is even more probable that the France of 1815 was less egalitarian than the British, if not the Prussians, that Napoleon faced at Waterloo."

Probable, not certain?

*Economic Equality and Victory in War: An Empirical Investigation, The University of Texas Inequality Project, UTIP Working Paper No 37. June, 2006
http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/utip_37.pdf