If, by sheer dumb luck, you happen to be born one mile north of the Rio Grande, you have economic advantages that you’d miss if you were born one mile south of the same river. According to estimates by the World Bank, the total wealth per capita in Mexico is about $62,000. It’s about $513,000 in the USA. If we imagine that everyone got an equal share of national assets, then simply by changing your citizenship from Mexico to the US, you would multiply your wealth eight-fold. Of course, that’s a false presumption: wealth is very unevenly shared. Merely receiving a US passport does not give you access to $513k in assets. However, lots of per capita wealth is floating around in the US, which offers some trickle-down benefits to the poor and allows the state to afford a lot of public services. Even for the least advantaged, it’s generally better to live in a country with eight times more per capita wealth.

Because one’s location at birth is an accident, this difference seems unjust. One response is to open borders so that people can move; another is to redistribute wealth across borders. Both ideas are highly unrealistic politically but worth considering as moral principles. The World Bank’s study, however, casts some doubt on both. That’s because the Bank attempts to disaggregate national wealth. According to its analysis, the vast majority of a nation’s per capital wealth is due to “intangible” assets such as education, social capital (trust and human networks) and rule of law. In the USA, for instance, natural resources contribute about $15,000 to per capita wealth, physical capital (including buildings, machines, and urban land) contribute about $80,000, but intangible assets contribute $418,000. In Mexico, natural resources contribute $8,000, physical capital adds $19,000, but intangible assets are worth $34,000. The big gap, in other words, is in education, social capital, and governance.

This means that the wealth gap is largely attributable to institutions and culture/society, not to natural resources or accumulated factories and machines. As Michael Edwards of the Ford Foundation wrote, “It’s the polity, stupid.”

This does not mean that we “deserve” the advantages we have. I didn’t build my country’s rule of law, education system, and social networks, any more than I put oil and coal under the earth. To profit from what other human beings have constructed is morally equivalent to benefiting from nature: it’s a matter of luck. Thus it seems to me that if we can make life better in Mexico, we have an obligation to do so, even if it costs us wealth. The World Bank study does, however, raise doubts about whether we could achieve much by simply transferring cash or opening borders. That’s because the path to prosperity lies through social and political reform. Cash would only help if it were very well invested, and emigration might hurt.

I’d like to reply to two thoughtful recent comments. First, Harry Boyte responds to yesterday’s post and helps to develop the connection between hyper-partisanship and divisive politics, on one hand, and technocracy or arrogant expertise, on the other. These two problems are not linked in most of the public discussion–on the contrary, technocrats are seen as apolitical, and populists are depicted as divisive. Harry has been arguing that technocracy and divisiveness are actually part of the same problem.

This, by the way, is a response to Sean Wilentz’ argument that Senator Clinton is the best prepared candidate because she understands and relishes “politics.” Harry would say (I think) that Clinton practices politics in a specific way that is both partisan and technocratic (and therefore not at all like the politics of the New Deal, which Wilentz admires).

Second, Scott Dinsmore (who has a good blog) asks, “What are the pros and cons of populist campaigns and movements carrying the civic renewal banner?”

These are some of the “cons,” in my opinion. There’s a risk that any specific strategies or policies for civic renewal will become identified with a particular candidate, who will inevitably have idiosyncratic interests, values, followers, and frailties. Other candidates may shy away from civic themes, thinking that a competitor has already staked that ground. The version of civic participation that one candidate offers may be thin, limited, or even fake. And then that politician can lose, creating the impression that civic renewal is a loser of a platform.

Now here’s the “pro” side of the argument: There is more than one flavor of civic renewal, so it would be possible for many candidates to stake out civic ground and compete over who is most likely to empower and respect citizens. There can be a “service” version, emphasizing the national and community service programs in and out of schools; a decentralization version, favoring charter schools and local autonomy; a patriotic version, stressing knowledge of the constitution and military service; and a deliberative version, which puts process first. I’d love to see a healthy competition among these “flavors.”

Compared to past decades, we have a richer set of civic experiences and practices at the local level; Bridgeport is just one example. National leaders who understood grassroots civic renewal could bring it to public attention and create supportive national policies.

John Edwards proposed some good ideas for civic participation and explicitly cited the November Fifth Coalition, even though it is a fledgling organization with no money (yet). This was exciting but also risky for us and our friends and allies. We don’t want to depend on any one politician to carry our water, but we must welcome their attention.