Towards egalitarianism of opportunity

Rank Name Age Net worth $bl
5 Lakshmi Mittal 56 32
14 Mukesh Ambani 49 20.1
18 Anil Ambani 47 18.2
21 Azim Premji 61 17.1
62 Kushal Pal Singh 75 10
69 Sunil Mittal & family 49 9.5
86 Kumar Birla 39 8
86 Shashi & Ravi Ruia NA 8
114 Ramesh Chandra 67 6.4
137 Pallonji Mistry 77 5.6
210 Adi Godrej & family 64 4.1
214 Shiv Nadar 61 4
279 Dilip Shanghvi 51 3.1
287 Cyrus Poonawalla 65 3
287 Indu Jain* 70 3
349 Kalanithi Maran 41 2.6
349 Grandhi Rao 57 2.6
390 Savitri Jindal & family 57 2.4
390 Tulsi Tanti 49 2.4
407 Subhash Chandra 56 2.3
432 Uday Kotak 48 2.2
458 Baba Kalyani 58 2.1
488 Malvinder & Shivinder Singh NA 2
557 NR Narayana Murthy 60 1.8
618 Anurag Dikshit 35 1.6
618 Venugopal Dhoot 55 1.6
664 Vijay Mallya 51 1.5
664 Jaiprakash Gaur 76 1.5
717 Vikas Oberoi 36 1.4
754 Nandan Nilekani 51 1.3
799 Senapathy Gopalakrishnan 51 1.2
840 Pradeep Jain 41 1.1
840 Keshub Mahindra 83 1.1
840 Rahul Bajaj 68 1.1

The rise of ever more billionaires causes much anguish at growing inequalities. Forbes magazine says that India has produced 14 additional billionaires in the last year, taking its total to 36. This is more than the 24 billionaires in Japan, Asia’s richest country. The Left Front will gleefully declare that globalisation has made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I too find it depressing that a billion people round the world remain mired in poverty. But I cheer those self-made men and women, from families of modest means, who have nevertheless clawed their way to the top of the wealth ladder through sheer talent, perseverance and guts. Forbes reports that no less than 60% of the world’s billionaires are self-made. This is not a sign of the rich getting richer. It is egalitarianism by other means. This is not socialist egalitarianism which seeks equality of outcome for all. But it is a step toward liberal egalitarianism, which seeks equality of opportunity.

We are seeing an explosion of billionaires in countries that traditionally had none, and from families of modest means. No longer is wealth limited to a handful of ultra-rich white families. The talented are now overtaking old wealth, both within their own countries and in the world.

Forbes lists a record 946 billionaires in 2006. The list has 178 newcomers, including 19 Russians, 14 Indians, 13 Chinese and 10 Spaniards, as well as the first billionaires from Cyprus, Oman, Romania and Serbia. Forbes says that of its listed billionaires, 17% became poorer and 32 dropped below the billion-dollar mark. The rich don’t always get richer.
The new billionaires have made money in everything from media to computer software, from real estate to coffee. They have converted their excellent human capital into financial capital. That represents progress towards a world of merit.
Sadly, one billion people remain poor. They lack the access to education, capital, networks and infrastructure that are vital to convert talent into riches. In too many countries, the state has failed to provide the basic framework that will help talented people rise fast. No serious attempt has been made in India to reform the face of government that the villager sees—the school teacher, the primary health worker, the PWD engineer, the thanedar, the patwari. Reform all these areas, and we should see many more billionaires.

Of the self-made people in the list, Lakshmi Mittal does not really qualify. He was born in a business family. Yet by global standards he is self-made, since his family lacked the means to build or buy large steel plants. Instead he used his manegerial talent to take over sick steel mills for a song across the world, and turn them round. Once he gained critical mass, he went for big takeovers.

Computer software has yielded a spate of Indian billionaires. Azim Premji of Wipro inherited a vegetable oil business but converted it into a software major. Three middle-class founders of Infosys have become billionaires—NR Narayanmurthy, Nandan Nilekani and Senapathy Gopalakrishnan. Ditto for Shiv Nadar of HCL.

The Left Front regards stock markets as casino capitalism. In fact the stock market boom has been crucial in converting human capital into financial capital. The world’s money is flooding into India to share in the wealth created by Indian entrepreneurs.

The price of real estate (and realty shares) has gone through the roof. In consequence, many builders unknown to the general public five ars ago now rank among the richest in the world. KP Singh of DLF has long been well known. But many readers may not have heard five years ago of the new billionaires—Ramesh Chandra of Unitech, Grandhi Rao of GMK, Jaiprakah Gaur of JP Associates, Vikas Oberoi of Oberoi Construction, Pradeep Jain of Parsvanath developers.

Most striking is the weak showing of old wealth among the Indian billionaires. Of the big business families in 1947, the only ones in the latest Forbes list are Kumar Birla, Indu Jain (of Bennet Coleman and Co) and Pallonji Mistry. Of the business houses that became big names by the 1970s, the Forbes list includes Adi Godrej, Vijay Mallya, Rahul Bajaj and Keshub Mahindra. The 1980s saw the rise of the Ambanis, Ruias, Venugopal Dhoot and Baba Kalyani of Bharat Forge. Others in the Forbes list blossomed only after economic liberalization in the 1990s.

These include not only the software giants but Subhash Chandra of Zee, Sunil Mittal of Bharti Telephones, Sajjan Jindal of Jindal Steel, Dilip Shangvi of Sun Pharmaceuticals, Tulsi Tanti of Suzlon, Uday Kotak of Kotak Mahindra, and Kalanidhi Maran of the Sun media group. Many came from small business families. But their talent enabled them to leap-frog traditional old wealth in India, and find a place on the world stage.

Socialists will deplore the rise of so many billionaires in the midst of widespread poverty. But amiri hatao does not lead to garibi hatao, as Indira Gandhi demonstrated in the 1970s. I say that 14 new billionaires is not enough. I would like to see a million new billionaires, based entirely on talent. That will be egalitarianism of opportunity.

 

What do you think?