Definition
of Wealth
The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines wealth as abundance of valuable material
possessions or resources. This is based on the old English words “weal” or
“weel” and the Middle English “wele” or “welthe” which refer to well-being,
prosperity, or happiness. Originally, the word can be traced to the Germanic
“welon” which also gave rise to the word “well”. Thus a wealthy person or group
of persons (e.g. business or nation) with an abundance of these possessions or
resources for the common good is referred to as “wealthy” (Merriam-Webster,
2016).
Nonetheless, modern-day definition of “wealth”, with the word first appearing in the 13th century, depends on the context. It is significant to economists who may define “wealth” as “anything of value”, capturing the subjective notion of the word and the fact that it is a fluid concept (Harper, 2012).
Nonetheless, modern-day definition of “wealth”, with the word first appearing in the 13th century, depends on the context. It is significant to economists who may define “wealth” as “anything of value”, capturing the subjective notion of the word and the fact that it is a fluid concept (Harper, 2012).
As
a matter of fact, various economists define the term “wealth” differently. The classical economists view it as a combination
of capital, labor, materials, and technology to make a profit, with the excess
being the generated wealth. Marxian economists differentiate between human
wealth and material wealth. Growth economists view wealth in terms of per
capita while development economists view it in terms of empowering the masses (Smith,
2003).
Economists
further categorize wealth according to personal property, monetary savings and
capital wealth. Inherent in this is social stratification with “wealth” being a
safety net for a person or group of people in a society for a period despite a
downturn in fortunes occasioned by bad decisions, bad health, age, etc. The
period the wealth sustains the person or people is relative to the amount of
wealth they have.
Indeed,
the wealth concept is relative within a society and between societies. Whilst
having US$20,000 for someone in most developing countries would qualify someone
as wealthy, such an amount would not qualify the person as wealthy in the
United States or in many other developed countries (Smith, 2003).
The
wealth concept is also relative to the period. Inventions and innovations have
improved the standards of living over generations, with what may have been
viewed as wealth in the past no longer being viewed as wealth today with
grander wealth being developed over time. For example, a hundred years ago air
travel had just been discovered and travelling by air was for the wealthy.
Today, travelling by air is a convenience for a majority of the population.
|
Usually, the definition of the term “wealth” raises
various ethical issues. Is accumulation of “wealth” even ethical? Can a person
or a people be wealthy if the “wealth” is not for the common good as alluded to
in the definition? (Cathy, 2010).
Yet
for “wealth” to be evident, it has to be compared to its opposite, “destitution”.
“Wealth” is hence relative. Whilst “wealth” satisfies human needs and wants, “destitution”
leads to unsatisfied needs and wants. A person is “wealthy” relative to their
society – as is a society relative to other societies – in that their level of
wealth is evident when compared to the level of wealth or destitution of others
in their reference group. The ethical issues inherent here include a rat race
for acquisition of wealth and concomitant vices such as greed, corruption and envy.
The subsequent social stratification of the “haves” and the “have-nots” spawns
other vices such as crime, environmental degradation and wars (Smith, 2003);
hence the popular saying, “Money is the root of all evil”.
Development
of money enabled measurement of wealth with concomitant wars between and among
nations being a bid to accumulate and exploit the measurable wealth. This fixation on measurable wealth has its
critics with the philosopher Nietzsche lamenting, “Our 'rich people' – those
are the poorest! The real purpose of all wealth has been forgotten!” (Harper,
2012). Such criticism has led to bodies like the United Nations to come up
with the concept “inclusive wealth” to capture natural, human and manufactured
assets.m
It
is therefore important for all those working in the NGO sector to understand
wealth as creating abundance for everyone.
Comments
Post a Comment