International inequality

International inequality refers to the topic of inequality between countries and can be compared to global inequality, which refers to inequality between people across countries. Recent international inequality research has primarily been concentrated on the rise of international income inequality, but a broadens scope of international disparity may also include factors such as educational and health inequality, as well as differences in medical access.
Reducing inequality within and among countries is the 10th goal of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ensuring that no one is left behind are both central for achieving them.
International inequality around the globe can be measured by looking at the Gini coefficient, a simple term that allows us to track a single number whose rise or fall implies an increase or decrease in inequality in one country, or to compare relative levels of inequality in different countries.
According to the United Nations Human Development Report 2004, the gross domestic per capita (GDP) in countries with high, medium and low human development (a classification based on the UN Human Development Index) was 24,806, 4,269 and 1,184 PPP$, respectively (PPP$ = purchasing power parity measured in United States dollars). The wealthiest people in the world, especially those with over $100,000 in assets, 1.8% of the global population, own 86.4% of the overall wealth (See data for more information).
Proposed explanations.
In economics and political science, a variety of explanations have been advanced to explain the magnitude of the disparity in economic growth and development between nations.
Causes.
Multiple hypotheses have been proposed to explain international inequality, but none of them explains all observed facts:
1. Geography: The location of countries often affects their economy. For example, landlocked countries historically have had a disadvantage of not accessing low-cost sea trade routes.;
2. Colonialism: Many countries experienced (or are experiencing) times, when other nation(s) deprived them of economic and social progress.
3. Structure of Economy: the economies of wealthy countries are usually based on high profit margin and monopolistic industries (such as software Software industry and patented pharmaceuticals Pharmaceutical industry), whereas mid-income countries rely more on industrial manufacturing, and poor countries have agricultural economies.
4. Population Growth: Poor countries have had a large increase in population over the years. This causes a lack of resources. More people mean more resources being used. 
5. Government Policies: most dictatorial regimes limit business development opportunities to their citizens, see North Korea as an example.
6. Political Instability: Countries that have no governmental structure have problems with deciding how to use resources. For example, Angola has an abundance of resources. However, due to not having a stable political system, they are suffering from a poor economy and low life-expectancy.
7. Natural Disasters: Earthquakes, droughts, hurricanes, and many other disasters play a role in the inequality within countries.
8. Some theories put forward arguments of biological differences between nations, such as based on childhood malnutrition (see IQ and the Wealth of Nations).
9. The continuing use in the international trade of the US dollar after the end of its gold convertibility (see Bretton Woods system) allows the US government to create wealth simply by emitting new money.
Differences in economic institutions.
Economic institutions such as competitive markets, credible contracts and systems of property rights allow economic agents to pursue the economic activities which form the basis of growth. It has been argued that the presence or absence of strong economic institutions is a primary determinant of development. Economists have begun to consider the set of economic institutions adopted by countries as a choice that is in turn determined endogenously by competing social forces.
In the colonial setting.
Pointing to European colonization as a "natural experiment," Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson argue that colonizers who encountered dense populations with developed economies such as in Central America and India were incentived to impose extractive economic institutions, while colonizers who encountered sparse populations with few natural resources such as in North America were more likely to institute broad-based property rights. This resulted in a "reversal of fortune" around 1800 as regions which were under-developed at the time of colonization were able to industrialize more effectively. By instrumenting the strength of property rights in colonized nations with European settler mortality (a quasi-random determinant of whether Europeans were able to establish colonies), the authors conclude in a widely cited paper that the majority of present-day inequality among former European colonies can be attributed to the persisting role of economic institutions.
Path dependence.
In the context of development, path dependence encapsulates the idea that certain decisive moments in history may have an outsized and persistent impact on the long-run economic and political character of nations. These moments, known as critical junctures, may produce outcomes that induce positive feedback and thereby set nations on patterns of development that are difficult to reverse.
In Central America.
Political scientist James Mahoney has examined the political consequences of a period of liberal reform that swept Central America in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As an example of path dependence, the author argues that whether policies were implemented along radical or reformist guidelines directly determined the success of the liberalization efforts and ultimately resulted in vastly different political outcomes which persisted for decades, ranging from military authoritarian regimes (Guatemala and El Salvador) to progressive democracy (Costa Rica).
Other explanations.
A multitude of other explanations have been propounded including:
Economic inequality in Industrial revolution.
The Industrial Revolution had a big impact on the inequality between people and countries, giving the new parameters of what is a rich or poor country. The Industrial Revolution gives a new sense to the word "Powerful country" and this was if you are an industrialized country you have power and if you are non-industrialized you are weak. To keep the factories, machines and workers in a good state the countries needed primary material so one of the industrialized countries, England had an idea, to extract these primary materials from the non-developed countries (colonies), then other industrialized countries like Japan, the United States and Russia did the same strategy as England, they used the poorest countries to their own benefit, and the imperialism began in this point: this was the practice extending the power of powerful countries in the poorest ones, controlling the economy, production and politics, making the wealthy nations more wealthy and the poorest nations poorer. Inside the countries, the tight gap between the social classes became bigger, and the powerful people started to make the technologies of machines, doing the process faster and cheaper, so many workers lost their jobs because the machines could replace them, creating more inequality between the social classes.
International inequality during COVID-19.
The COVID-19 pandemic is widely believed to have worsened global income inequality by lowering per capita incomes in developing countries more than in developed countries. However, despite better-quality health systems, higher wages, more competent governments, and better preparedness, rich countries have seen more deaths per head than poor countries. Thus, looking at country by country, international income inequality has decreased during COVID-19. Yet, looking at countries in terms of population, international income inequality increased. On the other side, data from the UN shows how the pandemic has hit the vulnerable groups hardest, including people of age, people with disabilities, children, women and refugees.
International wealth distribution.
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. In 2013, Oxfam International released a report to The World Economic Forum that the richest 1% owns 48 percent of the global wealth. In 2014, Oxfam reported that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people. More recently, in January 2015, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1 percent will own more than half of the global wealth by 2016.
The major component of the world's income inequality (the global Gini coefficient) is comprised by two groups of countries (called the "twin peaks" by Quah [1997]).
Economic inequality often closely matches a lognormal or Pareto distribution both across economies and within them.
The evolution of the income gap between poor and rich countries is related to convergence. Convergence can be defined as "the tendency for poorer countries to grow faster than richer ones and, hence, for their levels of income to converge". Convergence is a matter of current research and debate, but most studies have shown lack of evidence for absolute convergence based on comparisons among countries.
According to current research, global income inequality peaked approximately in the 1970s when world income was distributed bimodally into "rich" and "poor" countries with little overlap. Since then inequality have been rapidly decreasing, and this trend seems to be accelerating. Income distribution is now unimodal, with most people living in middle-income countries.
Global Poverty.
Global poverty is when people within certain countries are living on less than a dollar a day.
There are six different aspects that can attribute to global poverty.
Six Dimensional Aspects.
1. Hunger: Countries without the proper amount of food to survive.
2. Mental state: This is where people or the country as a whole are feeling powerless, ashamed, or humiliated. This is connected to the fact that they must rely or ask other countries for help and are unable to survive on their own.
3. Poor groundwork: Lack of roads, clean water, transportation, etc. meaning that they do not have a stable foundation in order to provide these things.
4. Education: People do not have access to proper education or any education at all.
5. Health: Countries are unable to provide the proper health care that many people need in order to survive.
6. Lack of income: People within a poor country tend to put income aside and focus on their family, physical, and environmental assets.
Lack of Decline in Global Poverty.
Along with these six-dimensional aspects, there are also some more things preventing the decline of global poverty. One reason is because of the ongoing armed conflicts going on throughout countries. Some countries who are suffering from poverty, and are not receiving aid from other countries due to not wanting to be a part of the conflict. Countries do not want to cause problems with other countries, so they decide to stay neutral and not help.
A second reason for number of countries in poverty not declining would be that there is not a lot of support from other countries. Many rich countries, such as the United States, do not give a lot of support to countries in poverty. Again, this can connect to the sense of not wanting to get involved with countries in conflict.
The final reason has to do with certain organizations not knowing where and what to start with. These organizations can see that there are a lot of countries who are in poverty and need help. However, it can be a challenge deciding who gets what money and how much they get. These organizations do not have unlimited funds and need to be careful where money is being used.
Comparisons.
Some of the economic disparities among nations can be better appreciated when rich and poor countries or societies are contrasted. For example, with regard to income inequality, according to some estimates by Branko Milanovic from the World Bank:
With regard to wealth inequality (researchers defined wealth as the value of physical and financial assets minus debts), a 2006 report with data from 2000 concluded that:
James Davies, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Ontario, and one of the authors of the report, said: "Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth." "There is a group of problems in developing countries that make it difficult for people to build assets, which are important, since life is so precarious."
Other disparities can be better appreciated when rich individuals (or corporations) are compared against poor individuals. According to some estimates, for instance:
Data.
As of 2017, over 70% of the world's adults have under $10,000 in wealth. This can be seen through the bar graph on the right. 
This bar graph also shows that as the value rises, the total percentage of adults falls. This is because there are not a large percent of people who make a lot nor have a lot. Only .7% of the world has one million dollars or more in wealth.
However, looking at the wealth share, this number continues to rise. This is because those few people who have higher assets in wealth, typically hold a larger percentage of the world's wealth.
Wealth:
Income:
Welfare spending: If East Asia and southern Latin American countries are taken out of the equation, the differences in government spending between the industrialized and developing is as follows:
Therefore, in contrast to the North, the developing states are far more vulnerable to the pressures arising from economic globalization. Overall, social spending is far lower in the South, with some regions registering just a few percentage points of GDP. However, some people argue that decrease in welfare spending is not an issue of global inequality but rather a common phenomenon in an era of globalization.
Proposed solutions.
Some potential solutions to help with decreasing the inequality levels are:
 