Hello, geographers.

My name is Mrs. Griffiths.

And today's lesson is all about the consequences of global inequalities.

You'll be aware of some of the causes of global inequalities perhaps and the pattern of uneven development we see across the world.

But the question is, what are the knock-on effects of those inequalities, of those inequalities between income and level of economic development, between higher income countries, lower income countries, and even newly emerging economies or middle income countries? So we're gonna think about what are the knock-on effects for people who live in those countries, and arguably, for all of us.

Let's get started.

Our outcome for today is, "I can explain what the consequences of global inequalities are." And we have some keywords.

The first is poverty.

The definition being more than lack of income, it includes hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education, and other basic services.

Infectious disease, an illness that may be passed from one person to another.

Economic migrant, a person who moves to another country with better working or living conditions.

Refugee, a person forced to flee their home and seek safety in another country.

Remittances then, payments sent home by migrants to members of their family or community.

So those are our keywords and look out for those 'cause we're gonna be using those across the lesson.

Okay, so our lesson breaks down into two parts.

The first question we're going to answer is, how do inequalities affect wealth and health? And then we're gonna be thinking about how is migration linked to global inequalities? So let's start on that first one, how do inequalities affect wealth and health? But first, here's a map of the world.

What do you notice about this map of the world? You're a geographer.

Well, you might say to me, "I notice it's rectangular in shape," and you'd be absolutely right.

We've taken what we know is a 3D shape, the globe, the Earth on which we live, and I've made it into a 2D image here in this map.

So we've had to make some compromises and we've had to do certain things to make our 3D shape fit onto a 2D image.

And I'm gonna talk about those in a moment, but the first is I've created this rectangle.

One thing you might notice, and a compromise that's been made in this particular map projection, is that areas near the pole appear disproportionately larger than they are.

And that's true if we look at Greenland or parts of North America, also Russia and Antarctica.

This particular map projection, sorry, tripping over it, is called an equirectangular map projection.

This means that lines of longitude run parallel to each other and are equidistant.

You'll remember the Greenwich Meridian or the prime meridian is a line of longitude.

and all those lines of longitude are running parallel to each other and equidistant, but we've made some compromises in making this map.

Now, we're looking a little bit more closely at mapping here because I've got a really out exciting map to show you in a moment called a cartogram.

But first, just in terms of what you notice about this map, yup, the world is divided into regions by colour.

Maybe some of you said that first.

This is gonna be helpful when we compare this map, which I'm gonna call our reference map, to a cartogram map where territories have been resized according to a particular variable.

And the cartogram I'm gonna show you is looking at share of global income.

So when you look at this map, can you imagine it where the countries are resized to reflect whether they have a large share of global income or a small share of global income? Well, here is the map.

So this is a cardiogram map which shows the proportion of global gross national income, GNI, founded in each country or territory looks a bit different, doesn't it? That's why we needed those colours, didn't we? So that we can actually look back at our reference map in a second.

Here it is.

And think, oh, okay, so that is that part of world, that's that region, I can see that, yeah, Australia's got a bit smaller.

North America's got larger.

That's how this is all created to reflect the share of global income.

So first check for you then, I want you to compare those two maps and come up with three big differences.

How'd you get on? Well, some of you'll have said, "Well, North America and Northern Europe have blown up like balloons, haven't they?" Those regions are much larger than they would normally appear on a map.

Also, you might have said, "Well, Eastern, Southeastern, and Southern Asia along the Middle East, or you might have called it Western Asia, have also grown.

Japan and South Korea are huge too." So we've got lots of different areas of the world that have grown in size, that they're larger than they are conventionally mapped, and that's to reflect their larger share of global income.

However, you might have said to me, "Well, Western, Central, and Eastern Africa along with South America have definitely shrunk in size." And I mentioned Australia earlier, so I'm sure you've spotted some of these areas have grown and some have shrunk.

So we've almost got that pattern of inequality really well depicted in that cartogram for us.

Poverty is more than lack of income.

It includes and malnutrition, limited access to education, and other basic services, as well as the lack of participation in decision-making.

And that's all in that United Nations definition of poverty.

Clearly that lack of participation in decision-making must refer to lack of being able to vote perhaps for the government.

Uneven development results in disparities of average income between low income countries, newly emerging economies, and high income countries.

In countries with the lowest incomes, the majority of people live in poverty.

Even in countries with rapidly growing economies, we're talking about those NEEs, millions of people live in poverty still.

And that's partly 'cause they've got large populations.

So for example, in Southern Asia's NEEs, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, we've got millions of people living in poverty.

And similarly in Africa's NEEs, that include Nigeria, Egypt, and Ethiopia, while the economy is rapidly growing, we still have millions of people living in poverty.

So what are the consequence of that? Well, if we compare the map of GNI to a map of malaria deaths, this comparison clearly demonstrates the inverse relationship between income, wealth, and health.

So we've got malaria deaths there on the left-hand side.

So each country is mapped in terms of its share of the total global number of people that die from malaria.

And we're comparing that to income and share of global income.

And I said there's an inverse relationship between income or wealth and health.

What does that mean? Have a look at those two maps.

Well, we've got this comment here that, for example, Western, Central, and Eastern Africa are much larger than actual size or the size of which they're normally depicted on a map on the left.

But looking at the share of global income, they are barely visible.

So we've got on the left-hand side, these regions have blown up like balloons.

And on the right-hand side, they've shrunk down to a tiny size of their normal size on a map.

So we can see that inverse relationship between health and wealth.

Uneven development means that healthcare is unaffordable for many LICs, so the governments and the people that live there.

Treatable infectious diseases remain the most common causes of death.

Now, I don't know how much you know about malaria, but malaria is an infectious disease.

It's spread by parasites, transmitted by mosquitoes that bite people in countries with wet tropical climate.

Malaria, however, is treatable, and with the creation of new vaccines in the last decade preventable, but its eradication in Western, Central, and Eastern Africa is still far off.

So we can see that impact of uneven development on people's life expectancy.

True or false for you then.

Income inequality affects the average life expectancy of a population.

And remember, I'm gonna ask you to explain why.

And if you said true, you'd be absolutely right.

Why is that? Well, lack of income limits access to healthcare.

This can be seen in the distribution of malaria deaths, which are highest in the world's poorest countries.

The infectious disease is treatable and preventable.

So malaria's treatable and preventable, and yet we're seeing high levels of death still in the poorest countries.

Global income inequality can also be presented on a distribution graph.

So we've been looking at those fantastic cartograms produced by Worldmapper and now we have a distribution graph.

So this graph shows the spread of incomes within the Ethiopian and Danish populations.

And if we look closely at this graph, we've got on the x-axis, we've got global average income map there of $16 per day, but we've got the full scale there, haven't we? From less than $2 right up to $200 a day.

And that's because we've got a distribution graph here plotted on a logarithmic scale, which allows us to have a wide range of data on the same graph.

Have a look at this graph.

What do you notice about this graph? Well, we've got a comment here from Andeep.

"The range of incomes within Denmark, a high income country, does not overlap.

It appears to hardly at all overlap with the range of incomes within Ethiopia and newly emerging economies." That's quite surprising, isn't it? We haven't got that income at all overlapping.

What do you think might be the impact of this income inequality? Well here, I've got some facts for you.

In Ethiopia, a quarter of the population lives in poverty.

A quarter.

Almost half of all deaths in Ethiopia relate to infectious diseases, birth complications including maternal mortality, or poor nutrition.

And life expectancy in Denmark is 16.

3 years higher than in Ethiopia.

So that's a really chunky difference, isn't it, in terms of overall life expectancy.

Remember, we're talking about averages there.

So we can really see the of income inequality if we just focus on those two countries for a moment.

So true or false.

On average, people in Denmark have an income close to the global average income.

Remember I'm gonna ask you why.

And if you said false, that's not true, I hope your explanation was something like this.

The average income in Denmark is more than three times the global average.

Almost everyone in Denmark has an income above the global average.

So well done if you said something like that.

I have a practise task for you here.

Let's have a look at it.

Using these maps, make a list of the world's wealthiest regions.

So we've got our reference map with an enlarged key for you there.

And then we have our cartogram of share of global income.

Second question asks you to describe two differences between these two cartograms. We've got the graph on the left there we've seen already, which is malaria deaths or share of malaria deaths by country, and then we have no secondary education.

So what share of each country do they have in terms of the share of people globally that have no secondary education? So I want you to describe two differences between those.

And then thirdly, suggest a reason for one of the differences you've identified, only one of the differences.

So grab a pen and we've got some questions to answer here.

Restart the video when you're ready to check your answers.

Okay, how do we get on? So if we were going to use these maps to make a list of the world's wealthiest regions, our answer was North America, Northern Europe, Western Asia, and Eastern Asia.

So using the names of those regions from the UN's division of the world into regions.

Secondly, describing two differences between those two cartograms. We had malaria deaths on the left.

We had share of no secondary education on the right.

The map of malaria deaths shows that most occur in the regions of Western, Central, and Eastern Africa, whereas the geographic spread of people who have no secondary education is much broader within Africa.

So if we just take a continent, our first difference we've looked at is, well, if we just compare those two maps and look at one continent, this is how those two patterns differ.

Secondly, we've looked at Western, Southern, and Southeastern Asia.

They have a large share of people who have no secondary education, though few deaths from malaria.

So that's a difference between those two patterns.

So few people dying from malaria, although lots of people not receiving a secondary education.

Then we've suggested why for that second difference, so poverty explains why some people don't receive a secondary education in the Asian regions highlighted, perhaps malaria deaths occur where there's a combination of poverty and a tropical climate.

So for example, you don't find a tropical climate in Western Asia.

I wonder how your suggestion of the difference worked for that one.

Okay, so well done for having go at that task.

We've got this second question to answer, which is, how is migration linked to global inequalities? Firstly, let's define what we mean by international migration.

As you know, international migration is the movement of people from one country to another.

One of the key reasons for migration is income inequality.

An economic migrant is a person who moves to another country with better working or living conditions.

Can you think of another factor why else might people move? The picture gives you a bit of a clue, doesn't it, of course.

Well, you are right if you said that conflict forces people to flee their homes to seek safety in another country.

Such migrants are known as refugees.

And we have that example of Ukrainian refugees fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

So if we think about the global picture of migration, how is it changing, and how big an issue is it that we're looking at here? Well, we can see that migrants as a percentage of the global population were 2.

8% in 2000.

And then again, they'd grown to 3.

6% of global population in 2020.

So still a very small percentage of people on the move, but those numbers have increased over that 20-year period.

Migration, as the UN states, is a driver of human development and can generate significant benefits for migrants, their families, and countries of origin.

That makes sense, doesn't it? Can you imagine, are there also benefits for countries that receive migrants? We might call them destination countries? Well, I've got a list for you here.

How did you get on? So economic benefits for destination countries firstly.

Boost of the skills.

If we have skilled young people moving country, then that's bringing newly skilled workers to the country.

And overall, an increase in the supply of the labour force.

Often, economic benefits include an increase in the overall national income.

And the UN reports that migrants are a source of dynamism being overrepresented in a list of people who perhaps invented products or started successful startup companies.

And then lastly, we have the idea that with ageing populations, particularly higher income countries where the population's ageing, we've got a growing population of elderly people that need to be supported by pensions.

Now, how is the government going to fund those pensions? Well, if they've got more workers coming in with their skills, then perhaps they can tax them and pay for those pensions.

So a whole wide range of economic benefits for destination countries.

Of course, immigration can also have negative impacts, for example, reducing wages locally or affecting, overly affecting a particular sector and reducing wages in that sector.

However, adverse impacts tend to be outweighed by a wide range of social and economic benefits felt by the country.

So for example, many places in the UK are enriched by being multicultural.

Where do people move from and to? So if we think about in 2024, the top international migration corridors, can you imagine where they were? Well here, we have the top five.

So Mexico to the USA, Syria to Turkey, Ukraine to Russia, India to the United Arab Emirates, Russia to Ukraine.

What motivates people to take these routes to a new life? Well, we've covered this to some extent already, haven't we? I've talked about income inequality being a major one and conflict or threat to life being another.

And you can maybe start to see the links between those factors and those top migration corridors.

Worth remembering that not all economic migrants are able to travel as they choose.

So routes are limited by destination countries and we're certainly seeing a lot of talk about that in the news at the moment.

Check for you then.

Fill in the missing corridor, sorry, countries for the world's top migration corridors in 2024.

Can you remember what we were just looking at? What's the top country of origin moving into the USA? And number four, where were most migrants coming from that move to the UAE? I'm sure you're able to remember Mexico for number one, and India for number four.

So the largest flow of migrants was from Mexico to the USA and the fourth largest migration corridor flow was from India to the UAE.

Well done.

If the number of emigrants, that's people leaving, is subtracted from the number of immigrants, people arriving, we can see the overall impact of migration.

Here, we have a map that shows the net effect of migration per thousand people in every country's population.

It's actually a really clever map because it means we can better assess the scale of the effect migration might be having.

And you can see the map uses two colour families.

So we've got red getting darker as the larger the impact of the loss, the net loss of people.

And then we've got blue being used in terms of the gain to the population in terms of more people coming in than people leaving.

And that's the darker the blue, the greater the sort of net gain.

So some countries are experiencing globally a net gain, while others see a net loss of people.

Check for you then here.

Who was listening on this map then? How does the map show where there is a larger difference between immigrants in and emigrants out per thousand of the population? And if you said, well, by darker shading, you'd be absolutely right.

So we got darker shading showing a larger net loss, as well as darker shading showing greater net gain.

We just happened to use two colour families on this particular choropleth map.

Well done.

Remittances, so high income countries are the main source of remittances.

If you remember, these are the payments sent home by migrants to members of their family or community.

So if we can see the countries where lots of migrants are and are sending money home to where they originated from, they're living in the USA, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and Germany.

But in terms of where that money's going, here's a map, this one's a choropleth map again showing countries in terms of their share of GDP made up by that money that's been sent home from abroad.

What do you notice about where the money's going? Well, well done if you spotted that actually, remittances are received by high income countries as well as the lower income countries and the newly emerging economies.

But some countries depend on these remittances more than others clearly.

I wonder if you can name any country with more than 20% of its income coming from remittance payments.

Have a look at the map.

Well, here we have El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bermuda, Haiti, and Jamaica.

So we're looking at Central America there and the Caribbean.

You might have said, "Well, I can see Gambia in Western Africa or Lesotho in Southern Africa." Not an easy country to spot, that one.

It's tiny in size.

We've also got in Central Asia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.

And then Nepal's one that jumps out at me.

So Nepal receiving more than 20% of its income from remittance payments, Well done if you spotted that.

As we know, not all migrants are moving voluntarily.

Refugees are people forced to flee their home and seek safety in another country.

Here's another choropleth map.

It's a map showing the proportion of refugees from individual countries.

So these are the number of refugees per 100,000 of the population by place of origin, where did they start from, those refugees.

We can see there are particular refugee hotspots from which a larger proportion of the population has fled.

I wonder if you can suggest a reason for this pattern or going back to the idea of locational knowledge, can you name key places involved? Well, in 2023, conflict caused a large proportion of the local population to seek safety elsewhere, in particular from Ukraine.

I'm sure a number of people said that.

Syria, you might well have said that to me.

Afghanistan, I'm sure you highlighted that, cited previous conflicts and certainly persecution of much of the population.

Western Sahara, Central African Republic, and South Sudan, neighbouring countries there in Central Africa.

Eritrea there in the East, and Somalia.

So well done if you're able to identify all of those, clearly conflict driving the movement of refugees in 2023.

How does this pattern of where refugees come from link to what we're talking about, global inequalities, I wonder? Well, we've identified eight different populations, now seven of those are in countries that are listed in the UN's Human Development Index.

So Western Sahara isn't in that index because it's not a country in its own right, it's part of Morocco and it's a disputed territory.

But seven of those feature in that UN's HDI.

And I can tell you that six of those seven have a low human development score.

So we've got that idea of a link between the level of economic development or human development and conflict.

I spoke about Western Sahara before and here we have a photograph showing that tens of thousands of Sahrawi refugees live in camps in Algeria, to a neighbouring country.

A conflict for the control of their home in Western Sahara followed Spain's withdrawal in 1975.

So we can see that link back to a cause of global inequalities being colonialism.

And then what's been left when the colonial power has withdrawn is conflict over this disputed territory.

And, you know, collateral damage is tens of thousands of refugees living in neighbouring countries.

Now, we might imagine that these encampments are temporary, but in reality, people might live in these temporary encampments for years and years.

And, of course, there's a human cost to that large number of people being displaced by conflict.

Not only are they affected in terms of their general health and wellbeing, but also their mental health.

So real human consequences of global inequalities there.

Check for you here.

True or false.

International migration is a consequence of global inequalities.

Is that true or false? And why? It's true.

What was your reason? Well, we had here that the difference between incomes in LICs, NEEs, and HICs means that some people are motivated to move to gain a better quality of life if the opportunity is available.

Refugees flee their home because of conflict.

Numerous conflicts involve the world's poorest countries.

Well done if you had something like that.

Another check for you here.

International migration can help to reduce global inequalities.

Is that true or false and how? And if you said true, you'd be absolutely right.

Our how was as follows.

Economic migrants send home remittances to help family members.

This money earned in HICs can be used to pay for higher education or healthcare that might otherwise be unaffordable in poorer countries, or communities, sorry, in LICs.

I'm sure you had a really good answer to that one.

Okay, practise tasks for you then.

I need you to use an atlas or online resources to classify the countries in the table below by type of economy.

So we're talking about the high income, the lower income, or the NEE.

And I'd like you to suggest the most likely type of migrant taking the route.

So we've got listed there, those top five migration corridors.

Second up, I'd like you to explain why uneven development causes international migration.

And then thirdly, suggest how international migration can help to address global inequalities using the map and your own understanding.

So I suggest you grab a pen, pause the video and then restart it when you're ready to check your answers.

Okay, how did you get on? Here's our completed table.

So we can see that, of course, migrants moving from Mexico to the USA are moving from a newly emerging economy to a higher income country.

We can also see that Turkey is a high income country and those migrants that are moving are refugees, most likely.

Third migration corridor, we have Ukraine moving to Russia.

And at the time, it was a newly emerging economy and Russia being a high income country, but mostly those were refugee movements.

Fourthly, we have India sending lots of migrants to the UAE, from an NEE to HIC, and those are primarily economic migrants.

And then the movement on migrants from Russia to Ukraine is again primarily a movement of refugees, at the time when we were looking at that 2023 migration corridors.

How'd you get on with this question too? Bit more challenging, wasn't it? Explain why uneven development causes international migration.

This was our answer.

Economic migrants are people who move country voluntarily, seeking a better paid job and a better quality of life.

As a result of uneven development, there are large disparities between people's incomes in LICs and HICs.

This means that young people with the right skills may seek work in an HIC.

Those such opportunities for LIC workers, sorry, are limited.

But not all migration is voluntary and some people are forcibly displaced by war.

Refugees seek safety abroad in order to escape persecution.

In the 21st century, some of the world's poorest countries are also sites of conflict where opposing groups seek to undermine the government.

So we've got that link between conflict and poverty and underdevelopment there.

So that makes it quite a good answer, that one.

Thirdly, how'd you get on suggesting how international migration could actually help to address global inequalities? The answer we had was international migration can help to address the gap in income level between LICs and HICs if people who migrate for work send money home to family.

For example, in some countries, remittances contribute more than 20% of GDP.

There's the link to the map.

This money can be invested in schooling to improve the skills of future workers who will contribute to developing the economy.

Perhaps to improve the answer, we might make a really more, slightly more explicit link to the map by talking about, for example, Nepal, where we've got that mention of 20% of GDP coming from remittances.

But otherwise, a really good answer.

So well done if you had an answer something like that.

How did you use that map? Okay, so in summary, what have we been covering today? Uneven development results in disparities in wealth.

A quarter of the population in Ethiopia lives below the poverty line.

Preventable infectious diseases are a common cause of death in some NEEs and many LICs due to lack of healthcare.

International migration is another consequence of global inequalities, and we've looked at the way that conflict creates refugee movements.

Many of today's sites of conflict are also the poorest countries in the world.

Some of the largest international migration corridors link NEEs and LICs to HICs.

HICs are the main source of remittances, and such payments mostly to LICs and NEEs may help to address global inequalities.

So I hope you can see there's some really significant consequences of global inequalities and how those consequences are felt in those countries, but also worldwide.

Well done for joining me today and working so hard on those practise tasks and I look forward to seeing you very soon.