What if the super-rich gave their wealth to the poor?

What if the richest families in every country gave all their wealth to the poor? It might seem a far-fetched question, but the answer has already been calculated. The Hoover Index – more commonly known as the Robin Hood index – measures the amount of income inequality in a country by hypothetically distributing the wealth of the rich to the poor.

To see how this applies in Asian countries with significant wealth inequality, we applied the Robin Hood index for seven Asian countries – Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong, Philippines, India, Malaysia and Singapore – and found that if the richest families gave their wealth to their poor compatriots (average disposable income less than half that of the middle class), most would receive just over the average monthly wage of their respective countries, as recorded by the International Labour Organisation.

South Korea

South Korea has considerable wealth inequality, with the top 10 per cent owning 62.8 per cent of the total wealth and earning 10.1 times that of the lowest 10 per cent, according to 2013 data from the OECD. Statistics Korea records that 16.4 per cent of the population is in poverty.

The richest family in South Korea is the Lee dynasty of Samsung Group. Forbes estimated last month that Samsung Group chairman Lee Kun-hee is worth $26.6 billion (Bt947 billion) – 944,871 times more than Koreans’ average annual income.

If the Samsung family’s wealth were to go to 8.3 million of South Korea’s poor, who make an average of $6,226 a year, each of those people would receive $3,217, which is approximately 1.4 times the average monthly wage recorded by the ILO.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong, which runs an independent economic system from China as a Special Administrative Region (SAR), has the highest wealth inequality among the seven Asian countries studied: Its top 10 per cent own 77.5 per cent of the total wealth and earn 63.4 times more than the lowest-earning 10 per cent.

Lee Shau Kee, founder, chairman and managing director of real estate company Henderson Land Development, has assets of $24.1 billion, or 597,000 times the average Hong Konger’s annual wage.

If this money were to be distributed to Hong Kong’s 972,000 poor, each person would have $24,700, which is 7.38 times the SAR’s average monthly wage.

Philippines

The top 10 per cent of the Philippines owns 76 per cent of the total wealth and earns 13.4 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. Nearly a quarter of the country (25.2 per cent) is in poverty.

The richest family in the Philippines is that of Henry Sy, chairman and CEO of SM Investments Corporation, SM Development Corporation and SM Prime Holdings.

If Sy’s family were to equally distribute their $12.3 billion to the poor, each person would receive $492, the amount an average Filipino worker would earn in five years and eight months.

Thailand

The richest 10 per cent in Thailand owns 75 per cent of the nation’s wealth and earns 11 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. Although the poverty rate in Thailand is only 13.2 per cent, nearly 44 per cent of Thais live on less than $5 (Bt180) per day.

The Chearavanont family is the richest in Thailand, with Dhanin Chearavanont worth $19.9 billion as the CEO and chairman of CP Group.

If that wealth was given to 8.9 million of Thailand’s poorest, each person would get $2,226 – about six months’ wages for an average Thai worker. 

India

In India, the top 10 per cent holds 74 per cent of all wealth. The country also has the largest number of people in poverty due to the size of its population: according to the Reserve Bank of India in 2012, 269.7 million, or 21.9 per cent of the total population, are poor.

The family of Mukesh Ambani, chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries, is currently the richest in India with $21.5 billion.

Due to the high number of poor, each person would only end up with $80 if Ambani’s family gave away all their wealth, but the amount would still be higher than the average monthly earnings of 508 million people in India ($37.50).

Malaysia

Malaysia has considerable wealth inequality despite its high gross national income ($10,760), with the top 10 per cent holding 71.8 per cent of all wealth and earning 20 times more than the lowest 10 per cent, according to the World Bank. Additionally, 17.9 per cent of the population live under $4 a day.

Quek Leng Chan is among the richest people in Malaysia as the chairman of Hong Leong Group, which his uncle, the late Kwek Hong Png, founded in 1941.

If this family, worth $18.9 billion, donated their wealth to the poor, each person would have $3,531, which is 7.5 times higher than a Malaysian worker’s average monthly wage.

Singapore

Perhaps surprisingly, Singapore has the highest rate of relative poverty out of the seven countries. Accord-

ing to the Singapore Central Provident Fund in 2011, 26 per cent of the population is in poverty, and the top 10 per cent has 59.6 per cent of the wealth and earns 24.9 times more than the lowest 10 per cent, according to MoneySmart.

The Kuok family is the richest in Singapore. Malaysian-Chinese tycoon Robert Kuok grew his businesses ranging from sugarcane plantations to mining, finance, publishing and more, expanding to nearby Asian countries. His nephew, Kuok Khoon Hong, co-founded Wilmar International and is the richest person in Singapore.

If the family assets of $10.9 billion were to go to the 1.4 million Singaporean poor, each person would have $7,665, or 2.9 times that of an average worker’s monthly wage.

Though speculative, the Robin Hood index shows that distributing the money of the super-rich would be enough to elevate the poorest of a country into the middle class. Although there are arguments that financial assistance would decrease people’s willingness to work, a recent study suggests that this is not the case. Abhijit Banerjee, professor and founder of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, released a paper last month saying that after an analysis of cash transfer programmes in six countries, there was no evidence of assistance discouraging work.