1. Consider the following list of iron laws about poverty and equality as highlighted by Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights
• Poverty and wealth are often discussed as if they have very little to do with one another.
• Poverty is directly related to extreme inequality, especially, but not only, in relation to wealth and income distribution within countries.
• Therefore, if the human rights (HR) framework would not address extreme inequality as one of the drivers of extreme poverty and as one of the reasons why over one quarter of humanity cannot properly enjoy HR, it would be doomed to fail.
• Those in the upper income quintile or decile derive their income from wealth instead of from labor.
• Social inequalities and economic inequalities may, and often do, interact with, and reinforce, one another, for instance when individuals with higher incomes or their family members have more political power or access to better education than those with lower incomes.
• Perfect economic equality is not achievable and arguably not desirable, and there is no reason to object to a certain degree of economic inequality if it reflects differences in effort and talent.
• The problem in many societies is that poor people start the ‘race of life’ at a disadvantage and will meet many more hurdles on their way than others.
• Starting life at an economic disadvantage makes it much more likely that one also ends life at an economic disadvantage.
• The ideal of equal opportunity is increasingly a myth in many countries and the decline in opportunity has gone hand in hand with growing inequality (quoting Joseph Stiglitz).
• Laws, regulations and institutions influence and are influenced by the distribution of economic and other forms of power.
• Economic inequalities are not only the result of market forces, but equally of political forces responsible for laws, regulations and institutions.
• The major problem in both developing and developed countries thus is the capture of the political process by powerful groups, and the exclusion of others, leading to laws, regulations and institutions that favor the powerful.
• The existence of a democracy and the right to participate in the political process do not guarantee equal opportunity and more equal outcomes.
• Extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.
• The neoliberal paradigm in the early 1980s created an extremely negative environment for unions with the abandonment of full-employment policies. Since that time, labor laws across the world have become much less union friendly, and unionizing new establishments has become harder.
• The wage differentials between skilled and unskilled workers were reduced when unions were active. Not only does de-unionization affect wage inequality, but wage inequality also affects unionization.
• Levels of economic inequality in many countries would be lower today if there was no discrimination.
• Economic inequalities, especially when extreme, can also be closely linked to social unrest and conflict.
• It is clear that the most impoverished suffer the most extreme effects of inequality for a variety of reasons. In part, this is because their influence and capacity to exercise their rights is diminished relatively, even if not absolutely, as others become wealthier and gain greater political and economic power.
• Inequality undermines human dignity. Moreover, ultimately, extreme inequality is an assault on democracy.
• The deeply expressed concerns about the consequences of inequality are not in fact bringing the sort of structural changes that would be required in the policies of government institutions. For the most part, the response seems to involve the tweaking of traditional policies rather than any change in the fundamental priorities underlying the work of official institutions.
• Income distribution should become an economic, social and HR indicator used by international financial institutions and other international organizations.
2. I know this is a lot to digest, but the key truisms about poverty are indeed in this long list.
3. The agenda Alston proposes is:
• Reject extreme inequality by formally and openly recognizing the fact that there are limits to the degrees of inequality.
• Commit to reduce extreme inequality by states formally committing themselves to policies explicitly designed to reduce, if not eliminate, extreme inequality
• Make economic, social and cultural rights central by states taking the concept of these rights seriously and giving them the needed prominence and priority equal to that of civil and political rights.
• Ensure social protection floors by the State meeting its most basic obligations in relation to the economic, social and cultural rights of its citizens and of others.
• Implement fiscal policies that reduce inequality by adopting and enforcing progressive taxation policies that are instrumental to achieving that aim.
• Revitalize the equality norm by the right to equality being given greater prominence so that it is able to add substantively to the jurisprudence of international HR bodies in ways that it has thus far not.
• Put the questions of resources and their redistribution back into the HR equation by public interest HR civil society organizations overcoming their deep reluctance to bring issues such as resources, national budgets and the need for redistributive policies into their actions and advocacy.
4. If you have followed these Readers for some time, you will know that the action agenda that these CSOs have been advancing are more radical and more bottom-centered than the ones suggested by Alston.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org