[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is a reminder that equality has a specific meaning in human rights law and how Capitalism disregards this and gets away with impunity. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text].
-The culture of privilege has naturalized inequality. (Alicia Barcena)
1. Let me start with the tough part: How are we to define inequality? Inequality of what? Of income? Of wealth? Of opportunities? How do we measure inequality? By income or by expenditure? Absolutely or relatively? Gross or net? And if we look at countries, what should the criterion be? Differences within countries, between countries?* (Francine Mestrum) Is equality the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether these groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically?(#) (WHO)
*: The pandemic has ‘supercharged’ inequalities of all kinds. Of the many dimensions of inequality that the COVID-19 pandemic has magnified, inequality between countries is one of the most glaring. It is also been one of the least effectively addressed. (CESR)
2. One thing we do know: Equality has a specific and transformative meaning in human rights (HR) law. It must be ‘substantive’. This includes equality of outcomes, measured holistically by the levels of rights enjoyment of different individuals and groups. (CESR)
3. A thing you may not know, but ought to know: Inequality is much more important among the ten percent richest group than among the nine deciles below them; this means that, as conceived, the equality SDG (#10) cannot seriously change the global distribution of incomes. (F. Mestrum)
No way to moralize Capitalism on inequalities
-A high yield is one of the principal criteria that moves capital around the world. This search, by definition, breeds social inequalities. (Louis Casado)
4. Poverty, as treated by the World Bank, is a problem of/for individuals disregarding the fact that addressing the inequalities at the base of poverty inevitably requires addressing the whole of society. Poverty can be tackled with measures that give vulnerable people access to the market or to education and/or to health care, the Bank says, knowing full well that inequalities cannot be tackled without also looking at the top percentage of society accumulating more-and-more wealth. In other words, this highlights the fact that inequality, more than poverty, is an eminently political problem and thus more difficult to attain than alleviating poverty. [In these Readers, I have always called for disparity reduction rather than narrowly focusing on poverty alleviation].
5. Actually, too great an inequality stands in the way of an effective fight against poverty and, no matter how you look at it, every approach to inequality has a politico-ideological basis.** [Ponder: China has managed to eradicate extreme poverty in a relatively short period of time but, in the meantime, inequality has risen rapidly].
**: It is one thing to emphasize diversity, i.e., the many ways in which people can look at the world, but it is quite another thing to ignore inequality for political reasons.
6. Were you aware of this (or had you even thought about it)?: Easy solutions unfortunately address mainly the poor instead of the rich. To repeat, the greatest inequality in any society is not between the poorest and the richest, but rather between the small group of the very richest and those rendered (just) rich! According to Thomas Piketty, this is inevitable. When income from capital exceeds income from labor, inequality increases rapidly and ultimately unsustainably –in a metastasizing process. (Michael Goodhart)
7. Poverty reduction was on the international agenda thirty+ years ago and inequality was neglected. Understandable: It is only poverty that those rendered rich can handle without their fortunes being touched! [Consider: A rational solution more-and-more claim holders intuitively choose is migrating from their poor to rich countries since those rendered poor in rich countries are several times richer than the poor in countries rendered poor. We all know the consequences…].
Bottom line
8. A wealth tax is thus required to tackle inequality, de-facto delegitimizing outrageous excess wealth. (all the above from F. Mestrum)
9. We cannot forget that the profit motive and salaries are inversely proportionate –one goes up, the other goes down. It is not the market that assigns resources to the more needy; it is not the market that determines the direction, the priorities and the objectives of an equitable society. It is the state that can and ought to do this with equitable policies applied to develop the economy. (L. Casado)
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
Postscript/Marginalia
#: Here are some other attempts at a definition: a) Inequality refers to differences, variation and disparities in the living conditions of individuals and groups. Inequity adds a moral dimension, referring to the process by which certain outcomes are produced, to the way in which wealth is distributed, and to how needs are assessed and addressed (adapted from Norheim and Asada’s definition, 2009); b) Equity is concerned with fairness and social justice and aims to focus on people’s needs rather than the provision of services to reach the greatest number of people (SCN News 43); c) Inequality is what Jacques Chirac called ‘the social fracture’.
-Finally, it is not inequality what kills people; it is those responsible for these inequalities that kill people! (Vicente Navarro)