[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about some of the multiple causes that draw out HR-based solutions to the twin problems of inequity and inequality. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
What are we talking about here?
1. Social inequity and inequality are part of the historical process of the concentration of power in specific sectors of society and the relationships of the social, economic, political, cultural and administrative links that keep multiplying the asymmetries in our societies. Inequality, of key relevance for human rights (HR), has remote historical roots* based on the loss of community cooperation and the accumulation of surpluses appropriated by one sector of society (think colonialism, slavery, neoliberal economics…)
(Jaime Breilh)
*: Already Gramsci (1891-1937) elaborated that economic inequality is part of the weakness of the hegemony exerted by the dominant elite and of its capacity for imposing intellectual and a certain moral leadership (hegemony) on society.
2. Justice, equity, equality and HR** are terms that define the way society is structured to assure (or not) the well-being of its people. This has been known since ancient times and continues to be a guiding principle in the mindset and actions of some (not all) communities, organizations, and governments. With respect to justice, the same can be delayed or never arrive; in the best of cases, a delayed justice is much more important for HR than one that never reaches(d) those it should. (Revista Primera Piedra)
**: Equity is a justice concept, meaning ‘fairness’; equality is a HR principle that recognizes that the same rights apply to all citizens (i.e., the right of every individual to receive the same treatment).
What are the multiple causes of what we are talking about here?
–The literature of macroeconomics (fiscal, monetary and industrial policies) does not address human development and/or HR concerns: Why? (Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Kate Donald)
3. The neglect of the distributional consequences of macroeconomic policy and of inequality as a factor that affects growth and economic stability is in itself a form of political bias. This may be more than benign neglect(!), but a conscious effort to maintain the narrative of the neutral (?) technocrats disinterested in the social implications of their policy choices.
4. Take an example: Narrowly defined mandates of central banks and other national and international economic agencies are reinforced by ideological commitments and the influence of vested interests so that they neglect the inclusion of equity and sustainable development as policy objectives.***
***: Social classes are still something central banks are reluctant to discuss, since it makes them vulnerable to the concept of power. Central bankers think discussing monetary policy in terms of ‘individuals’ makes their job value-free and unbiased: For them, recognizing social classes is either useless, unrealistic or simply ‘ideological’ and biased. (S. Kappes et al)
5. On the other hand, why are human and sustainable development strategies formulated without considering macroeconomics? The neglect of macroeconomic policies and the role of productive sectors is particularly disturbing since they –fiscal and monetary policies– play a central role in maintaining macroeconomic stability (important for whom?), in raising public revenues, and in the redistribution of wealth and income –the latter key for the realization of HR!
6. Creating economic incentives (through credit, for example) can play a central role in creating employment, generating distributive economic growth (all key for the realization of HR), but does it? Taxation further is a redistributive tool: progressive income taxes and asset taxes can reduce income and wealth inequalities, but does it? Taxes on tobacco, alcohol or sugary beverages and other so-called ‘sin taxes’ can also play a similar role for potentially improving nutrition, health –and HR, but do they? As you may know, the rationale for introducing these types of taxes has rarely even been articulated by policy-makers as directly connected with equity, equality, HR and inclusion.
7. Moreover, IMF policy advice and loan conditions continue to promote an economic policy environment in which public services are left underfunded and, in many cases, explicitly call for cuts therein in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility’. Monetary policy measures also have distributional consequences that negatively affect peoples’ rights and livelihoods, directly affecting the cost of goods and services essential to live with dignity.
8. The crisis of rising inflation since 2022, that has not abated as of this writing, starkly illustrates the crucial choices in monetary policy.**** The social costs of tight monetary policy are well known: dampening employment and investments, creating recessions and lowering living standards, particularly those of the most vulnerable populations.
****: Due to their narrow professional and social-educational background, policy makers say that they know how to fight inflation –by raising interest rates– but they do not have proven policy tools that can contain price increases for the masses and maintain employment simultaneously.
9. You see? The training of economists in mainstream universities across the world has also become more narrowly restricted to neoclassical economics. Their top graduates (mostly trained in the top economics departments of the US and the UK) assume top policy making positions. This effectively imposes a disciplinary monopoly. Even if economists have a more pluralist training, they may have strong commitments to an economic paradigm that has become an ideology.
10. The narrative of economics as a science that is neutral and immune to political influence, and that values quantitative modelling and evidence, paradoxically serves to maintain the dogma of a narrowly defined approach to macroeconomic policy making that ignores more complex questions of distributive consequence of policy, shutting the door to considering alternatives.
The role of institutional legacies
11. The UN is an agency that is supposed to deal with socio-economic matters, right? But it does not deal with macroeconomic policies and matters. So, it is fair to ask: Do UN agencies not feel that promoting equity, equality, HR and sustainable development is part of their mandate or responsibility when we live in an era of regressive macroeconomic policies and galloping multistakeholderism? I would say their emphasis is stuck on technocratic policy making. (We note that earlier generations of policy makers had more diverse backgrounds and more progressive outlooks).
12. This illustrates the contradiction between mainstream economic paradigms and frameworks and the SDG agenda that puts people, planet, equity and equality (and hopefully HR) first. For that, all I can see in the SDGs is intellectual inertia. Setting goals is a powerful (?) mechanism used by powerful institutions to guide global discourses. But organizations do have political agendas. Dominant organizations that are regarded as authoritative and apolitical sources of knowledge on economic policy are biased towards generating research that supports neoliberal agendas –and suppress those that challenge them. (all from S. Fukuda-Parr. K. Donald)
13. From what interests this Reader, it is ideological commitments to social and political ideals or to a particular school of economics that shape any analysis; and spurious interest-driven pressures do seek to influence the policy processes (take lobbyists: There is an “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” symbiosis).
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com