Human rights: Food for a thought that for too long was not heeded ‘HR and inequality’
HRR 753
WHO KILLED CLASS IN ECONOMICS? INEQUALITY WAS TRADITIONALLY THE CENTRAL CONCERN OF ECONOMISTS –UNTIL IT WAS NOT.
[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about the purposeful neglect and now resurrection of inequality as central in (some) conventional economics: a chance for HR? For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
—By the late 20th century, interest on inequality had declined to the point where the big social divide barely featured within the discipline. So, who killed class in economics?
1. We are right to be furious that equality ever left the stage and worry about the sort of continuing political neglect it has suffered with ‘growth’ alone becoming the economic panacea. Growth may get us there, BUT only if capitalist greed does run out of control (hasn’t it already…?). Growth does not put the distributional conflict between the classes at center-stage. Face it: No-one worried about how the rich got/get rich/er –whether by innovation or by pillage, exploitation, inheritance or monopoly– their endowments just came/come to them through the (so unfair) marketplace. The moral of the story? Mind the gap –and never forget it again. (Tom Clark)
2. Thomas Piketty, in ‘Capital in the 21st Century’, argued that inequality is a feature and not an accidental consequence of Capitalism that can only be reversed by government intervention.
3. Moreover, inequality and regressive income distribution are a threat to democracy. The moment or moments in which the dispute for a share of wealth is so clearly expressed is in collective bargaining processes. It is at that moment, when workers organize to dispute a fraction of that wealth, especially to recover part of what has been taken away from them in the productive process. The capitalist class is clear about this and, therefore, has built a legal and political scaffolding to prevent and avoid this eventual space of unity of the workers. Expressly prohibiting/preventing collective bargaining and restricting and corralling the unions only to the narrow margins of the company is a clear attack on the world of labor and democracy.*
*: On the other hand, employers organize themselves by branches of production, while unions are prohibited from doing so. The consequence of this is that wages have fallen significantly. It has been shown that the higher the percentage in collective bargaining, the lower the number of workers who receive low wages. (Luis Mesina)
Extreme inequality brings with it social and political instability which ultimately hinders the expression of what really matters: class struggle (Politika)
4. Economic inequality and overcoming economic disparity levels requires political will.** It implies having governments and politicians willing to carry out redistributive strategies that allow ‘economic growth’ to be favorable to the poorest. This requires starting with the implementation redistributive tax policies; implementing policies to prevent the increase in unemployment and underemployment; combating corruption, tax evasion and avoidance; providing greater access to land resources to those rendered poor and ensuring that the population has access to decent housing.
**: Beware: It is not a lack of political will, but rather the accumulation-of-a-political-will-by-the-powerful to oppose or stall the implementation of progressive policies that tackle human rights (HR) abuses. We cannot forget that ‘a political will’ must be pulled from those in power and thus depends on the capacity of claim holders in public interest civil society and social movements to demand governments and the international agencies be consequent with the HR framework.
5. The maintenance of economic inequality not only violates the fundamental rights of people, but also morally affects the people, and allows the capture of politics by those who control most of the wealth, weakening democracy by making it lose meaning to the people. (L. Mesina) [We have current burning examples of this, don’t we?].
Inequality is always a political phenomenon: It deals with the distribution of the ‘pie’ (i.e., national income)
–Inequality within a society is determined, not only by social forces within that society, but also by the external environment where globally powerful forces have an interest in blocking the distribution of power to the ‘periphery’ such that the periphery continues to play its assigned subservient role.
6. Wealth inequality*** has a corrosive impact on politics —with those who hold no real wealth to speak-of feeling increasingly alienated from the political establishment. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is not simply one social problem amongst many, but rather generates the multiple social, cultural and political ills. Wealth inequality erodes political engagement from above and from below.
***: If anything, divides with respect to gender, race and class are getting wider as those who historically have possessed greater wealth assets are better placed to reap even more. Wealth begets wealth (…and inequality). (Mike Savage)
7. Nobody can argue that Capitalism does not reproduce inequality or that economic inequality does not matter. That blinding reality is just impossible to ignore. Income and wealth inequality, that were considerged politically inappropriate in the United States were purposely ignored in the leading economic journals. (Claims that the United States, after the end of the Cold War, was a classless society is shaky. It is impossible to claim that there is no elite when its spending patterns are so different from those of the rest of the population, and its political power, expressed in campaign contributions, is unrivaled). [We have current burning examples of this as well, don’t we?].
8. We do have a revival in three areas in this though: a) the reacceptance of class analysis; b) the reemergence of the idea of an elite, now coming in the form of the top 1%; and c) the expansion into new areas of research like global inequality. We are just learning about how unequal we have been in the historical past –and that tells us something also about our present and perhaps even about our future. (Branko Milanovic)
Extreme inequality is the antithesis of human rights (Philip Alston)
9. Extreme poverty is best defined as a condition in which the vast majority of HR cannot possibly be realized. In other words, inequality is not just an economic issue, but also one of HR.**** Too many development organizations (including the UN …the temple of states) steadfastly resist policies that proactively factor HR into their policies and programs. (Of course, it is not always so much the agencies themselves that are to blame, but the governments that control them. When efforts are made to raise HR in economic fora, the same governments insist that these issues be addressed, not at home, but in the HR Council; in other words, they seek to silo-off issues that are deeply intertwined).
****: Anne Case, in her book ‘Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism’,
coined the term ‘deaths of despair’ to describe the worrisome rise in inequality leading to increases in mortality.
10. No less, the leading HR NGOs, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, need to overcome their deep reluctance to factor-in such issues into their research, analysis and advocacy. If not, the deeper structures and systems that sustain extreme poverty and ignore extreme inequalities are effectively left in place. The status-quo thus effectively remains untouched. This being the case, equality of access to the resources needed by the people have largely been eliminated from the most vibrant parts of the international HR system. [Note that, in HR, we strive beyond equality of access and pursue equality of outcomes]. Unfortunately, the parlance used points to state obligations extended only ‘to the maximum of its available resources’ —this, too often, being invoked to excuse abusive instances of non-compliance.
11. Furthermore, be aware that tax policy is, in many respects, HR policy! (CESR) The tax system unavoidably affects levels of inequality …and HR enjoyment. Appropriate redistributive measures through fiscal policies are thus indispensable for ensuring full respect of HR. (P. Alston)
Bottom line
12. States (and claim holders) must reject extreme inequality and formally commit themselves to the implementation of policies explicitly designed to reduce if not eliminate it. (P. Alston) Well said, but the question is how? [Through these Readers, I have committed myself to explore and propose alternatives giving you plenty food for thought].
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com
If you do not want to receive these Readers anymore, do send me a message with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject line.