![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper contributes to new thinking in economics by employing a human rights perspective to examine the budget deficit reduction strategy of the UK coalition government, as set out in 2010 in the June budget and October Spending Review. Focusing on economic and social rights, the paper explains the human rights obligations of governments and key human rights principles. As examples of how they should be applied to examine the deficit reduction strategy, it examines the implications of the policy changes for child poverty and gender equality, and finds that in both cases there is evidence to suggest non-compliance with the human rights obligations of the UK government.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on a presentation given at a conference on Economic Policies of the New Thinking in Economics, organized by the Cambridge Trust for New Thinking in Economics, St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, 14 April 2011.
I thank Philip Arestis for his invitation to address the conference, and conference participants for their comments. I also thank Radhika Balakrishnan, James Heintz, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Polly Vizard for collaborative work that has informed this paper.
Notes
1. Details are given in the Budget Statement made on 22 June by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_speech.htmA.
2. The rise in income tax thresholds was a high priority for the Liberal Democrats.
3. This does not imply that policy should prioritize income transfers over investment, but it does imply that the impacts of investment on the most deprived and those in poverty should be investigated: for instance, does the investment create jobs for poor people? If not, can some of the investment be redesigned? And there should be an appropriate balance between redistribution and investment in increases in output. The most deprived will be dead before the fruits of investment become available.
4. There is beginning to be wider recognition of this. For instance, a recent study at the London-based National Institute of Economic and Social Research has called for fundamental changes to the ownership and corporate governance and ethical standards of British banks, and the structure of financial markets, arguing that only then will a reduction in excessive risk taking be secured (Armstrong Citation2011). The role of the three big private sector ratings agencies has been criticized by Ha-Joon Chang (2011), who points out it is not inevitable that they should be the arbiters of the credibility of governments. A public ratings agency run by the UN and funded by member states could provide an alternative; and financial regulators need not be so reliant on the ratings provided by the three private ratings agencies in stipulating permissible investments (Chang Citation2011).
5. This is explained by the relevant treaty body, the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, in General Comment 3 The Nature of States Parties Obligations, 1999.
6. Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts are individuals appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to address specific themes and investigate violations of specific rights.
7. This does not imply that resources mobilized by voluntary organizations and businesses are not important for realizing human rights, but that resources mobilized by the state are critical for guiding voluntary organizations and businesses to use resources in ways that realize human rights.
8. Increases in taxes on the incomes of the rich are not retrogressive, because there is no human right to be rich, only a human right to an adequate standard of living. The rich have no human right to continuous increases in their incomes and wealth.
9. This has been further emphasized in General Comments on specific rights; see for instance the General Comment on the Right to Health (CESCR Citation2000, para 32).
10. For examples with respect to Mexico and the USA, see Balakrishnan and Elson (Citation2011).
11. These impact assessments will be discussed in the following section.
12. See for instance, NHS IC Trends in Consultation Rates in General Practice 1995-2009; DfT Public Transport Gender Audit, http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/inclusion/wmen
13. The UK Women’s Budget Group is an independent, voluntary organization that brings together individuals from academia, non-governmental organizations and trade unions. It has been scrutinizing the budgets of UK governments since the early 1990s. See http://www.wbg.org.uk.
14. Costs are for 2012/13, from HM Treasury, Budget Statement (2010a, 40–1).
15. As reported in The Guardian, 5 July 2010.
16. With the June 2010 budget, it did publish an assessment of the expected distributional impact on household income of the changes in the tax and welfare benefit system, as part of a commitment to greater transparency in public policy. This suggested that the impact was progressive, and this was challenged by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as misleading, because it covered not only the measures in the June budget but also measures introduced by the previous government. If these were to be excluded the impact would be seen to be regressive.
17. It is named after Millicent Fawcett, one of the leaders of the nineteenth-century campaign for votes for women.
18. For more information see http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1223.
19. For details of the method and data sources see Horton and Reed (Citation2011).
20. It is not part of my argument that this has happened because the major decisions on the deficit reduction strategy have been made by men. That would require a separate investigation. However, it is worth noting that women ministers and women parliamentarians belonging to the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties have supported the strategy.
21. The studies used a different method to that used in this article. They identified particular cuts affecting the particular city, and assessed the likely impact on specific rights of women living in the city, in consultation with local organizations. This method is appropriate for local level studies, and complements the approach used in this article, where the entry point is government obligations at national level.
22. For instance, in January–July 2011, a seminar series on human rights and social justice in an age of austerity was organized by the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute, London Metropolitan University. The seminars were attended by a total of around 350 scholars, students, policy makers, practitioners and civil society actors; and one session was held jointly with the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/hrsj/seminar-series-2011). In October 2011, a two-day seminar on Realizing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the UK was held by the professional legal association, the Law Society. This included a session on budget cuts.
