Tackling inequality through the Sustainable Development Goals: human rights in practice

ABSTRACT

In recent years, economic inequality has soared to unprecedented levels, presenting new threats to the full spectrum of human rights. Against this backdrop, Agenda 2030 includes a Goal aiming to reduce inequalities of all kinds, within and between countries. One of the most transformational aspects of the new sustainable development agenda, SDG10 has the potential to deliver an urgently needed paradigm shift in how development efforts are pursued to realise human rights and reduce inequality. This article analyses the strengths and shortcomings of SDG10 from a human rights perspective, and explores the political vulnerability of the Goal and the prospects for its implementation. It then explains how human rights norms, standards and tools can help to inform and guide actions towards these commitments, including how human rights monitoring mechanisms can play a role in tracking progress and providing a space for accountability.

KEYWORDS:

• Inequality
• SDG 10
• 2030 Agenda
• accountability
• human rights
• social protection
• tax

Acknowledgements

This article draws from and builds on ‘From Disparity to Dignity: Tackling Economic Inequality through the Sustainable Development Goals’, published by the Center for Economic and Social Rights in 2016. Nicholas Lusiani (Director of Human Rights in Economic Policy at CESR) was one of the authors of that briefing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Ignacio Saiz is the Executive Director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights. Ignacio holds an LLM in international human rights law with distinction from the University of Essex.

Kate Donald is the Director of the Human Rights in Development Program at the Center for Economic and Social Rights. Kate holds a Masters in Human Rights from the London School of Economics.

Notes

1 United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 (New York: United Nations, 2015).

2 Oxfam, An Economy for the 99% (Oxford: Oxfam, 2017).

3 United Nations (UN), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York: UN, 2015).

4 Kate Donald, ‘SDG Targets Risk Missing the Mark on Inequality’, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) blog, 2016, http://www.cesr.org/sdg-targets-risk-missing-mark-inequality (accessed July 21, 2017).

5 Goal 10 is graded as an ‘F’, meaning that ‘reversal will be needed – complete rethinks in approach, new commitments, and likely public pressure’: Susan Nicolai et al., Projecting Progress: Reaching the SDGs by 2030 (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2015).

6 Although the 2016 issue of the World Bank’s new ‘Poverty and Shared Prosperity’ annual report does include analysis of inequality: see World Bank, Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2016: Taking on Inequality (Washington DC: World Bank, 2016). For a critique of the report, see Peter Bakvis, ‘The World Bank’s Inequality Omissions,’ Inequality.org, posted October 3, 2016, https://inequality.org/research/world-bank-inequality-report-whats-missing/ (accessed July 21, 2017).

7 Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), From Disparity to Dignity: tackling economic inequality through the Sustainable Development Goals (New York: CESR, 2016).

8 Iain Levine, ‘Building a Better World by “Righting” Development’, Human Rights Watch blog, September 12, 2015, https://www.hrw.org/blog-feed/righting-development (accessed July 21, 2017).

9 Era Dabla-Norris et al., ‘Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective’, IMF Staff Discussion Note (Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 2015).

10 High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies Through Sustainable Development (New York: United Nations, 2013).

11 UN, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York: UN, 2015): 1–3, 7, 12.

12 For example, although their official position is more expansive, in practice the UK government has pushed a very narrow definition of ‘Leave No One Behind’, addressing poverty in the Global South. Certainly it has not acknowledged the relevance that the concept might have to the UK: see Paul Okumu, ‘Why We Must Change Strategy on SDG Implementation,’ Africa Platform blog, 3 August 2016, https://africaplatform.org/news/why-we-must-change-strategy-on-sdg-implementation/ (accessed February 27, 2017); UK Department for International Development, ‘Leave No One Behind: Our Promise’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leaving-no-one-behind-our-promise/leaving-no-one-behind-our-promise (accessed July 21, 2017).

13 See e.g. J. G. Palma, ‘Homogeneous Middles vs. Heterogeneous Tails, and the End of the “Inverted-U”: It’s All About the Share of the Rich’, Development and Change 42, no. 1 (2011): 87–153.

14 See e.g. the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. On horizontal inequalities, see Frances Stewart, ‘Horizontal Inequalities’, World Science Report (2016): 51–4, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245825e.pdf.

15 See e.g. Economic Inequality and Human Rights debate on OpenGlobalRights, https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/economic-inequality-and-human-rights; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston,’ A/HRC/29/31, 2015.

16 OHCHR, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston,’ A/HRC/29/31, pp. 11–13, 2015.

17 Todd Landman and Marco Larizza, ‘Inequality and Human Rights: Who controls what, when, and how’, International Studies Quarterly 53, no. 3 (2009): 715–36; Oxfam International, ‘Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality’, Oxfam briefing paper (Oxford: Oxfam International, 2014).

18 Oxfam International, ‘Working for the Few’; Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, ‘It’s About Values: Human Rights Norms and Tolerance for Inequality’, Opendemocracy.net, posted December 22, 2015, https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/sakiko-fukuda-parr/it-s-about-values-human-rights-norms-and-tolerance-for-inequalit.

19 Philip Alston, ‘Extreme Inequality as the Antithesis of Human Rights’, Opendemocracy.net, posted October 27, 2015, https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/philip-alston/extreme-inequality-as-antithesis-of-human-rights.

20 Ignacio Saiz and Gaby Oré Aguilar, ‘Introducing the Debate on Economic Inequality: Can Human Rights Make A Difference?’, Opendemocracy.net, posted October 27, 2015, https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/ignacio-saiz-gaby-or-aguilar/introducing-debate-on-economic-inequality-can-human-ri.

21 The ratio of the income share of the top 10% to that of the bottom 40% see Alex Cobham and Andy Sumner, ‘Is It All About the Tails? The Palma Measure of Income Inequality’ (CGD Working Paper 343, Center for Global Development, Washington DC, 2013).

22 Alex Cobham, Lukas Schlogl and Andy Sumner, ‘Top Incomes Drive Inequality: So Why Does The Inequality Target Ignore Them?’ The Guardian Global Development blog, September 21, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/sep/21/top-incomes-drive-income-inequality-global-target.

23 Nobuo Yoshida and Juan Feng, ‘Reducing Inequality By Promoting Shared Prosperity’, World Bank Data Blog, June 2016, http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/ic4d/sustainablecities/reducing-inequality-promoting-shared-prosperity.

24 Thomas Piketty et al., ‘Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities’ (NBER Working Paper 17616, NBER, Cambridge MA, 2011). http://www.nber.org/papers/w17616.pdf.

25 Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators, ‘Final List of Proposed Sustainable Development Goal Indicators’, E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1.

26 See UN Statistical Division’s compilation of metadata for target 10.1: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-10-01-01.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017).

27 Faiza Shaheen, ‘Inequality Within and Among Countries’, in International Norms, Normative Change, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ed. Noha Shawki (London: Lexington Books, 2016), 99–114.

28 Jonathan Ostry, Prakash Loungani and Davide Furceri, ‘Neoliberalism: Oversold?’, Finance and Development 53, no. 2 (2016): 38–41.

29 CESR, ‘A Matter of Justice: Securing Human Rights in the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda’ (New York: CESR, 2014), http://cesr.org/sites/default/files/matter.of_.justice.pdf.

30 Cobham et al., ‘Top Incomes Drive Inequality’; also, Nora Lustig has argued that the SDGs are missing a target to ‘ensure that the tax system does not reduce the income of the poor’: Nora Lustig, ‘A Missing Target in the SDGs: Tax Systems Should Not Reduce The Incomes Of The Poor’, International Growth Center blog, 2015, http://www.theigc.org/blog/a-missing-target-in-the-sdgs-tax-systems-should-not-reduce-the-income-of-the-poor/.

31 See for example, Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 409–10: ‘The distribution of the benefits of global relations depends not only on domestic policies, but also on a variety of international social arrangements, including trade agreements, patent laws, global health initiatives, international educational provisions, facilities for technological dissemination, ecological and environmental restraint, treatment of accumulated debts (often incurred by irresponsible military rulers of the past), and the restraining of conflicts and local wars’.

32 See e.g. UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2014 (Geneva: United Nations, 2014); UN DESA Committee on Development Policy, Global Governance and Global Rules for Development in the Post-2015 Era (New York: United Nations, 2014).

33 CESR, ‘A Matter of Justice’.

34 E.g. Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Heidelberg: FIAN International, 2013).

35 See CESR, ‘The Measure of Progress: How Human Rights Should Inform the Sustainable Development Goal Indicators’, CESR Human Rights Policy Brief, October 2015, http://cesr.org/sites/default/files/downloads/cesr_measure_of_progress.pdf.

36 For instance, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

37 See e.g. CESCR General Comment 16; CEDAW General Comment 25.

38 CESCR Article 13 2(a) and SDG target 4.1.

39 See CESR and Third World Network, ‘Universal Rights, Differentiated Responsibilities: Safeguarding Human Rights Beyond Borders to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals’ (CESR and TWN Policy Brief, April 2015).

40 UN Women, Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights: Progress of the World’s Women Report 2015–16 (New York: UN Women, 2015).

41 CEDAW Committee, ‘General recommendation No. 25, on article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, on temporary special measures’ (2004).

42 UN Women, Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights.

43 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2005), General Comment No. 16, E/C.12/2005/4.

44 UN Women, Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights. See Chapter 1 of the report for a detailed description of substantive equality.

45 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2009), General Comment No. 20, Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/GC/20.

46 For interpretations, see IIED, ‘Unpacking What We Mean By Leave No One Behind’, IIED website, May 2016 https://www.iied.org/unpacking-what-we-mean-leave-no-one-behind (accessed July 21, 2017); ODI, ‘Leaving No One Behind: A Critical Path for the First 1,000 Days of the Sustainable Development Goals’ (ODI Research Report, July 2016). A good exploration of the concept from a human rights perspective is provided in United Nations Chief Executive Board for Coordination, ‘Equality and non-discrimination at the heart of sustainable development: a Shared United Nations Framework for Action’ (Report of the High-Level Committee on Programmes), UN Doc CEB/2016/6/Add.1.

47 See CESR, ‘From Disparity to Dignity: Tackling Economic Inequality Through the Sustainable Development Goals’ (CESR Human Rights Policy Brief, October 2016).

48 UNESCAP, ‘Time for Equality: The Role of Social Protection in Reducing Inequalities in Asia and the Pacific’ (Bangkok: United Nations, 2015) http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/SDD%20Time%20for%20Equality%20report_final.pdf.

49 UNRISD argue that broad-based and inclusive coverage can reduce inequalities across income, class, gender, ethnicity, gender and location: see UNRISD, Combating Poverty and Inequality: Structural Change, Social Policy and Politics (Geneva: UNRISD, 2010), 161, http://socialprotection-humanrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PovRep-small.pdf.

50 Francesca Bastagli, David Coady and Sanjeev Gupta, ‘Income Inequality and Fiscal Policy’ (IMF Discussion Note, Washington DC, 2012), 11. See also Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), ‘Time For Equality: Closing Gaps, Opening Trails’ (33rd session summary, Santiago, 2010), 225.

51 For a human rights analysis of social protection, see CESCR General Comment 19; Magdalena Sepúlveda and Carly Nyst, ‘A Human Rights Approach to Social Protection’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Erweko Oy, 2012); and the Social Protection and Human Rights Resource Platform http://socialprotection-humanrights.org/.

52 See UNRISD, Combating Poverty, 143–4.

53 Sepúlveda and Nyst, ‘Human Rights Approach to Social Protection’.

54 Stephen Kidd, ‘The Political Economy of “Targeting” of Social Security Schemes’, Pathways’ Perspectives on Social Policy in International Development 19 (Development Pathways, 2015), http://www.developmentpathways.co.uk/resources/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Political-Economy-of-Targeting-PP19-4.pdf.

55 Stephen Kidd and Karishma Huda, ‘Bolsa Unfamiliar’, Pathways Perspectives on Social Policy in International Development 9 (Development Pathways, 2013). http://www.developmentpathways.co.uk/downloads/perspectives/Pathways-Perspectives-9-BOLSA-unFAMILIAr.pdf.

56 Sepúlveda and Nyst, ‘Human Rights Approach to Social Protection’.

57 Sepúlveda and Nyst, ‘Human Rights Approach to Social Protection’.

58 CESCR, General Comment 19, The Right to Social Security.

59 See UN Women, Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights, Chapter 3.

60 Observatorio de Igualdad de Género de Ámerica Latin y el Caribe, Los Bonos en La Mira: Aporte y Carga Para Las Mujeres (Santiago: CEPAL, 2012).

61 Observatorio de Igualdad de Género, Los Bonos en La Mira.

62 See e.g. Francesca Bastagli, David Coady and Sanjeev Gupta, ‘Income Inequality and Fiscal Policy’ (IMF Discussion Note, Washington DC, 2012), 11.

63 Maura Francese, ‘Harnessing the Power of Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Inequality’ (IMF September, 2015). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/pol092515a.htm.

64 Piketty et al., ‘Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes’.

65 CESR and Christian Aid, ‘A Post-2015 Fiscal Revolution’ (policy brief, CESR and Christian Aid, New York & London, 2014). http://www.cesr.org/sites/default/files/fiscal.revolution.pdf.

66 See CESR, ‘Human Rights in Tax Policy’, CESR website, http://cesr.org/human-rights-taxation (accessed July 21, 2017); OHCHR, ‘Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona,’ A/HRC/26/28.

67 For more on the ‘maximum available resources’ standard, see Radhika Balakrishnan et al., Maximum Available Resources and Human Rights: Analytical Report (New Brunswick: Center for Women’s Global Leadership, 2011).

68 Kate Donald and Rachel Moussié, ‘Redistributing Unpaid Care Work: Why Tax Matters for Women’s Rights’ (Institute of Development Studies and CESR Policy Brief, January 2016), http://www.cesr.org/sites/default/files/UnpaidCare_IDS_CESR.pdf.

69 Oxfam International, ‘An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can Be Stopped’ (210 Oxfam briefing paper, Oxfam International, 18 January 2016), https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf.

70 CESR, ‘Spain Factsheet’, CESR Factsheet No. 12 http://www.cesr.org/sites/default/files/FACT_SHEET_SPAIN.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017).

71 CESR and Third World Network, ‘Universal Rights’.

72 See Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Heidelberg: FIAN International, 2013).

73 CESR and Third World Network, ‘Universal Rights’.

74 CESR and Third World Network, ‘Universal Rights’.

75 Aldo Caliari and Mac Darrow, ‘International Cooperation, MDG 8, and Human Rights’, in The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future, ed. Malcolm Langford, Andy Sumner and Alicia Ely Yamin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 316–59.

76 CESR and OHCHR, ‘Who Will Be Accountable? Human Rights and the Post-2015 Development Agenda’ (New York: United Nations, 2013), http://www.cesr.org/sites/default/files/who_will_be_accountable.pdf.

77 UN, Transforming Our World.

78 Federal Government of Germany, ‘Report of the German Federal Government to the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development 2016', 12 July 2016, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/10686HLPF-Bericht_final_EN.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017)

79 UN, Transforming Our World.

80 Kate Donald and Sally-Anne Way, ‘Accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Lost Opportunity?’, Ethics and International Affairs 30 (2016): 2.

81 In June 2013 the UN Human Rights Council called on all states to develop National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights. Several countries have now done so, and the process is underway in many others.

82 Landmark cases in Latin America, India, and South Africa have had a direct effect on social and economic policies in recent years and similar strategic litigation could be possible in the SDG context: see CESR and OHCHR, Who Will Be Accountable?, 39–42.

83 Donald and Way, ‘Accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals’.

84 See, for example, Civicus’ DataShift project, as discussed by Jack Cornforth and Kate Higgins in ‘How Can Civil Society Collaborate to Bolster SDG Monitoring?’, Civicus website, August 13, 2015, civicus.org/thedatashift/how-can-civil-society-collaborate-to-bolster-sdg-monitoring/.

85 The ‘Principles relating to the Status of National Human Rights Institutions’ (the ‘Paris Principles’, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993) set out the standards for NHRIs.

86 CESR and Danish Institute for Human Rights, ‘Realizing Rights through the Sustainable Development Goals: The Role of National Human Rights Institutions’ (New York and Copenhagen: CESR and DIHR, 2015), http://www.cesr.org/sites/default/files/NHRI_realizing_rights_sdgs_0.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017).

87 Twelfth International Conference of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, ‘The Mérida Declaration: The Role of National Human Rights Institutions in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (October 2015), http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/ICC/InternationalConference/12IC/Background%20Information/Merida%20Declaration%20FINAL.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017).

88 Julia Kercher and Claudia Mahler, ‘Sustainable Development Goals: An Opportunity for the Realisation of Human Rights in and by Germany’, German Institute for Human Rights, Aktuell, 2015 no. 3, http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/aktuell/aktuell_3_2015_Sustainable_Development_Goals.pdf; German Institute for Human Rights, ‘Germany’s 2016 Report to the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development Comments by the German Institute for Human Rights’ (2016), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=111&nr=10810&menu=35 (accessed July 21, 2017).

89 UN, Transforming Our World.

90 UN, Transforming Our World.

91 CESR, ‘Accountability Left Behind in SDG Follow-Up and Review’, CESR blog, August 2016, http://www.cesr.org/accountability-left-behind-sdg-follow-and-review.

92 Human rights advocates have already engaged with regional and international human rights mechanisms to challenge issues related to Goal 10, including discriminatory fiscal measures: see CESR, ‘Spain's austerity criticized again in UN rights review,' CESR Blog January 2015, http://www.cesr.org/spain%E2%80%99s-austerity-criticized-again-un-rights-review (accessed July 21, 2017) and CESR et al., ‘Política Fiscal y Derechos Humanos en las Américas: Movilizar los recursos para garantizar los derechos,' Report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 2015, http://www.cesr.org/sites/default/files/cidh_fiscalidad_ddhh_oct2015.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017).

93 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘Letter by the Chairperson of the Committee on austerity measures’, May 16, 2012, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCESCR%2fSUS%2f6395&Lang=en (accessed July 21, 2017); Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No. 19 on public budgeting for the realization of children’s rights (art. 4)’, CRC/C/GC/19 (2016).

94 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 19: The right to social security’ http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2fGC%2f19&Lang=en.

95 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 23 on the Right to Just and Favourable Conditions of Work' (article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)’, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2fGC%2f23&Lang=en (accessed July 21, 2017).

96 See much of the work of the CEDAW Committee, including on substantive equality and temporary special measures; see also CESCR, ‘General Comment 20: Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2fGC%2f20&Lang=en (accessed July 21, 2017).

97 Amnesty International, CESR, Center for Reproductive Rights and Human Rights Watch, ‘Accountability For the Post-2015 Agenda: A Proposal for a Robust Global Review Mechanism’ (Briefing note, 2015), http://cesr.org/accountability-post-2015-agenda-proposal-robust-global-review-mechanism (accessed July 21, 2017).

98 Alvin Leong, ‘The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and the SDGs’, Deliver2030.org blog, May 27, 2014, http://deliver2030.org/?p=5279.

99 Jason Hickel, ‘The Problem with Saving the World’, Jacobin, August 8, 2015, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/global-poverty-climate-change-sdgs/.

100 For several pertinent assessments and critiques, see the special issue of Gender and Development 24, no. 1, March 2016; see also the assessment of the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus: http://cesr.org/sites/default/files/HR_Caucus_Reaction_Agenda2030.pdf (accessed July 21, 2017).

101 Reflection Group on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2016), ‘Spotlight on Sustainable Development’, https://www.2030spotlight.org/en (accessed July 21, 2017).