Scene from the event, “Gender equality: From the Biarritz Partnership to the Beijing+25 Generation Equality Forum”, hosted by France and Mexico ahead of the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, 2019. Credit: UN Women/Ryan Brown

By Pedro Conceição
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2020 (IPS)

Architectural metaphors are a popular way to think about inequality between men and women.

When it comes to the fundamentals, we often talk about whether there is a “sticky floor” that is holding women and girls back. And the good news is that, for billions around the world, the floor is a lot less sticky than it used to be.

Maternal mortality significantly reduced since 1990, and boys and girls now have equal access to primary school education in most countries.

But pull away from the sticky floor and many women will hit a glass ceiling. Or rather glass ceilings. Though the term was originally used to talk about women’s prospects for advancing in the workplace, other invisible barriers are a factor in many areas of life.

And here there is much less progress to celebrate. Consider politics. Men and women may share the same right to vote in most countries for example. But under a quarter of parliamentarians are women. Only one in ten heads of government is female.

But this doesn’t go anywhere near telling the whole story. In fact, many women face layers of glass – at home, work, education and beyond – which prevent them from reaching their full potential.

Break through one ceiling and they invariably find another, more impenetrable, waiting just above them.

Why is this still happening in 2020?

Part of the answer lies in barriers thrown up by the perceptions and biases of both women and men around the world. Progress towards genuine gender inequality will never succeed if people don’t believe in it.

UNDP’s gender social norms index which uses data from the World Values Survey and covers 81 percent of the world’s population, shows clearly that the great majority of citizens in almost every country – both men and women – do not believe women and men should enjoy equal opportunities in key areas like politics or work.

About 50 percent of men and women interviewed across 75 countries, say they think men make better political leaders than women. More than 40 percent felt that men made better business executives. And in some countries these attitudes seem to be deteriorating over time.

Credit: UN Women

Much of this bias seems to be directed at giving women more power. And indeed, the data shows, time and time again, the greater the power the greater the bias. Although women work more hours than men, they are much less likely to be paid for that work.

Women on average do three time more unpaid care work than men. When they are paid, they earn less than men and they are less likely to be in management positions – only 6 percent of CEOS in S&P 500 companies are female.

At the very time when progress is meant to be accelerating to reach global goals on gender by 2030, it is slowing down in some areas. The massive improvements in many aspects of gender equality in recent years show what is possible.

But we now need new approaches to get to grips with the architecture of inequality. Investing in education, raising awareness and encouraging women and girls into traditionally male dominated jobs all have a role to play.

Tackling the invisible barriers of bias could be the game changer.

Excerpt:

By Pedro Conceição
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 11 2020 (IPS)

Inequalities. The evidence is everywhere. And although they may be hard to measure and summarize, there is a sense in many countries that many are approaching a precipice beyond which it will be difficult to recover.

Not all inequalities are harmful, but those that are perceived as being unfair tend to be. Under the shadow of sweeping technological change and the climate crisis, those inequalities hurt almost everyone.

Pedro Conceição

The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) 2019 Human Development Report, opens a new window to understand and address inequalities in human development. “Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st Century” asks what forms of inequality matter and what causes them.

It recognizes that pernicious inequalities are generally better thought of as a symptom of broader problems in a society and economy. It also asks what policies can tackle the underlying drivers—policies that can simultaneously help nations to grow their economies sustainably and equitably expand human development.

There is far too much in the report to cover in this short post so let me focus on two important points.

1. A NEW GENERATION OF INEQUALITIES IS EMERGING, EVEN IF MANY 20TH CENTURY INEQUALITIES ARE DECLINING

It is common knowledge that some basic inequalities are slowly narrowing in many countries, even if much remains to be done. The indicators of basic achievements in the figure below all show narrowing inequalities between countries in different human development groups, though the gaps are still wide.

In life expectancy at birth (driven mainly by survival to age 5), in access to primary education, and in access to mobile phones, countries with lower human development are catching up with more developed countries.

In contrast, and much less well known, inequalities in more advanced areas are widening. Countries with higher human development have longer life expectancy at older ages, higher tertiary education enrollment and more access to broadband—and they are increasing their lead.

Figure 1. Slow convergence in basic, rapid divergence in enhanced capabilities

Source: Human Development Report Office calculations based on data from the International Telecommunication Union, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

These new inequalities may be one reason behind an apparent increase in concern about inequality: These are the inequalities that will shape people’s ability to seize the opportunities of the 21st century and function in a knowledge economy, and to meet challenges, including the ability to cope with climate change.

2. INEQUALITIES IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CAN ACCUMULATE THROUGH LIFE, FREQUENTLY HEIGHTENED BY POWER IMBALANCES

Understanding inequality—even income inequality—means looking well beyond income. Different inequalities interact, while their size and impact shifts over a person’s lifetime.

Inequalities start before birth, and the gaps can increase over a person’s life if they are not counteracted, creating self-perpetuating engines of privilege and disadvantage. This can happen in many ways, and the report looks in detail at one set of linkages: the nexus between health, education, and parental income.

Parental incomes and circumstances affect the health, education, and incomes of children. Health gradients—disparities in health across socioeconomic groups—can start before birth and may accumulate.

When that happens, inequalities compound and spiral: Children born to low-income families are more prone to poor health and lower education. Those with lower education are less likely to earn as much as others, while children in poorer health are more likely to miss school.

And when children grow up, they typically partner with someone having similar socioeconomic status, reinforcing the inequalities across generations. It is a cycle that is often difficult to break, not least because of the way inequalities in income and political power co-evolve.

When the wealthy shape policies that favor themselves and their children—as they often do—that drives further accumulation of income and opportunity at the top. Unsurprising, then, that mobility tends to be lower in more unequal societies.

A NEW TAKE ON THE GREAT GATSBY CURVE

The positive correlation between higher income inequality and lower intergenerational mobility in income is well known. This relation, known as the Great Gatsby Curve, also holds true using a measure of inequality in human development instead of income inequality alone (see Figure 2).

The greater the inequality in human development, the lower the intergenerational mobility in income—and vice versa. These two factors go hand in hand, but that does not imply that one causes the other.

In fact, it is more likely that both are driven by underlying economic and social factors, so understanding and tackling these drivers could both promote mobility and redress inequality.

Figure 2. Intergenerational mobility in income is lower in countries with more inequality in human development

Note: Inequality in human development is measured as the percentage loss in Human Development Index value due to inequality in three components: income, education, and health. The higher the intergenerational income elasticity, the stronger the association between parents’ income and their children’s income, reflecting lower intergenerational mobility.

Source: Human Development Report Office using data from GDIM (2018), adapted from Corak 2013.

WHERE TO NEXT?

The report has a template framing a rich set of policy suggestions for governments wishing to act, but stresses that there is no silver bullet. Tackling inequalities requires addressing the drivers, not just the symptoms. Two arguments are central to this.

The first is that inequalities do not always damage a society, nor do they always reflect an unfair world. Some inequality is productive in rewarding talent and effort, and some is probably inevitable, such as the inequalities from diffusing a new technology.

Preventing anyone from access to a new health treatment until everyone can have it makes no sense. But some inequalities—especially in opportunities—are unjust and damaging. They have deep roots, and we focus on these inequalities and their drivers.

The second argument is that the sorts of inequalities that concern us most are not so much a cause of unfairness as a consequence of an unfairness deeply embedded in our economies, societies, and politics. That sense of unfairness can lead to alienation and become a wellspring of anger.

The human development lens—placing people at the heart—is central to approaching inequalities and asking why they matter, how they manifest themselves and how best to tackle them.

This is a conversation that every society must have for itself, and that should begin today. The 2019 Human Development Report is a contribution to inform and to help shape those conversations.

Excerpt:

By Pedro Conceição
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 2019 (IPS)

“People are the real wealth of nations,” began the first Human Development Report (HDR). That 1990 report marked a turning point in the global development debate.

During the second half of the 20th century there were growing concerns about the tyranny of gross domestic product (GDP). Many decision-makers seemed to believe that economic growth and wellbeing were synonymous.

But those who understood what GDP actually measures disagreed. Their arguments were well encapsulated in Bobby Kennedy’s now famous speech in which he noted that GDP “measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile”.

Thirty years later global development stands at another milestone. The 2030 Agenda is an opportunity to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure lasting peace and prosperity. Can human development thinking inspire a new generation of analysis, measurement and decision-making to revolutionise global development once again?

How does human development relate to the SDGs?

There are many links between the human development approach and the 2030 Agenda. But it is worth noting up front that the two are fundamentally different things.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a globally agreed tool for assessing development progress. Human development, meanwhile, is a philosophy – or lens – for considering almost any development issue one can think of.

In other words, the SDGs provide a development destination. Human development allows one to design the route to get there. Two characteristics of the approach make it particularly suitable for designing the policies that nations need to achieve the SDGs.

First, the SDGs are ‘integrated and indivisible’. And so, though the goals are discrete, the policies for achieving them need to recognise the interlinkages between the different areas. The human development approach stresses the importance of integrated thinking and the ‘joined up’ nature of development.

For instance, when trying to make it easier for someone to find work, one also needs to think about that person’s health, other responsibilities (at home, for example), education, access to transport, freedom to take a job (particularly for many women), and so on.

Second, while all nations have agreed on the importance of the SDGs, it is for each nation to pursue the goals according to their own priorities. And so, any broad development approach will need to be flexible if it is to be useful to many countries.

Human development can be thought of as broad as – or broader than – the 2030 Agenda. It is an approach that can be applied in different places, by different people and in different ways to tackle different issues.

Measuring and communicating progress

The SDGs comprise 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators. Some commentators see the quantity of targets as a weakness. Others argue it is a necessary reflection of the complexity of life.

Whatever one thinks, the number of indicators undoubtedly makes it difficult to readily summarise a nation’s overall progress against the 2030 Agenda. Indeed, it is often argued that one reason for GDP’s dominance in political debate is that it provides a ‘one number’ measure of progress that captures public attention.

The Human Development Index (HDI) provides an alternative single-number measure, capturing progress in three basic dimensions of human development: health, education and living standards. It enables cross-country comparisons similar to – but broader than – those provided by GDP.

Mahbub Ul Haq, the father of the HDI, recognised the convening power of a single number: “We need a measure of the same level of vulgarity as GNP – just one number – but a measure that is not as blind to social aspects of human lives as GNP is.”

But the HDI has also attracted criticism. This is primarily because – as with almost all composite indicators – it is impossible to avoid rather arbitrary weighting when combining component indicators measured in different units: life expectancy (in years of life), income (in purchasing power) or education (in years of expected and actual schooling).

If this is problematic for the HDI, built from just four indicators, then imagine the uproar if one tried a similar approach with the SDGs’ 232 indicators.

Is there a middle ground? There might be a case for using the HDI as one of a very few measures to summarise progress towards the 2030 Agenda. Many of the SDGs relate directly to the HDI: poverty, health, education and work, for example.

Others – such as peace and hunger – relate indirectly. And if the HDI is moving in the right direction, it is rather likely that those SDGs are progressing too.

This is not to say that the HDI should replace those targets and indicators. It cannot. But the index can offer a rough indication of whether a nation is progressing against many of the SDGs.

Finding other summary measures – to sketch a fuller picture of progress towards the 2030 Agenda – is undoubtedly a challenge given the diversity of goals and targets. But work we are planning at UNDP might help.

It is fair to say that the HDI has not evolved as dramatically as the world’s development challenges have over the past 30 years. Some of the challenges the planet is grappling with are new, such as understanding what the rise in artificial intelligence might mean for the labour force a decade from now.

And some global challenges are more urgent than 30 years ago: the frightening pace of climate change being the most obvious example.

Indeed, the natural environment is a crucial component of the 2030 Agenda. But neither the HDI, nor our other composite indicators of human development, touch on environmental concerns. We intend next year to investigate how environmental – and other – considerations could be included within a composite development index.

Looking to the future

The development world is rightly focused on the SDGs. But global development will not, of course, grind to a halt in 2030 even if all the SDGs are achieved. Old concerns will continue. New ones will emerge.

And the HDR has an important role to play in ensuring we keep one eye on the horizon, even if most attention is focused on the next 11 years.

For example, this year’s HDR will be about inequality. An emerging theme suggests that although many countries are making progress in closing key development gaps, new fissures are opening just as quickly.

In many countries today, for example, the gap between rich and poor children has closed when we look at whether they have access to primary education. But differences between these children are widening when we consider the quality of that education, or whether they have access to other schooling, such as early childhood education.

These ‘new’ inequalities will have lifetime consequences, particularly given the rapid technological changes that are already impacting labour markets. It is important that we pay attention to them now. It is also important that we get ahead of the curve to see what important gaps will emerge in the next decade, even if they are not included in the SDGs.

The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs – with their universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity – foreshadow a better world that the human development approach is helping to build. But the story of global development will not end in 2030.

It is our job to ensure that human development thinking will continue to shape the global development landscape for the rest of the 21st century.

* UNDP’s Human Development Report turns 30 next year. This is a moment both for celebrating the report’s impact, and for reflecting on how it can continue to help global development in a landscape dominated by the SDGs

Excerpt:

The answer to the question “How much money will it take to achieve the new SDGs?” is … drum-roll … every single dollar in the world. Credit: Bindalfrodo/cc by 2.0

By Paul Ladd and Pedro Conceição
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 7 2015 (IPS)

Ethiopia will host an important meeting on Financing for Development (FfD) Conference next week. One of the most-asked questions is:  How much will it cost us to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?

The question sounds sensible at first glance and flows naturally from our experience of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).Everything we buy has little impacts across the SDGs. For example, when we buy a shirt we are also ‘buying’ the environmental waste and labour standards used when making that shirt.

The grand MDG deal was that poor nations would focus on reducing poverty and improving governance, in exchange for Official Development Assistance (ODA) that would top up resources mobilised by developing countries themselves.

This ‘gap filling’ logic led to expansive exercises in MDG costing, estimations of how quickly governments could improve their tax take, and campaigns to scale up aid.

Many governments responded, and a great deal of good has been done through development aid: Expanded vaccine programmes, more children in school, cleaner water for more people, and many more less measurable achievements like gradually strengthening institutional capacities.

But as we now move to a different development agenda – one that is more ambitious, complex, integrated and universal – our logic on financing also needs a radical overhaul.

While gap-filling will still be important for some countries with very low tax bases and underfunded challenges (like some communicable diseases), for the majority it will be much more about aligning existing resources.

So the answer to the question “How much money will it take to achieve the new SDGs?” is … drum-roll … every single dollar in the world.

This means that every dollar we spend as consumers should work in the direction of achieving the SDGs and not against them. This includes our spending on clothes, food, and travel.

Everything we buy has little impacts across the SDGs. For example, when we buy a shirt we are also ‘buying’ the environmental waste and labour standards used when making that shirt.

But voluntary action by consumers will not be enough. Companies will also have to play their part.

Some are starting to change their business models realising that building a sustainable business will require a sustainable world. Some are engaging in development impact investment.

But beyond these voluntary actions, governments will need to step up and play the critical role of creating the right incentives and regulations to align actions by all consumers, businesses and investors.

While aligning private finance is the big win, changing how we spend public monies will also require a major overhaul. The classic example is energy: If we continue to subsidise non-renewable energies, we are deliberately and consciously working against the Goals.

Globally, energy subsidies are estimated to reach five trillion dollars this year, approaching 20 percent of GDP in some countries. They are overwhelmingly directed towards fossils fuels.

Energy subsidy reform would increase government revenue globally by three trillion dollars a year, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent, and cut premature air pollution deaths by half.

Sometimes incentives, regulation, and fiscal reform are seen as imposing costs. Attention is drawn to these costs by those directly affected, with less attention given to society-wide and long-term benefits.

And many inefficiencies that are staring us in the face can unlock trillions more in gains. For instance, advancing gender equality would directly advance the SDGs and generate economic benefits.

Arguing that aligning existing finance with sustainable development is more important than raising ever more money shouldn’t be interpreted as support for the anti-aid movement. Done well, aid has its place.

Donors should indeed meet their 0.7 percent commitments and make much faster progress on their commitments on improving how aid is done.

But if the Conference in Addis Ababa, scheduled to take place next week, only focuses on mobilizing more money and doesn’t do something about improving how that money is spent, then we will have missed the point, and will certainly miss the grand targets we have set for ourselves. This is why every dollar counts.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt: