View previous stories
	New fiscal & economic models needed to reduce inequality, guarantee rights, advance sustainability by Social Europe, Center for Economic & Social Rights   Jan. 2020   Another year of living dangerously, by Isabel Ortiz. (Social Europe/Project Syndicate)   The year 2019 ended with widespread demonstrations, rising inequality and a crisis of representation in many countries. The world is sleepwalking toward recession and a new crisis, while depleting the environment. Governments, and ultimately people, can reverse these alarming trends in 2020.   Sixty-one countries will have presidential or parliamentary elections in 2020. Many citizens are tired of conventional orthodox policies; they want change, and they will choose new parties as a way to achieve this.   This is an important opportunity to redress the current situation, but many of the new emerging leaders are far-right demagogues who blame today's problems on social-welfare policies, migrants and the poor, while aiming to remove all remaining constraints on capital.   As in the United Kingdom, many whom neoliberalism has harmed will vote for these politicians, making the world a more unequal and riskier place.   A lot will be decided in the United States, still the world's hegemonic power. How US citizens (many without much knowledge of global affairs) vote in the 2020 presidential election will have profound consequences for the rest of the plane's citizens.   The US president, Donald Trump, has already had a big impact on the world, eroding multilateral institutions, trade agreements and global initiatives as part of his 'America First' agenda. Despite the populist rhetoric, Americans in the main have benefited little. Trump's large tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to health-care access and increases in the US defence budget are regressive, resulting in increased inequality.   Yet the right continues to win votes, partly because it is becoming ever more radical, offering out-of-the-box 'unthinkable' policies from building walls to exiting the European Union that appeal to those who want change above all else.   Unless social democrats advance radical and attractive progressive public policies in 2020, the radical right will continue to rise, and with it the trend toward increasing inequality, economic risks and environmental degradation.   How we got to this point is not difficult to discern. Four decades of neoliberal policies have eroded living conditions in most countries. Governments of both the left and the right, advised by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organisations, have been pursuing supply-side policies focused on improving business competitiveness, which has meant lower wages, more 'flexible' labour markets, lower corporate taxation and greater income inequality.   While companies sharpened their competitive edge amid falling living standards and rising public debts, global demand has stagnated.   Governments have also pursued cuts in social expenditures and the privatisation of public services.   Paradoxically, most of the savings from these cuts have gone toward supporting private companies with tax breaks and bailouts in an effort to generate growth.   Thus, the average citizen has experienced a significant decline in welfare, and growth has remained slow, because neoliberal short-term policies do not address the long-term structural causes of the problem: overproduction and excess capacity.   Austerity policies   If the current course is not changed, austerity policies will continue spreading in 2020, cutting into pensions, wages, social programmes and labour protections. In 2020, austerity will become 'the new normal', affecting 113 countries, or more than 70 per cent of the world population, and fuelling more social discontent.   Absurdly, many governments are cutting social expenditures but increasing military spending and supporting large corporations with public funds and limited regulation.   At a time when half of the world's population still lives in poverty (defined as less than $5.50 per day), this is likely to result in more protests and conflicts in 2020.   Austerity is not necessary. Even in the poorest countries, there are alternatives. The International Labour Organization, United Nations Women and UNICEF report at least eight financing options to generate resources sustainably and avoid cuts to public services. For example, countries can curb illicit financial flows, crack down on tax evasion, increase the progressivity of the tax system, reduce debt service by better managing debt or adopt more accommodative macroeconomic frameworks. There are many successful examples in recent times.   If governments were to opt out of austerity, we could see more countries successfully raising revenue for national development in 2020, increasing public investments that benefit people, and supporting real economic activity and human development, with a view toward generating decent employment and ensuring environmental sustainability.   In addition to improving financial regulation and redressing financialisation processes, these policies would help avoid the danger of recession and the possible economic and financial crisis predicted by institutions such as the UN, JP Morgan and Moody's.   Even if the world avoids economic calamity in 2020, environmental devastation will continue. The world is losing more than 26 million hectares of trees each year, an area the size of the UK, mostly tropical rainforests, affecting both climate and wildlife. Unless adequate policies are implemented, deforestation, overfishing, carbon emissions and waste generation are all expected to increase in absolute terms next year.   These are not just national issues. Global problems require global solutions and multilateralism needs to be strengthened, not weakened, to work together to form sustainable solutions to improve people's lives.   A better future for all is possible. Governments, and ultimately citizens, can improve the world in 2020. But if they continue obsessing about stock prices and quarterly earnings at the expense of a long-term vision, hiking defence spending and cutting welfare, and blaming migrants and the poor, while allowing the rich to become richer and the environment to be further damaged, it will be another long year of living dangerously.   * Isabel Ortiz is director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University. She was previously director of the Social Protection Department of the International Labor Organization.   http://www.socialeurope.eu/another-year-of-living-dangerously http://wid.world/news-article/ten-facts-about-inequality-in-advanced-economies/   Dec. 2019   Dismantling Austerity in Latin America. (CESR)   In a time when conventional wisdom is being challenged by mass popular protests against inequality and human rights breaches in Latin American countries encumbered by austerity regimes, a new briefing by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) confronts some of the dogmas that are most frequently deployed against progressive structural fiscal reforms that could ameliorate such problems.   Dismantling the Dogmas of Austerity and Fiscal Injustice in Latin America, drawing on empirical evidence, interviews with knowledgeable experts, and regional and international human rights conventions, seeks to debunk 10 commonly held misconceptions about why fiscal consolidation policies are necessary.   In the process, it makes a strong case for progressive structural tax reforms that are redistributive and would, in the long term, reduce inequality, guarantee rights and promote sustainable development.   Crucially, the briefing argues that clawing back the fiscal resources lost to corruption, tax evasion and avoidance, and illicit financial flows would contribute significantly to closing the gap in financing required to address complex problems such as poverty, climate change and compliance with the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).   As CESR has reported in the past, austerity has become the dominant fiscal policy paradigm, with an estimated two-thirds of countries worldwide adopting 'reform' packages intended to defray national deficits.   Severe cuts in social spending, the dismantling of social protection policies, and regressive adjustments to labor market and social security systems have been implemented in many Latin American countries, negatively affecting human rights enjoyment and the wellbeing of ordinary citizens, hitting hardest the poorest and most socially disenfranchised groups, such as women, Indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant communities.   The briefing highlights how persistent and misleading dogmas arguing against structural fiscal reforms consistently flood public debates, despite the fact that a wide range of actors agree that progressive reforms, instead of constraints on public spending, are needed to address fiscal imbalances.   Progressive direct taxation, the elimination of ineffective tax incentives, and the empowerment of tax administrations to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance have all been recommended, but political resistance tied to powerful vested interests has thrown up considerable obstacles.   Wealthy elites and large corporations play a large part in sustaining the rhetorical devices that argue against progressive, structural reforms, according to the briefing.   Dismantling the Dogmas demystifies many potent, but inaccurate, assumptions, such as the dogma that says deficits can only be diminished by austerity adjustments when, in fact, evidence from the region shows that fiscal imbalances are more frequently due to weak tax collection. Additionally, the assertion that austerity is an adequate response for overcoming the chilling effect that deficits have on investors and creditors who fear that states cannot pay their debt is refuted by evidence from countries such as Brazil and Argentina, which shows that draconian austerity measures actually proved ineffective and failed to restore confidence in the economy.   A related dogma claiming that equality cannot be achieved through the tax system is rebutted by the fact that truly redistributive taxes fuel much more than just revenue production. Beyond generating resources necessary for government functions, fairer taxation also contributes to building more egalitarian societies by stimulating development practices that are more redistributive.   In Latin America, where most fiscal revenue comes from indirect means, such as the value-added tax (VAT), the redistributive capacity of tax systems is limited and low-income groups, such as women, are negatively impacted.   By more aggressively pursuing revenue from direct taxation, including property and income tax, governments could significantly raise their levels of redistribution and equality.   One particularly insidious dogma identifies corruption as the primary cause of fiscal imbalance, making structural tax reforms unnecessary.   The briefing argues that, while the loss of tax revenue to corruption in public administrations should not be ignored, it is also important to focus on the serious problems of tax abuse (tax evasion and avoidance) and illicit financial flows taking place in the private sector.   Indeed, corruption must be understood in all its manifestations, including the way in which decision making is captured to implement tax and fiscal policies that benefit powerful groups with vested interests.   The evidence and arguments advanced in Dismantling the Dogmas seek to refute the accepted beliefs dominating popular discourse in Latin America, which justify the implementation of austerity measures and unfair fiscal policies that benefit only a few and harm many.   The briefing's offers actors in social movements and civil society with tools necessary for neutralizing those misconceptions, providing fiscal alternatives that are both progressive and redistributive. The briefing adds to CESR's work calling for new fiscal and economic models in the Andean Region that would reduce inequality, guarantee rights and promote sustainable development.   http://www.cesr.org/dismantling-dogmas-tools-tackling-austerity-latin-america Visit the related web page
	UN treaty on business and human rights vital for economic and social justice by OHCHR, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre   Oct. 2019   UN treaty on business and human rights vital for economic and social justice, by Sharan Burrow. (ITUC)   How can transnational corporations be held to account in a world of nation states? A binding UN treaty would be an important step.   The global economic model has failed working people. The power and greed of huge corporations have captured governments, which are acting against the rights and interests of their own workers.   The current model of trade - the bulk of it tied to global supply chains, in highly-competitive, low-cost markets - means that jobs created by transnational companies are too often based on exploitation without decent working standards.   Ninety-four per cent of the global workforce of the top 50 corporations is hidden in supply chains, where the obscurity of business contracts facilitates this exploitation and too often a dehumanising oppression, even inclusive of modern slavery, along with low wages, short-term or precarious contracts and unsafe work environments.   In addition, new frontiers have emerged with the monopoly dominance of giant technology companies, with the power they exercise by controlling data and platforms, whose business models have little or no connection to national laws, taxation systems or employment responsibility.   Transnational business cannot and will not be sustainable unless it is based on the principles of decent work. Yet international law is not well equipped to address cross-border corporate abuses of human and labour rights.   The traditional approach of obliging states to hold solely to account perpetrators of abuses within their own borders no longer corresponds to the realities of a global economy.   Companies are operating as vast de facto networks of nominally national-level entities, each protected by the corporate veil shielding them from being held accountable. Even when it comes to the subsidiaries of transnational companies, which are either directly or indirectly controlled by their parents, there is often no avenue for access to justice.   When it comes to seeking remedies locally, workers continue to face enormous legal and practical barriers, not least because local companies are often deliberately under-capitalised, essentially making them judgment-proof.   Practically speaking, most workers are deprived of access to their rights as a result of the impunity of transnational companies, sustained by the absence of a legal framework that captures all business operations and activities. The 2019 ITUC Global Rights Index found workers had no or restricted access to justice in 72 per cent of countries.   A legally-binding global instrument on business and human rights could help close accountability gaps and combat corporate impunity.   What would a meaningful United Nations treaty have to include to achieve this?   It would entail: A broad substantive scope covering all internationally recognised human rights, including fundamental workers and trade-union rights, as defined by relevant international labour standards.   Coverage of all business enterprises, regardless of size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure. Extraterritorial regulation of parent companies and access to justice for victims of transnational human-rights violations in the corporation's home state;   Regulatory measures that require businesses to adopt and apply human-rights due-diligence policies and procedures. Reaffirmation of the applicability of human-rights obligations to the operations of companies, and a strong international monitoring and enforcement mechanism.   What are the chances of getting there?   In June 2014, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted Resolution 26/9, establishing an Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) tasked with the elaboration of an international legally-binding instrument to regulate, in international human-rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.   Despite the enormous deficits in respect for human and labour rights across global supply chains, this decision was by no means a given. Following heated debates, reflecting divisions based on ideology and economic power between the global north and south, the HRC recorded a vote of 20 to 14, with 13 abstentions, paving the way to address one of the most significant shortcomings in international human rights law.   The United States - unsurprisingly, given its sceptical attitude towards the HRC as a whole - has entirely rejected the process and has not engaged in any of the negotiations, limiting itself to sending a letter to state its opposition.   The business lobby, led by the International Chamber of Commerce and the International Organisation of Employers, also did their best to frustrate the process.   There has however been a visible shift in government attitudes towards regulating companies and in support for a legally-binding treaty.   This month, the IGWG held its fifth session, to enter into substantive negotiations on a revised draft text published in July. Governments, for the first time from both industrialised and developing countries, actively participated in the negotiations, congratulating the chair of the IGWG on improving a previous draft.   Indeed, the vast majority of governments expressed their commitment to constructively engage to achieve the IGWG's objective.   The most significant shift came from the European Union. In 2015, during the first session of the IGWG, the EU representative left the negotiating room, having offered polarising remarks opposing the treaty process during the discussion of the programme of work.   At the outset of this month's negotiations, however, the EU explicitly acknowledged the urgent need to strengthen prevention and mitigation of adverse human-rights impacts related to business activities and to provide access to effective remediation.   While the bloc still points to the absence of a negotiating mandate from the European Council, and the need for further analysis and clarification of the text, all involved actors are now aware we are on a trajectory towards binding legislation.   Several factors have contributed to the change of tune. The revised draft text has taken on board various concerns and priorities expressed by industrialised countries and the business community. Notably, the text has been further aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, alleviating the fear that a binding treaty could undermine the implementation of the latter. Moreover, the scope of the companies covered has been clarified and broadened to be comprehensive.   At the same time, the two key tenets of effective respect for human and labour rights - due diligence (prevention) and access to remedy - feature prominently in the text. In short, the chair of the IGWG has made a clear attempt at a compromise.   Moreover, discussions at the international level have fuelled progress on longstanding campaigns at the national level. Mandatory human-rights due-diligence legislation, a key component of the legally-binding treaty, is now on the legislative agenda in many countries, in some instances with company support.   The European Commission itself is now exploring regulatory options to require businesses to undertake due diligence for human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations and their supply chains.   It is now critical to build on this momentum. There is scope to improve the text of the draft further, for example when it comes to the international enforcement mechanisms and issues of trade and investment.   Written comments on the revised draft can be submitted by February 2020 and, based on these inputs, a new draft is expected to be published next June. But it is time for all parties to be pragmatic, to delay no longer this urgently-needed treaty.   Most importantly, governments must firmly express their political commitment, to make a legally-binding treaty a reality - part of the foundation for a new global social contract, with the rule of law at its centre. The value of an EU directive on due diligence and remedy cannot be overestimated.   For unions and civil society, it is critical to lobby all governments, and the European Commission, and to include wherever possible that voice of business committed to change.   The global negotiations are a critical focus but all governments need to take their seat at the table, with the demands of their publics providing the momentum to see the treaty agreed.   * Sharan Burrow is general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation.   Oct. 2019   Draft report of 5th session of Intergovernmental working group on a proposed treaty on business & human rights, from the United Nations Office of the High Commissionner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 22 October 2019.   Extract: 'Many delegations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) recalled instances of business involvement in human rights abuses where there had been no accountability or remedy for those affected. These incidents involving environmental and human rights defenders being killed or otherwise attacked, destruction of the climate and biodiversity, pharmaceutical companies exploiting those in dire need of medicine, attacks on indigenous peoples, and abuses in situations of armed conflict provided a powerful reminder of the need for increased action to prevent and address business-related human rights harms.   While several delegations shared developments taken at the domestic level (such as new or reformed legislation and national action plans on business and human rights), most others emphasized how internationallegal developments were needed to enhance the protection and respect of human rights in this space.   Those pursuing an international agenda cited several objectives, including increasing legal certainty and predictability to help ensure a level playing field; enhancing prevention and mitigation of business-related human rights abuse; improving access to remedy for those harmed; closing existing gaps in protection and international law; and increasing coordination amongst members of the international community.   Some delegations and many NGOs emphasized that the focus of these efforts must be on the people who have been,or are at risk of being, harmed in the context of business activities, particularly those at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization.   Many delegations and NGOs welcomed the revised draft legally binding instrument as an improvement on the zero draft instrument.   Civil society groups, in particular, emphasized welcome developments with respect to provisions on human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, gender, and conflict-affected areas.   Some delegations and NGOs thanked the Chair for addressing their concerns with the previous draft and for incorporating suggestions they had provided. However, most delegations acknowledged there was still room for improvement in the revised draft legally binding instrument (RDLBI)'.   * Access the full OHCHR report: (26pp): http://bit.ly/2Ps61Xu   * 6th Session of the Open Ended Inter Governmental Working Group in charge of the elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises, with respect to human rights: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/2nd_Revised_LBI_IGWG6th_session.pdf   http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/intergovernmental-working-group-releases-new-draft-of-proposed-binding-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights http://bit.ly/2FV80kA http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty/intergovernmental-working-group-sessions/fifth-un-intergovt-working-group-session-on-proposed-business-human-rights-treaty-14-18-oct-2019 http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty http://www.escr-net.org/corporateaccountability/hrbusinesstreaty http://www.mindthegap.ngo/ http://www.protecting-defenders.org/en/news/time-act-protect-defenders-who-speak-against-business-impact-people-and-planet Visit the related web page
	View more stories