View previous stories
	Human rights are key for economic policymaking by Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, Philip Alston Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights   Sep. 2019   Austerity measures imposed by international financial institutions such as the IMF, regularly cause violations of human rights, says UN Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky in a report to be presented to the UN General Assembly in October.   'Even though austerity can be a useful tool of administration against the squandering of resources, it is essential to keep in mind that austerity impacts different social groups in very different ways, especially the most vulnerable and marginalised', says Bohoslavsky.   'Although States are the main guarantors of human rights, international financial institutions can also be held responsible if they are complicit in prescribing policies with probable negative impacts on human rights', the expert said.   'If international financial institutions can be made responsible for the preventable damage caused by a dam built with their funding, why should they not be responsible for the preventable human rights harm to people caused by regressive economic policies'.   Bohoslavsky said it was worth noting that the austerity measures promoted by the IMF and other international financial institutions were not for everyone, as they did not restrict payment of public debt to national and international foreign creditors. On the contrary, the restrictive monetary policies increase interest payments. 'It is austerity for the poor, not for creditors', he highlighted.   It isn't surprising that the combination of economic deceleration and changes in fiscal policy negatively impact a wide range of human rights. 'Unfortunately, austerity measures often lead to reduced food subsidies, and cuts in essential public services. They have a negative impact on salaries and on social investment like housing, infrastructure, health and education', he says.   'From an economic viewpoint, there is no evidence that fiscal consolidation contributes to recovery. But there is much clearer evidence of the negative impact of structural adjustment programmes over economic growth, jobs, debt sustainability and, ultimately, equality', Bohoslavsky says.   The Independent Expert extensively argues in his report that there is a solid legal basis on which to say that, in principle, austerity policies during times of recession are incompatible with obligations to guarantee the enjoyment of human rights.   International human rights law prevents countries from being forced to fully repay their debts at the expense of increases in child mortality, unemployment or malnutrition.   Bohoslavsky says the international financial institutions could be considered responsible for complicity with economic reforms that violate human rights. Legal responsibility for such complicity can lead to human rights obligations for these institutions such as cessation, guarantees of non-repetition and reparations.   The Human Rights Council, in March 2019, voted on the Guiding Principles on Human rights impact: assessment of economic reform policies. Section V of these principles explicitly addresses the role and responsibilities of international financial institutions. 'This instrument can serve as a guide for present and future processes of economic reform', Bohoslavsky said. http://bit.ly/2kgnLIo   * Access the report: http://undocs.org/A/74/178   Jan. 2019   Human rights must be an integral component of policymaking to ensure economic reforms help advance societies, rather than hinder people's lives, an independent expert appointed by the Human Rights Council said today.   Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, the Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, published the Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments of Economic Reforms to assist States, international financial institutions, creditors, civil society and others to ensure that economic policies are embedded in human rights.   "The thrust of the Guiding Principles is that States cannot shy away from their human rights obligations in economic policymaking at all times, even in times of economic crisis," said Bohoslavsky.   "Any economic policy measures - whether fiscal austerity, structural adjustment reforms, privatisation of public services, deregulation of financial and labour markets, or changes in taxation - all have human rights consequences.   "Governments at all levels - including local and subnational governments - must properly take into account their human rights obligations when designing and formulating economic reforms. Human rights impact assessments are key to this process," he said.   "In particular, such assessments should pay particular attention to potential and cumulative impacts of economic measures on specific individuals and groups, such as women and persons with disabilities," he stressed.   Bohoslavsky added that the new Guiding Principles make clear that international financial institutions, creditors and donors must not turn a blind eye to the human rights impact of their loans and grants.   "In particular, the international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, have an obligation to ensure that their loan conditionalities, advice and proposals for economic reforms do not undermine the borrower State's human rights obligations," said Bohoslavsky, who has previously urged the IMF to undertake human rights impact assessments.   http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/40/57   Oct. 2018   Widespread privatisation of public goods is systematically eliminating human rights protections. (UN Radio, agencies)   The private sector 'should not take the lead in poverty alleviation' but it should remain a key obligation of governments to improve the life of the poorest people across the world according to Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.   'The privatization of public services, such as health care, social protection, education and prisons, has been promoted by international organizations, such as Wall Street, the Finance sector, the World Bank and even the UN', Mr. Alston told UN News, in an in-depth interview.   The Special Rapporteur believes countries like the United States are increasingly allowing profit-driven private companies, to run services for the estimated 40 million people who live in poverty in the US.   Daniel Dickinson sat down with Philip Alston to discuss his role as an independent observer of poverty and began by asking him what he had seen in the seven countries he has visited since 2014 when he became Special Rapporteur.   * Access the audio interview: http://bit.ly/2Unr4OO   Sep. 2018   Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights to the UN General Assembly on the Privatization of Public Goods & Services   Privatization is generally presented as a technical solution for managing resources and reducing fiscal deficits, but in fact, it is an integral part of an economic and social philosophy of governance. Key international actors now promote it aggressively without regard to its human rights implications or consequences, while most human rights bodies have either ignored the phenomenon or assumed that tweaking existing procedures provides an adequate response.   Yet privatization often involves the systematic elimination of human rights protections and further marginalization of the interests of low-income earners and those living in poverty. Existing human rights accountability mechanisms are clearly inadequate for dealing with the challenges presented by large-scale and widespread privatization. Human rights proponents need to fundamentally reconsider their approach: http://undocs.org/A/73/396   UN poverty expert warns against tsunami of unchecked privatisations.   Widespread privatisation of public goods in many societies is systematically eliminating human rights protections and further marginalising those living in poverty, says Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, criticizing the extent to which the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other agencies have aggressively promoted widespread privatisation of public basic services, without regard to the human rights implications or the consequences for the poor.   'Privatising the provision of criminal justice, social protection, prisons, education, basic healthcare and other essential public goods cannot be done at the expense of rights protections', Alston said.   'States can't dispense with their human rights obligations by delegating core services and functions to private companies on terms that they know will effectively undermine those rights'.   He noted that while 'proponents present privatisation as a technical solution for managing resources and reducing fiscal deficits, it has actually become an ideology of governance that devalues public goods, equity, public spaces, compassion and a range of other values that are essential for a decent society.   While privatisation's proponents insist that it saves money, enhances efficiency, and improves services, the real world evidence very often challenges and contradicts these claims'.   Privatisation is premised on fundamentally different assumptions from those that underpin respect for human rights, such as dignity and equality, he said. It inevitably prioritizes profit, and sidelines considerations such as equality and non-discrimination. Rights-holders are transformed into clients or customers, and those who are poor or less well-off are marginalised or excluded.   Human rights criteria are absent from almost all privatisation agreements, which rarely include provisions for sustained monitoring of their impact on service provision and the poor.   'Existing human rights accountability mechanisms are clearly inadequate for dealing with the challenges of large-scale and widespread privatisation', Alston said. 'The human rights community can no longer ignore the consequences of privatisation'.   Human rights actors should reassert the central role of concepts such as equality, society, the public interest, and shared responsibilities, while challenging the assumption that privatisation should be the default approach.   'The human rights community needs to systematically confront the broader implication of widespread privatisation and ensure that human rights and accountability are at the centre of privatisation efforts', Alston said.   There appear to be no limits to what states have privatised, he said. Public institutions and services across the world have been taken over by private companies dedicated to profiting from key parts of criminal justice systems and prisons, dictating educational priorities and approaches, deciding who will receive health care and social protection, and choosing what infrastructure will be built, where, and for whom, often with harsh consequences for the most marginalised.   'There is a real risk that the waves of privatisation experienced to date will soon be followed by a veritable tsunami', Alston said.   Privatisation of social protection often leads to a focus on economic efficiency concerns that aim to minimise time spent per client, close cases earlier, generate fees wherever possible, and cater to those better-off, pushing those with less resources and more complex problems to the margins.   * Access the report: http://undocs.org/A/73/396 http://bit.ly/2J8HUIu http://srpoverty.org/ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/SRExtremePovertyIndex.aspx Visit the related web page
	Billionaire fortunes grew by $2.5 billion a day last year by George Washington University, Bloomberg, agencies   Jan. 2019   Billionaire fortunes grew by $2.5 billion a day last year as poorest saw their wealth fall, reports Oxfam International.   Billionaire fortunes increased by 12 percent last year - or $2.5 billion a day - while the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity saw their wealth decline by 11 percent, reveals a new report from Oxfam today. The report is being launched as political and business leaders gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.   'Public Good or Private Wealth' shows the growing gap between rich and poor is undermining the fight against poverty, damaging our economies and fuelling public anger across the globe. It reveals how governments are exacerbating inequality by underfunding public services, such as healthcare and education, on the one hand, while under taxing corporations and the wealthy, and failing to clamp down on tax dodging, on the other. It also finds that women and girls are hardest hit by rising economic inequality.   Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International, said: 'The size of your bank account should not dictate how many years your children spend in school, or how long you live - yet this is the reality in too many countries across the globe. While corporations and the super-rich enjoy low tax bills, millions of girls are denied a decent education and women are dying for lack of maternity care'.   The report reveals that the number of billionaires has almost doubled since the financial crisis, with a new billionaire created every two days between 2017 and 2018, yet wealthy individuals and corporations are paying lower rates of tax than they have in decades.   Getting the richest one percent to pay just 0.5 percent extra tax on their wealth could raise more money than it would cost to educate the 262 million children out of school and provide healthcare that would save the lives of 3.3 million people.   Just four cents in every dollar of tax revenue collected globally came from taxes on wealth such as inheritance or property in 2015. These types of tax have been reduced or eliminated in many rich countries and are barely implemented in the developing world.   Tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations have also been cut dramatically. For example, the top rate of personal income tax in rich countries fell from 62 percent in 1970 to just 38 percent in 2013. The average rate in poor countries is just 28 percent.   In some countries, such as Brazil, the poorest 10 percent of society are now paying a higher proportion of their incomes in tax than the richest 10 percent.   At the same time, public services are suffering from chronic underfunding or being outsourced to private companies that exclude the poorest people. In many countries a decent education or quality healthcare has become a luxury only the rich can afford. Every day 10,000 people die because they lack access to affordable healthcare.   In developing countries, a child from a poor family is twice as likely to die before the age of five than a child from a rich family. In countries like Kenya a child from a rich family will spend twice as long in education as one from a poor family.   Cutting taxes on wealth predominantly benefits men who own 50 percent more wealth than women globally, and control over 86 percent of corporations.   Conversely, when public services are neglected poor women and girls suffer most. Girls are pulled out of school first when the money isn't available to pay fees, and women clock up hours of unpaid work looking after sick relatives when healthcare systems fail.   Oxfam estimates that if all the unpaid care work carried out by women across the globe was done by a single company it would have an annual turnover of $10 trillion - 43 times that of Apple, the world's biggest company.   'People across the globe are angry and frustrated. Governments must now deliver real change by ensuring corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of tax and investing this money in free healthcare and education that meets the needs of everyone - including women and girls whose needs are so often overlooked. Governments can build a brighter future for everyone - not just a privileged few', added Byanyima.   http://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620599/bp-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdf   Jan. 2019   Do We Really Need Billionaires, asks Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History emeritus at the George Washington University.   According to numerous reports, the world's billionaires keep increasing in number and, especially, in wealth.   In March 2018, Forbes reported that it had identified 2,208 billionaires from 72 countries and territories. Collectively, this group was worth $9.1 trillion, an increase in wealth of 18 percent since the preceding year.   Americans led the way with a record 585 billionaires, followed by mainland China which, despite its professed commitment to Communism, had a record 373. According to a Yahoo Finance report in late November 2018, the wealth of U.S. billionaires increased by 12 percent during 2017, while that of Chinese billionaires grew by 39 percent.   These vast fortunes were created much like those amassed by the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century. The Walton family's $163 billion fortune grew rapidly because its giant business, Walmart, the largest private employer in the United States, paid its workers poverty-level wages.   Jeff Bezos (whose fortune jumped by $78.5 billion in one year to $160 billion, making him the richest man in the world), paid pathetically low wages at Amazon for years, until forced by strikes and public pressure to raise them.   In mid-2017, Warren Buffett ($75 billion), then the world's second richest man, noted that 'the real problem' with the U.S. economy was that it was disproportionately rewarding to the people on top.   The situation is much the same elsewhere. Since the 1980s, the share of national income going to workers has been dropping significantly around the globe, thereby exacerbating inequality in wealth.   'The billionaire boom is a symptom of a failing economic system', remarked Winnie Byanyima, executive director of the development charity, Oxfam International. 'The people who make our clothes, assemble our phones and grow our food are being exploited'.   As a result, the further concentration of wealth has produced rising levels of economic inequality around the globe. According to a January 2018 report by Oxfam, during the preceding year some 3.7 billion people about half the world's population experienced no increase in their wealth.   Instead, 82 percent of the global wealth generated in 2017 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. In the United States, economic inequality continued to grow, with the share of the national income drawn by the poorest half of the population steadily declining.   The situation was even starker in the country with the second largest economy, China. Here, despite two decades of spectacular economic growth, economic inequality rose at the fastest pace in the world, leaving China as one of the most unequal countries on the planet.   In its global survey, Oxfam reported that 42 billionaires possessed as much wealth as half the world's population.   Upon reflection, it's hard to understand why billionaires think they need to possess such vast amounts of money and to acquire even more. After all, they can eat and drink only so much, just as they surely have all the mansions, yachts, diamonds, furs, and private jets they can possibly use. What more can they desire?   When it comes to desires, the answer is: plenty! That's why they drive $4 million Lamborghini Venenos, acquire megamansions for their horses, take $80,000 safaris in private jets, purchase gold toothpicks, create megaclosets the size of homes, reside in $15,000 a night penthouse hotel suites, install luxury showers for their dogs, cover their staircases in gold, and build luxury survival bunkers.   Donald Trump maintains a penthouse apartment in Trump Tower that is reportedly worth $57 million and is marbled in gold. Among his many other possessions are two private airplanes, three helicopters, five private residences, and 17 golf courses across the United States, Scotland, Ireland, and the United Arab Emirates.   In addition, billionaires devote enormous energy and money to controlling governments. 'They don't put their wealth underneath their mattresses', observed U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders; 'they use that wealth to perpetuate their power. So you have the Koch brothers and a handful of billionaires who pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections'.   During the 2018 midterm elections in the United States, America's billionaires lavished vast amounts of money on electoral politics, becoming the dominant funders of numerous candidates. Sheldon Adelson alone poured over $113 million into the federal elections.   This kind of big money has a major impact on American politics. Three billionaire families the Kochs, the Mercers, and the Adelsons; played a central role in bankrolling the Republican Party's shift to the far Right and its takeover of federal and state offices.   Thus, although polls indicate that most Americans favor raising taxes on the rich, regulating corporations, fighting climate change, and supporting labor unions, the Republican-dominated White House, Senate, Supreme Court, and regulatory agencies have moved in exactly the opposite direction, backing the priorities of the wealthy.   With so much at stake, billionaires even took direct command of the world's three major powers. Donald Trump became the first billionaire to capture the U.S. presidency, joining Russia's president, Vladimir Putin (reputed to have amassed wealth of at least $70 billion), and China's president, Xi Jinping (estimated to have a net worth of $1.51 billion).   The three leaders shared a number of policy positions, including the encouragement of wealth acquisition and the discouragement of human rights.   Admittedly, some billionaires have signed a Giving Pledge, promising to devote most of their wealth to philanthropy. Nevertheless, plutocratic philanthropy means that the priorities of the super-rich (for example, the funding of private schools), rather than the priorities of the general public (such as the funding of public schools), get implemented.   Moreover, these same billionaires are accumulating wealth much faster than they donate it. Philanthropist Bill Gates was worth $54 billion in 2010, the year their pledge was announced, and his wealth stands at $90 billion today.   Overall, then, as wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, most people around the world are clearly the losers. http://bit.ly/30ubHm3   * U.S. Conference on Taxing the Very Rich (2019): http://inequality.org/great-divide/taxing-the-very-rich-conference-primer/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-20/dimon-schwarzman-and-other-davos-a-listers-add-175-billion-in-10-years http://www.oxfam.org/en/tags/inequality   * Global Wealth Inequality, by Gabriel Zucman - University of California, Berkeley: http://bit.ly/2E2KK0t http://wir2018.wid.world/ http://wid.world/world/ http://bit.ly/2vJdqqC http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/01/davos-inequality-climate-emergency/ http://bit.ly/2xCIyZB http://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ http://www.fightinequality.org/news/2019-01-21.html   http://www.business-humanrights.org http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-legal-accountability-bulletin-the-zero-draft-treaty-on-business-human-rights http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/globalisation-human-rights/business-and-human-rights/at-the-world-economic-forum-in-davos-fidh-calls-on-businesses-to http://www.transparency.org/ http://www.taxjustice.net/ http://www.gfintegrity.org/ http://cesr.org/tax-inequality-human-rights   http://srpoverty.org/ http://hilalelver.org/ http://starvationaccountability.org/ http://www.fsinplatform.org/global-report-food-crises-2019 http://www.endchildhoodpoverty.org/ http://www.nrc.no/news/2019/july/alarming-lack-of-funding-for-relief-work/   * State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/   * 2018 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (100pp): http://bit.ly/2VMm9XG http://hdr.undp.org/en/2019-MPI Visit the related web page
	View more stories