View previous stories
	COVID-19 and the Informal Economy: Impact, Recovery and the Future by WIEGO, Global Call to Action against Poverty   May 2024   COVID-19 and the Informal Economy: Impact, Recovery and the Future. (WIEGO)   A key challenge for the post-COVID-19 global economy is whether the disproportionate impact of the crisis on workers in informal employment, who form the majority of the world’s workforce, will be acknowledged or whether harmful and negative stereotypes will persist.   Today, despite the role of these essential frontline workers (producing, processing, selling, cooking, and delivering food; providing cleaning, childcare, eldercare, health care, transport, waste removal, and other essential services), many observers consider the informal economy to be non-compliant (resisting registration and taxation) and associate it with low productivity (a drag on the economy) or with crime (illegal activities) and grime (blight on modern cities).   Yet, most of these workers are working poor trying to earn an honest living in often hostile environments. Most suffered severe declines in work and earnings during successive waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, and related restrictions and recessions, and have gone deeper into debt and depleted their savings and assets in order to survive.   This book –developed by UNU-WIDER, WIEGO and the Oxford University Press– explores and informs answers to that key challenge. It presents findings on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on informal workers in Asia, Africa, and North and Latin America.   The chapters of the volume analyse the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on workers in informal employment; interrogate whether, and which, economic recovery plans and schemes include these workers; and explore what a more inclusive economic recovery and reforms might look like. It is open access.   http://www.wiego.org/research-library-publications/covid-19-and-informal-economy-impact-recovery-and-future/ http://academic.oup.com/book/56353   Apr. 2024   Faces of Inequality in Asia - Global Call to Action against Poverty   In the dynamic landscape of the Asia, home to over 4.6 billion people, where rapid economic growth coexists with pressing social challenges, the specter of inequality looms large.   The countries with their bustling urban centers and rural hinterlands are marked by significant divide in opportunities and access to essential services.   This report delves into the multifaceted nature of inequality, exploring its various dimensions such as income disparity, gender inequality, regional divides, educational imbalances and challenges to access healthcare facility and social security schemes.   High-income inequality, a prevailing issue across most of the countries, is a harbinger of diverse negative impacts. From hampering child development to limiting the status of women, the ramifications are far-reaching impacting individuals across social, economic, and geographic spectrums.   The existing social security systems, while acknowledged as effective tools in reducing inequality, are not uniformly structured across the countries. Many countries still grapple with bifurcated systems, leaving a substantial portion of the population excluded from the benefits of social security.   Moreover, the lack of universal healthcare compounds the issue, with a significant portion of the population lacking access to essential medical services. This not only perpetuates a cycle of poverty and ill-health but also exposes the region to heightened vulnerabilities during health crises.   As we journey through the case studies presented in Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, we uncover the harsh realities faced by those on the margins.   We will encounter disparities in income, access to education, healthcare, and opportunities that mirror the challenges faced by communities and individuals.   Each story reflects a unique facet of the broader struggle against social disparities, revealing the human cost of systemic failures and the urgent need for inclusive policies.   A Unified Call for Inclusive Policies & Urgent Reforms to redefine Equity   It is high time the policymakers, governments, and civil society collaborated in designing and implementing effective solutions to address the issues of inequality. The voices of those on the margins must guide the formulation of policies, ensuring that social security, healthcare, and essential services become not just aspirations but tangible realities for every individual, irrespective of their socio-economic background.   It’s time for the governments in Asia to start formulating policies on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and Universal Social Protection Floors (USPF). Only through concerted efforts and commitment can we build a future where dignity, justice, and equal opportunities are the birthright of every citizen.   Key Takeaways   Urgent Systemic Reforms: There is a need for urgent and systemic reforms in social security frameworks, healthcare systems and bureaucratic processes to address the pressing challenges faced by marginalized communities.   Tailored Interventions: Tailored interventions that address the unique needs of diverse communities, considering factors like gender, socio-economic status, and cultural nuances is the need of the hour.   Inclusive Policy Formulation: Policymakers need to incorporate the voices of those on the margins in the formulation of policies, ensuring that the solutions are not one-size-fits-all but cater to the specific challenges faced by different communities.   Collaboration for Change: Collaboration between governments, civil society and international organizations to effect meaningful and sustainable change in the lives of those facing adversity is essential.   Continuous Evaluation: As nations implement reforms such as the Universal Health Care Act in the Philippines, continuous evaluation and adaptation are crucial to ensure the effectiveness of policies and the realization of the fundamental right to healthcare for every citizen.   http://gcap.global/news/faces-of-inequality-in-asia-2023/ http://gcap.global/news/ Visit the related web page
	Why the world cannot afford the rich by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett Equality Trust, agencies   Mar. 2024   As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich.   Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity. In the decade to 2022, the world’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth, to almost US$12 trillion.   The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional.   For example, bigger gaps between rich and poor are accompanied by higher rates of homicide and imprisonment. They also correspond to more infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse and COVID-19 deaths, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy and lower levels of child well-being, social mobility and public trust.   The homicide rate in the United States — the most unequal Western democracy — is more than 11 times that in Norway. Imprisonment rates are ten times as high, and infant mortality and obesity rates twice as high.   Reducing inequality benefits everyone — so why isn’t it happening?   These problems don’t just hit the poorest individuals, although the poorest are most badly affected. Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth, similar to a Scandinavian nation.   They might see improvements in their mental health and have a reduced chance of becoming victims of violence; their children might do better at school and be less likely to take dangerous drugs.   The costs of inequality are also excruciatingly high for governments. For example, the Equality Trust, a charity based in London (of which we are patrons and co-founders), estimated that the United Kingdom alone could save more than £100 billion ($126 billion) per year if it reduced its inequalities to the average of those in the five countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that have the smallest income differentials — Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands.   And that is considering just four areas: greater number of years lived in full health, better mental health, reduced homicide rates and lower imprisonment rates.   Many commentators have drawn attention to the environmental need to limit economic growth and instead prioritize sustainability and well-being. We argue that tackling inequality is the foremost task of that transformation.   Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies.   Oxfam reports that, on average, each of the richest 1% of people in the world produces 100 times the emissions of the average person in the poorest half of the world’s population. That is the scale of the injustice. As poorer countries raise their material standards, the rich will have to lower theirs.   Inequality also makes it harder to implement environmental policies. Changes are resisted if people feel that the burden is not being shared fairly. For example, in 2018, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) protests erupted across France in response to President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to implement an ‘eco-tax’ on fuel by adding a few percentage points to pump prices.   The proposed tax was seen widely as unfair — particularly for the rural poor, for whom diesel and petrol are necessities. By 2019, the government had dropped the idea. Similarly, Brazilian truck drivers protested against rises in fuel tax in 2018, disrupting roads and supply chains.   Do unequal societies perform worse when it comes to the environment, then? Yes. For rich, developed countries for which data were available, we found a strong correlation between levels of equality and a score on an index we created of performance in five environmental areas: air pollution; recycling of waste materials; the carbon emissions of the rich; progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; and international cooperation (UN treaties ratified and avoidance of unilateral coercive measures).   That correlation clearly holds when social and health problems are also factored in. To show this, we combined our environmental performance index with another that we developed previously that considers ten health and social problems: infant mortality, life expectancy, mental illness, obesity, educational attainment, teenage births, homicides, imprisonment, social mobility and trust. There’s a clear trend, with more-unequal societies having worse scores.   Other studies have also shown that more-equal societies are more cohesive, with higher levels of trust and participation in local groups. And, compared with less-equal rich countries, another 10–20% of the populations of more-equal countries think that environmental protection should be prioritized over economic growth.   More-equal societies also perform better on the Global Peace Index (which ranks states on their levels of peacefulness), and provide more foreign aid. The UN target is for countries to spend 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) on foreign aid; Sweden and Norway each give around 1% of their GNI, whereas the United Kingdom gives 0.5% and the United States only 0.2%.   The scientific evidence is stark that reducing inequality is a fundamental precondition for addressing the environmental, health and social crises the world is facing. It’s essential that policymakers act quickly to reverse decades of rising inequality and curb the highest incomes.   First, governments should choose progressive forms of taxation, which shift economic burdens from people with low incomes to those with high earnings, to reduce inequality and to pay for the infrastructure that the world needs to transition to carbon neutrality and sustainability.   Although governments might baulk at this suggestion, there’s plenty of headroom. For example, tax rates on the highest incomes in the United States were well above 70% for about half of the twentieth century — much higher than today’s top rate of 37%. To shore up public support, governments need to make a strong case that the whole of society should contribute to funding the clean energy transition and good health.   International agreements to close tax havens and loopholes must be made. Corporate tax avoidance is estimated to cost poor countries at least $100 billion per year — enough to educate an extra 124 million children and prevent perhaps 8 million maternal and infant deaths annually. OECD member countries are responsible for more than two-thirds of these tax losses, according to the Tax Justice Network. The OECD estimates that low- or middle-income countries lose three times as much to tax havens as they receive in foreign aid.   Although not yet tried, the merits of a consumption tax — calculated on the basis of personal income minus savings — to restrain consumption should also be considered. Unlike value-added and sales taxes, such a tax could be made very progressive.   Bans on advertising tobacco, alcohol, gambling and prescription drugs are common internationally, but taxes to restrict advertising more generally would help to reduce consumption. Energy costs might also be made progressive by charging more per unit at higher levels of consumption.   Legislation and incentives will also be needed to ensure that large companies — which dominate the global economy — are run more fairly. For example, business practices such as employee ownership, representation on company boards and share ownership, as well as mutuals and cooperatives, tend to reduce the scale of income and wealth inequality.   In contrast to the 200:1 ratio reported by one analyst for the top to the bottom pay rates among the 100 largest-worth companies listed on the FTSE 100 stock-market index, the Mondragon group of Spanish cooperatives has an agreed maximum ratio of 9:1. And such companies perform well in ethical and sustainability terms. The Mondragon group came 11th in Fortune magazine’s 2020 ‘Change the World’ list, which recognizes companies for implementing innovative business strategies with a positive global impact.   Reducing economic inequality is not a panacea for health, social and environmental problems, but it is central to solving them all. Greater equality confers the same benefits on a society however it is achieved. Countries that adopt multifaceted approaches will go furthest and fastest.   http://equalitytrust.org.uk/evidence-base/the-spirit-level-at-15/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories