The High Level Panel on the post-2015 agenda met for the last time this week before it presents its recommendations to the UN Secretary General at the end of the month.  We’re hopeful for a strong and visionary report that sets a high bar for the intergovernmental negotiations that will ultimately determine the contents and shape of the new framework.

Save the Children is advocating for a framework that finishes the job that the MDGs started, containing “zero goals” to eradicate a number of critical dimensions of poverty by 2030.  We want to see zero goals for absolute poverty, hunger, preventable child and maternal deaths, and people who don’t have access to safe drinking water and sanitation.  We also want to see universal attainment of good learning outcomes for children, universal health coverage and freedom from violence for children.

Feasibility vs. ambition

Whilst many agree on the need for zero goals in the post-2015 framework, others remain sceptical. For example, Charles Kenny at the Center for Global Development argues that zero goals should only be included if we’re confident that they can definitely be achieved within the post-2015 timeframe.  In line with Save the Children’s proposals, he suggests that eradicating poverty at $1.25 a day and achieving universal access to safe water are feasible targets for 2030.  Others, such as getting to zero on child and maternal mortality, he argues, aren’t.

Kenny is right to warn against post-2015 targets that can’t feasibly be achieved.  If we set targets for 2030 that are so ambitious that they don’t stand a chance of being reached, they are likely to be demotivating rather than incentivising, and will fail to gain the political traction that they need.

However, it’s critical that we don’t let concerns about achievability stifle ambition.  We need to design targets that are ambitious enough to motivate action beyond business as usual, without pushing them into the realm of impossibility.  This is a very fine balance to strike, but an incredibly important one.  There is no more compelling an idea, capable of motivating action, than the argument that we can eradicate poverty within our lifetime. Now is the time to aim high and, in doing so, we’ll stand a better chance of spurring the action that’s needed to reach the goals we all aspire to.

The spirit of zero

Save the Children’s proposals for zero goals have been designed with a view to striking the right balance between ambition and feasibility.  We want to bring to life what has been referred to as a “broad spirit of zero”.  This recognises that we won't be able to get to an absolute zero on all forms of poverty by 2030, but that we can get very close on some dimensions.  The actual “zero rate” or target for a given dimension of poverty will vary according to what is realistically achiev

able at certain levels of social and economic development, technology and knowledge, and incorporating an inevitable degree of human error and chance.

For example, Save the Children is advocating for a zero goal on ending preventable child deaths by 2030.  Clearly we do not envisage a scenario in which no single child dies before their fifth birthday.  But research shows that, if access to health services are scaled up and we tackle the exclusion of the poorest from essential healthcare, we can feasibly achieve an under-five mortality rate of 20 per 1000 live births in low income countries by 2035.  Although higher than rich countries, it roughly aligns with the very highest rates in some OECD countries, making it a mortality rate that is achievable, above which child deaths can be deemed to be preventable.  With a bit more effort, and in line with projections made in an excellent paper by Kenny and his colleagues, we believe that all countries can achieve this target by 2030. Hence our call for a post-2015 zero goal on ending preventable child deaths by 2030, accompanied by a target to reduce rates to 20 per 1000 live births, measured in the poorest wealth quintiles, not solely as a national average.

Getting to zero on certain key dimensions of poverty is not only a technical exercise, but is also a value-based proposition.  It embodies recognition that freedom from poverty is a human right, and that it is unacceptable for any individual or community to be left behind, even if overall rates of progress are good.  In order to ensure that the post-2015 framework is realistic, it may be necessary to set fractional targets for some goal areas in which we won’t feasibly get to zero by 2030.  For example, Save the Children is currently advocating for a target of halving stunting rates by 2030.  However, fractional targets must only be included as stepping stones to accelerate progress towards zero, and must be accompanied by a commitment to target those who are furthest behind first.

Zero goals must come with bold action on inequality

Finally, it’s important that the architects of the post-2015 framework recognise how important tackling inequality will be for achieving zero goals by 2030.  Inequality is growing in too many countries across the world.  Progress in poverty reduction across its multiple dimensions simply can’t be sustained if poor and marginalised groups continue to be left behind.  And, following this logic, focusing on the hardest to reach groups first will help to boost progress in the long term. 

We’re currently doing research to put numbers to this proposition.  We’re using historical data on child mortality, stunting and access to water and sanitation to project when we can feasibly eradicate poverty in these areas, and looking at the impact that economic inequality, amongst other factors, has on rates of change.  We of course want to see zero goals on a broader range of issues than these four target areas.  However, we hope that our analysis will make a helpful contribution to the debate.  And help the international community to strike that all important balance between setting goals that are not only feasible, but that also inspire and spur unprecedented rates of change.

As my colleague Rica wrote in an earlier post, Save the Children’s State of the World’s Mothers report shines a spotlight on newborns this year. It includes the first-ever Birth Day Risk Index which looks at where babies have the highest chance of dying on their birth day. New research that fed into the report shows that the day a baby is born is by far the most dangerous day in a child’s life.

Whilst the first day may be an extremely vulnerable time for mothers and babies in all parts of the world, the poorest babies in the poorest countries have a far higher chance of dying. In 2011, 98% of the one million babies who died on their birth day were in developing countries.

Babies born in Africa have the worst chance of survival

Somalia has the world’s highest first-day death rate (18 per 1,000 live births), followed closely by DRC, Mali and Sierra Leone – all countries that have recently experienced conflict.

Newborn deaths have declined everywhere but Africa

As a region, sub-Saharan Africa has made the least progress: at current rates of progress it is estimated that it would take over 150 years for an African newborn to have the same chance of survival as one born in Europe.

Whilst Africa has the highest newborn mortality rates, the largest numbers of newborn deaths are to be found in South Asia where population density is greater. India alone accounts for almost one-third of all first-day deaths.

Growing gaps between rich and poor

The gap between rich and poor has widened as high-income countries achieve the fastest reductions

Despite overall falls in newborn mortality rates, gaps between the rich and poor within countries have widened. An analysis of 50 developing countries found that babies born to mothers in the poorest fifth of the population were around 40% more likely to die than those in the richest fifth.

Most of the babies who are dying on their birth day are from families with the lowest incomes in the most remote areas. They tend to live in communities where there is poor nutrition and sanitation and limited or no access to health clinics and skilled health workers. They often belong to ethnic or religious minority groups that experience many forms of discrimination.

Increased efforts are therefore needed to deliver quality health care to the hardest-to-reach families. Midwives and skilled birth attendants play a vital role in saving the lives of mothers and babies but 40 million women give birth at home with no health worker present.

There are simple and cost-effective interventions that we know can save newborn lives. But they don’t reach the poorest mothers and babies because of weak health systems, a shortage of skilled health workers and because of financial and social barriers that prevent mothers and babies from getting care when and where they need it.

Success is possible: low-income countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal have dramatically reduced newborn deaths and are all on track to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing under-5 deaths by two-thirds by 2015.

12 developing countries that have significantly cut newborn mortality since 1990

Action for newborns

The day a baby is born is meant to be a time for celebration. But for a million families the same day also ends in tragedy. Despite knowing for a long time how to stop babies from dying, too little has been done and too many newborn deaths continue to go uncounted.

It is hoped that a Global Newborn Action Plan being developed this year will help to draw overdue attention to this neglected issue. If we can help babies to survive their first day, first week and first month then we know we can make huge progress in achieving the MDGs and the bigger goal of ending preventable child deaths.

Research and Policy Adviser

The 14^th State of the World’s Mothers (SOWM) focusses on the plight of newborn babies worldwide.  This edition releases the first ever Birthday index which analyses first-day death rates in 186 countries identifying the safest and most dangerous places to be born. The index goes hand-in-hand with the Mother’s Index which looks at indicators on women’s health, children’s health, educational attainment, economic well-being and female political participation.  A woman’s status, without doubt, can influence her child’s survival chances.

There has clearly been significant progress in reducing child mortality with the number of children dying before their fifth birthday falling by around 40% since 1990. The reduction in newborn mortality however—deaths that occur in the first 28 days of life—have been slower than overall under-five mortality. The SOWM reports that three million newborns died in 2011 accounting for 43% of all child deaths.  One third of newborn deaths happen in the first day of life making the birth day the riskiest day for mothers and their babies.

The most common causes of newborn mortality are pre-term complications, severe infections and complications during birth.  The report argues that newborn deaths are not inevitable and cost-effective proven interventions, when delivered by a strong health system and health workers, can reduce newborn mortality by 75 percent.  The value of getting these interventions to women at the right time could never be over-emphasised.

Newborn mortality is highly tied to the mother’s well-being and status.  Women who are educated, informed and live in better-off households will be more likely to seek healthcare and deliver in a facility helping reduce the risk of their infant dying early. They are also more likely to be well-nourished, have children after their teenage years and use family planning to space out births. Those who have had little education—or those constrained by cultural practices—might not be able to seek healthcare for themselves or their children. Uneven bargaining power in the household might prevent them from making decisions on how many children to have or when. There are also numerous instances when poverty or location might prevent households from accessing life-saving services even when the demand exists.

The link between mother’s status and newborn mortality is reflected in the indices.  A quick look at the Birthday Index shows that the most dangerous places to be born are Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Sierra Leone.  These places are among the bottom countries in the Mother’s Index.  This is of course an observation and it would probably be worthwhile to do further analysis on the correlation of the two indices.

Social policies obviously have a big role to play in improving newborn survival. The government of India is implementing the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), a scheme which pays women a cash incentive to give birth in a health facility, to bring down maternal and newborn deaths.  In some places, there is also a free ambulance service that brings the women to the facility at the time of delivery. Recent evaluations of the programme (see one in the Lancet and another in Reproductive Health) show some positive impacts but at the same time, indicate that the scheme needs to better reach women who are less educated and those who live in poorer and remote households.  It goes without saying that India needs to do a lot more to improve maternal and newborn survival, but this is one example of how a social policy intervention might help women access care and health services at a crucial time.

It is right to put a spotlight on newborns as the world thinks about the next development framework. Children’s survival chances are determined even before they are born, thus we need interventions across sectors to prevent newborn deaths. It helps a great deal that sound data on newborn mortality is available making it possible to track progress (or lack of) across countries over time. The report is right to say that newborn deaths are not inevitable and we cannot underestimate the role effective policies play to ensure that life-saving interventions reach those who face the highest risks.

Now updated to reflect the whole discussion, the Leadership Meeting and co-chairs’ statement, and the prospects for inequality in post-2015 and broader development processes.

The global post-2015 consultation on inequality, led by UNICEF and UNWomen, has delivered its report to the co-sponsors, Ghana and Denmark, in Copenhagen.

The meeting covered two days. The first included a livestreamed presentation of the report and a series of panels with the advisory group taking questions from the room and around the world are here too, on a series of panels which are being livestreamed – the opening presentations and the first panel are in the embedded video at the bottom of this page (reload if it doesn’t appear at first – and you can find all the video here if you’ve a free day).

Some highlights:

• There is broad support for a goal on inequality (including gender as well as economic inequality), and it is crucial that each goal contains disaggregated indicators and targets to capture the major dimensions of inequality also affecting ethnoliguistic groups, spatial groups and persons with disabilities.
• This demands a major investment in data, and an absolute end to the kind of approach that has seen some major households surveys exclude groups that are difficult to reach, or to reach with sufficient statistical rigor (persons with disabilities in particular).
• We should not, as Richard Morgan of UNICEF made very clear, get too hung up on goals, targets and indicators. The framework is not these – it is the Millennium Declaration. The importance of what we are now, globally, engaged in is that it will establish norms – goals etc can help with this, but are not the only components that matter.
• There is again, broad agreement, that the framework directly address the structural causes of inequalities – not least, globally, the transparency obstacles that facilitate the illicit financial flows that undermine both political governance and economic growth, and also prevent progressive distribution of the benefits of growth. (Which reminds me – here’s a handy new brief from TJN Germany on the importance of taxes for human rights.)
• Gender inequality is an absolute priority (there was a particularly powerful contribution from Kate McInturff on gender-based violence as ever-present, from the home to school or workplace and on the way, and a barrier to all other goals – from universal education to decent work, and so on).

The second day was the Leadership Meeting. Co-chaired by Michelle Bachelet of UNWomen, Tony Lake of UNICEF, Christian Friis Bach for Denmark and Paul Victor Obeng for Ghana, this brought together high-level participants from around the world, including ministers from Burkina Faso, Colombia, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Tanzania and Uganda, a number of members of the High Level Panel on post-2015, and many international and development organisations from FAO to USAID.

After initial statements and the presentation of the consultation report by advisory group members, Sarah Cook of UNRISD and Jayati Ghosh of Jawaharlal Nehru University. In the discussion of the report that followed, there were a number of extremely powerful contributions that I can’t tell you too much about because this session was under Chatham House rules. However… there were a few striking features:

• Effectively no dissent from the proposal for a free-standing goal on inequality (except for the proposal that there be two!);
• Strong confirmation of the need for disaggregated targets and indicators across all other goals;
• Recognition of the need to invest in high-quality, consistently disaggregated data to make this work and to ensure accountability at local and national levels;
• Broad recognition of the importance of taxation, including from some of the more conservative as well as the more progressive discussants; and
• A clear demand for more research findings about success stories: the policies that have driven progress against inequality.

Finally, the co-chairs released their statement summarising their view on the discussion. It’s short, and well worth reading, so do! But here are some highlights (my emphasis):

Inequalities need to be tackled systematically and coherently, by addressing their structural causes, and through a new common and holistic development framework that is global in character and relevant to all countries…

 

In a new development framework, participants suggested that a self-standing goal to reduce inequalities could help ensure the political will necessary to do this. Targets aimed at universal access to basic services and resources, and ‘getting to zero’ – such as eradicating extreme poverty, hunger and preventable child and maternal deaths – are necessary to ensure that no one is left behind. Such targets could be reinforced by indicators that specifically measure progress in reducing disparities and that specifically track progress among the most impoverished, marginalised and excluded groups and individuals.

 

Inequalities are not a necessary consequence of, nor a precondition for economic growth, but a result of particular policies and structural conditions. Inequalities can therefore be reduced through targeted and transformative policies and actions, including the promotion of inclusive and intergenerational growth and decent work while simultaneously addressing the priority needs and rights of poor, vulnerable and marginalised people. Striving to reduce inequalities is not only right in principle; it is also right in practice.

 

The empowerment and advancement of women and girls is crucial… A new Post-2015 Development Agenda should therefore include not only a universal goal for gender equality and the empowerment and advancement of women and girls, but also ensure that gender and other dominant inequalities are mainstreamed in all relevant areas through disaggregated targets and indicators.

 

Promoting greater equality across sectors and policies, within countries and between countries must be an integral part of a future set of international development goals. Addressing inequalities both within and between countries will require fair and just rules and practices in international relations in areas including trade, finance, investment, taxation and corporate accountability.

Jayati has posted her thoughts on Guardian Development, and covers many important areas of the discussion and the future agenda.

I would only add that my immediate reflection on the inequalities consultation is optimistic. When the consultation started, I think there was quite a widely held view that a freestanding goal on inequality was politically impossible. (There’s a separate discussion to be had about whether a separate goal is needed, at least technically, if you have appropriate disaggregation throughout the framework; but for me, the importance of a goal lies above all in setting or confirming the norm that inequality is an obstacle to human development and to the achievement of rights.) Save the Children’s own ‘first draft’ proposal certainly reflected that calculation.

Now, however, it feels very much that things may have changed. As I argued in my remarks (from about 1 hour 11 minutes in the clip below), the report didn’t only bring together important research but more importantly it reflected the results of participation and showed a clear political position.

For what it’s worth, my feeling now is that it would be very difficult for the High Level Panel to seek to exclude the idea of a free-standing inequality goal (and I’m delighted that Save UK has called on David Cameron to support this). Of course, the HLP is only one contribution to the process, and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations are where things will stand or fall; but the HLP’s credibility as a reflection of the broad consultation would be seriously damaged now were it not to reflect the emerged consensus. It will also be interesting to see how structural, global policy issues are dealt with – above all, perhaps, around taxation.

In any case, there is now a powerful basis for civil society and others globally to mobilise around the treatment of inequality in the eventual post-2015 framework. (Can I mention that I feel quite proud of Save the Children for its contribution? Only one among many, but the organisation has really made great strides in developing its position over the last year, as seen in the Born Equal report which supports much of the consultation report. Indulge me, this is my last couple of days.)

Last word on this: the consultation owes its success in very great part to the outstanding joint leadership of Saraswathi Menon of UNWomen and Richard Morgan of UNICEF, and they deserve enormous praise. Thank you both!

Today the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) launched the Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index (HANCI).  Much has been said about children’s nutrition in developing countries and what should be done to improve the situation, but little has been said on national governments’ commitment to fight undernutrition.  The HANCI allows us to compare how various countries respond to nutrition in terms of political commitment—not very easy given that it is fluid and not very tangible—and recognise  those that are doing relatively well and those that need to do more.

The index looks at 45 developing countries based on 22 indicators of political commitment grouped under three themes: legal frameworks, policies and programmes and public expenditures.  Guatemala comes out on top of the index while Guinea Bissau is the worst. The Guatemalan government’s efforts to ensure access to clean water and sanitation, promote complementary feeding practices and invest in health on top of committing to reduce chronic malnutrition in children by 10% in 2016 put it at the top of the league table. Undernutrition is still a terrible problem in Guatemala, but what the index reflects is that the government is flexing its political muscle in trying to improve its children’s nutrition.

One important feature of the HANCI is that it examines both hunger reduction commitment and undernutrition reduction commitment using distinct indicators. This reflects how hunger and nutrition, though very close concepts, are different from each other.  Some efforts address hunger and undernutrition at the same time, while other interventions may alleviate the former but not the latter.  Conversely, efforts such as improving water and sanitation can massively help nutrition but might have less impact on hunger.  It is important to recognise these nuances for the purposes of policy and programming.

Indices like the HANCI serve a valuable purpose measuring some of the more intangible efforts in fighting hunger and undernutrition.  Last year, Save the Children launched the Nutrition Barometer and some of the results of the Barometer and the HANCI reinforce each other.  Somehow we know that political commitment is important to nutrition, and by measuring it and showing which countries have strong and weak commitments, both indices advance the discussion.  This shows that attempting to measure the uncountable may be a good exercise that brings value to policy and programmes.

The UK Government, led by William Hague, has committed to prioritise the issue of widespread sexual violence in conflict at the G8 foreign ministers’ meeting taking place tomorrow and Thursday. One of the main aims of this meeting (as well as of the FCO’s wider Prevention of Sexual Violence Initiative) is to tackle the culture of impunity that has developed for these crimes, including ensuring greater support and assistance for survivors to enable them to rebuild their lives and attain justice.

Save the Children has today published a report, Unspeakable Crimes Against Children highlighting that children under 18, especially girls, often make up the majority of survivors of these horrific crimes, with catastrophic consequences on their future lives, health and livelihoods. Based on Save the Children’s experience and expertise of what works in conflict settings across the world, the report proposes a holistic approach that empowers children and communities, changes social norms, reforms laws and institutions and delivers comprehensive child-centred services, as well as calling for increased humanitarian funding for child protection in emergencies.

Although national law reform is only one aspect of a much broader strategy needed to tackle the issue, it is nevertheless an important step – not only for increasing the number of prosecutions (which are shockingly low across all conflict and post-conflict countries), but also for promoting broader social change to address the causes of sexual violence, including gender discrimination.

International law is clear: rape and sexual violence in conflict are clearly outlawed by international criminal, humanitarian and human rights laws, and States have a clear obligation to take effective action to eliminate such crimes – including the through the adoption and enforcement of effective and comprehensive criminal legislation. Nevertheless, rape and other forms of sexual violence remain endemic in many conflict and post-conflict societies, and perpetrators are rarely brought to account.

What is needed?

Effective and comprehensive national criminal laws

National laws criminalising rape and sexual violence should comply with international standards, including international criminal and human rights law, ensuring that all forms of sexual violence are captured.

Overly narrow and burdensome rules of evidence (i.e. those determining whether an alleged fact is established or disproven) tend to operate unfairly against survivors of sexual violence and risk leaving certain types of sexual assault unpunished. They also discourage reporting and lead to re-traumatisation of the survivor because of invasive questioning and discriminatory presumptions made against survivors. In Sudan and Somalia, proof of rape requires eyewitness testimony (of four male adults in the case of Sudan), and survivors in Guatemala must prove their “honesty” for the prosecution to be pursued.

Discriminatory defences and counter offences must also be abolished. Some countries, such as India and Morocco, still allow perpetrators to escape conviction if they marry their victim, and in Guatemala, the “forgiveness” of the victim constitutes a valid defence.

In countries applying strict versions of Sharia law, survivors risk being prosecuted themselves for engaging in sex outside marriage, homosexual acts in the case of boys or men and/or for making false accusations of such crimes. Recent high profile cases that have been reported include a 15 year old girl in the Maldives, who was sentenced to 100 lashes for engaging in pre-marital sex; and a 13-year-old boy was convicted and sentenced to one year in juvenile detention for “moral crimes” in Afghanistan after he was accused of having sex with two adult men in a public park.

Broader reform of the criminal justice system and child friendly justice

Even where comprehensive criminal law has been adopted, States need to ensure effective implementation is achieved through fully functioning and accessible criminal justice systems. Significant barriers exist at every stage of the justice process for survivors of sexual violence – including lack of knowledge about the process; discriminatory attitudes of the police and the judiciary; lack of protection from reprisals; poor recording and presentation of evidence by the prosecutors; and fear of being rejected and shamed by families and communities – each of which needs to be addressed.

For children, accessing justice can be particularly difficult and traumatic. Child friendly justice mechanisms, as well as victim/witness protection systems, should be available for all cases involving children, and be appropriate for the age, maturity and level of understanding of the child.  Acting in the best interests of the child and protecting them from further psychological harm and trauma should be the most important consideration at every stage of proceedings.

Procedural support through a designated case worker or protection officer should be available for each child and be present at all times. Interviews should be done by trained professionals in a child friendly environment and be as limited as possible in length and number, and where possible children should have the opportunity to give evidence in a separate room, for example using video footage rather than live testimony.

Some examples of good practice can be found. A new child friendly court in Swaziland allows child complainants to follow proceedings through headphones in a separate child-friendly room, and to testify in private with a trained intermediary present to support and assist. Similarly, in South Africa, the law allows children under 18 to testify through an intermediary.

Law reform to address underlying discriminatory norms

While tackling impunity is critical to deter sexual violence, addressing gender discrimination and patriarchal norms that disempower women and girls more broadly is also needed to prevent violence from happening in the first place.  The normalisation of sexual violence in conflict countries (as in some non-conflict settings) arises partly as a result of long-standing, culturally entrenched gender discrimination.

Overtly discriminatory laws still exist in many countries, especially in the area of family relations, property and inheritance. Marital rape is not recognised as a crime in many countries, and child marriage is still permitted. Unless such norms are addressed in stable conditions of peacetime, then the disruption and breakdown of social order during conflict will inevitably lead to increased levels of sexual violence when a conflict begins.

The last meeting in Monrovia made some real progress; especially on the focus of the new framework (eradicating extreme poverty, people centric/planet sensitive etc), but there is a lot more work to do and very little time.

That time pressure must focus minds on the things the Panel needs to get right, not lead to the dodging of difficult issues. Specifically one of the critical areas the panel has made least progress on to date is deciding how the new framework should tackle growing inequality. Indeed some insiders are warning the issue could be put on the ‘too difficult’ pile if there isn’t real attention paid to it during the Bali meeting.

These concerns have come out into the public in the last few days with a powerful open letter to the Panel written by over 90 of the world’s leading economists and development thinkers (including Kevin Watkins, Jose Ocampo, Kate Pickett, Richard Wilknison, Andy Sumner, Sir Richard Jolly etc) which urges the panel to pay more attention to inequality. This letter reflects a paradigm shift within development thinking that is increasingly clear about the importance of inequality in development. The Panel would be making a major mistake if it ignored the concerns of such an eminent group and if it failed to tackle inequality it risks its report bookending a previous era rather than heralding the next.

There have been two substantial problems in advancing the inequality debate (aside from the tight timeline). The first is the terminology, the second is the politics. Both are fixable.

On the first, the debate has been obfuscated by loose language and an unfocussed debate that had led people to think they are agreeing when they are not and vice versa. To address this the Panel needs to stop dancing around the issue and have a structured conversation about each component of the inequality debate and address each clearly. It is the job of the secretariat to facilitate this effectively.

On the substance there are three main debates on inequality that tend to dominate discussions and that the panel should drill down into.

1) Between country versus within country inequalities.

On the former everyone broadly agrees. Indeed the origins of the entire development project come from a shared concern that some countries are rich, others are poor. There is the acceptance (at least in principle) of a shared responsibility to address this and an acknowledgment of the need for rich countries to redistribute at least some of their resource to poor countries to address it.

On the latter there is less agreement. While it’s hard to find anyone who thinks it is acceptable that children in one group in any given country are five times more likely to die of a preventable disease than the richest, the view from some is that as long as all countries get to a certain minimum standard it’s not the role of this framework to address these types of national inequalities. Their argument – made by an unlikely alliance of some of those with the finest records in fighting inequality as well as those who for ideological reasons simply don’t think it’s an important issue – is that inequality at a national level is an issue for national policy making.

2) Opportunity versus Outcome

The next debate is between inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. Addressing the former is embraced across the political spectrum. The problem here is that the debate is predicated on a false dichotomy. It’s fairly obvious both in logic and from the evidence that in order to have meaningful equality of opportunity children need to start their lives from roughly equal starting points (See Born Equal) – and that means families not being separated by vast and extreme inequalities i.e. it requires moderating inequality of outcome.

3) Group (Horizontal) versus Individual (Vertical)

Stemming from the above dynamic there is strong support for addressing group based inequalities. These are seen as out of the control of an individual and there aren’t many (on the panel) who will say it is ok to discriminate against women, ethnic minorities, disabled people etc.

However individual inequality is more contentious and worth unpacking. Inequality of outcome is not just about income, it also means different chances of dying before the age of five, access to healthcare, life expectancy etc. Lots of people who may have concerns about addressing inequality of outcome when it comes to income would unite around the need for tackling inequality in those areas.

When it comes to tackling inequality of income aside from the normative arguments about the harm it does individuals and societies, the arguments that are most compelling are that tackling income inequality is a necessary step to ensure equality of opportunity and that inequality of outcomes in areas such as health and education are strongly associated with economic inequalities; to address the former you have to tackle the latter.

Those against addressing inequality of income cite the impact it could have on individual incentives to work hard. Of course this may be true if we were discussing abolishing any inequality of outcome, but not if – as we are – we are focussed on reducing extreme inequality.

As pointed out, there are more areas of consensus than some expect and rather than shadow boxing the Panel should get stuck in; bank the areas of consensus and then focus attention and time on the areas of contention; namely individual and outcome based inequality.

In these areas, while it might be impossible to get the panel to agree on why the post 2015 settlement should tackle outcome and individual inequality, it should be possible to get them to agree to tackle it nevertheless.

There are two main reasons why. Firstly, as set out above, there is already strong consensus around tackling group based inequalities and promoting equality of opportunity. If you look at the evidence and follow these through to their logical conclusion you can’t justify ignoring inequality of outcome or individual inequality. Logic won’t sustain the argument. A well-managed panel process would get away from the ‘in principle’ problems and help make that clear; the boil is waiting to be lanced.

Secondly, the coincidence of the normative and instrumental arguments. The evidence base for why inequality is a problem in and of itself is increasingly robust and the conclusions from that are gaining ground, including in non-traditional quarters. Even for the outliers who continue to resist the normative problems of inequality (for predominately political reasons) the instrumental case is hard to ignore. If the panel is committed to the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030 – as the Monrovia communiqué said they were – this can only happen if outcome and individual inequality is addressed. A compelling piece of work being finalised by Andy Sumner and Peter Edward and similar work by Laurence Chandy shows that we simply won’t be able to get to zero on income or other forms of poverty if in addition to strong growth rates we don’t reduce inequality significantly. Even the most sceptical are increasingly accepting of this fact and worry that failure to address inequality head on will call into question the credibility of the Panel’s central thrust.

So there are grounds for optimism and ambition, but the conversation needs to happen now to unleash them.

Whether support for tackling inequality is based on the strength of the instrumental evidence or comes from a normative belief in the inherent advantage of more equal societies matters less than agreeing to tackle it.

There’s a lot on the agenda in Bali, but if the panel can crack this conversation it will go down in history as a real breakthrough (the ‘Bali consensus’ anyone?), not just a photogenic backdrop for another conference.

by Brendan Cox is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Save the Children

NGO question: How to communicate to the wider public that tricky economic justice issue, in a way that really cuts through? The issues around tax and illicit flows are a case in point. People have tried all sorts in film – from educational shorts to humour, to major documentaries.

Until this week though, they hadn’t tried… hip-hop.

According to the press release, The Apopalyptics are an indie band from Northern Ireland, based in Brussels and London. Their Album, Inside / Outside is available for free streaming and purchase at www.apopalyptics.com. And, probably importantly, “The Apopalyptics do not accuse any firms or individuals of illegal behaviour in this video.”

Is the song a bit simplistic and anti-business? Maybe. Has it had more hits in a day than my finest ever powerpoints? Indubitably. Is this the only way we’re likely to have tax justice issues tweeted by Stephen Fry?

Just came across a fascinating paper while looking for examples of how people have worked with household survey data to construct indicators of ethnolinguistic inequality. This uses Afrobarometer data, and light instead. I know, light.

Ethnic Inequality

 

Alberto Alesina

Stelios Michalopoulos

Elias Papaioannou

 

October 2012

 

This study explores the consequences and origins of contemporary differences in well-being across ethnic groups within countries. We construct measures of ethnic inequality combining ethnolinguistic maps on the spatial distribution of groups with satellite images of light density at night. Ethnic inequality is strongly inversely related to per capita income; this pattern holds when we condition on the overall degree of spatial inequality -that is also associated with underdevelopment. We further show that differences in geographic endowments across ethnic homelands explain a sizable portion of contemporary ethnic inequality. This deeply rooted inequality in geographic attributes across ethnic regions is also negatively related to comparative development. We also show that ethnic inequality goes in tandem with lower levels development also within countries. Using micro-level data from the Afrobarometer surveys we show that individuals from the same ethnic group are worse off when they reside in districts with a high degree of ethnic inequality.

 

Keywords: Ethnicity, Diversity, Inequality, Development, Geography

JEL classification Numbers: O10, O40, O43.

I need to spend some time with this, but there are a few things to think about here. Above all, this looks like strong econometric confirmation for the important evidence on horizontal inequality that Frances Stewart and CRISE in Oxford have done so much to put together at the national level: that this type of inequality damages development outcomes for all, and that it is the inequality – and not the mere fact of diversity in a population – that is responsible.

On a more cautious note, I’m not familiar with the literature that uses light to capture development differences. A natural extension from using electricity consumption to estimate the size of informal economies, I guess, and given the existence of high-quality and high granularity satellite imagery it may well be a valuable option for sub-national data. The pioneers have also proposed its potential to substitute for (poor) national iaccounts data in constructing GDP series – again, looks interesting but I’d want to see a bit more work done on it. Lord knows we could do with a good alternative here…

J. Vernon Henderson, Adam Storeygard, David N. Weil

 

NBER Working Paper No. 15199

Issued in July 2009

NBER Program(s):   EFG

 

GDP growth is often measured poorly for countries and rarely measured at all for cities or subnational regions. We propose a readily available proxy: satellite data on lights at night. We develop a statistical framework that uses lights growth to augment existing income growth measures, under the assumption that measurement error in using observed light as an indicator of income is uncorrelated with measurement error in national income accounts. For countries with good national income accounts data, information on growth of lights is of marginal value in estimating the true growth rate of income, while for countries with the worst national income accounts, the optimal estimate of true income growth is a composite with roughly equal weights. Among poor-data countries, our new estimate of average annual growth differs by as much as 3 percentage points from official data. Lights data also allow for measurement of income growth in sub- and supranational regions. As an application, we examine growth in Sub Saharan African regions over the last 17 years. We find that real incomes in non-coastal areas have grown faster by 1/3 of an annual percentage point than coastal areas; non-malarial areas have grown faster than malarial ones by 1/3 to 2/3 annual percent points; and primate city regions have grown no faster than hinterland areas. Such applications point toward a research program in which “empirical growth” need no longer be synonymous with “national income accounts.”

 

Last night saw a really lively panel on inequality at London’s Frontline journalists’ club, chaired by Paddy Coulter from OPHI and with contributions from Charles Sennot and Michael Moran of GlobalPost,  Chris Johnes of Oxfam, Faiza Shaheen of the New Economics Foundation and me.

Frontline blogged it, so I won’t repeat their summary. Two things stood out for me: the sense that inequality has really become an issue that the media wants to cover (we saw some evidence of this with the surprisingly well-covered launch of Born Equal), and the extent to which inequality is now uniting people from quite different country contexts (which, incidentally, GlobalPost really deserve praise for seeking to communicate) and from quite different political backgrounds. (The US angle reminded me of the interesting analysis being done at Oxfam America too… and of course the extreme wealth argument being made by Oxfam UK.)

The video should be embedded below (if technology complies – I have to load the page twice in Chrome to get it to appear, not sure why). Just in case you’ve got 5 minutes rather than 90, you’ll find my minorly tub-thumping outline of Born Equal after about 48 minutes and 30 seconds.