Women's Views on News |
| What is really causing wealth inequality Posted: 27 Aug 2015 04:03 AM PDT
There has been growing concern in recent UK political debate about the economic outlook and lifetime prospects of younger generations. Particular attention has focused on: unprecedented levels of graduate debt following the increase in the cap on undergraduate tuition fees in England to £9,000 per year; house price inflation and ensuing difficulties for younger households in becoming owner-occupiers; and high levels of youth unemployment and fewer good quality job opportunities, along with the long-term effect of these trends on young people's earnings. An increasing number of stakeholders have argued that today's younger cohorts are likely to be the first generation that will be poorer than their parents over their lifetime. Amid such concerns, there has been growing focus in public policy debate on the contrasting positions of the 'young' versus the 'old'. Commentators have argued that given their wealth, public spending on pensioners should be cut to fund more spending on young people and that transferring public spending from the old to the young would be an effective way of both lifting young people's long-term economic outlook to the level of their parents, and of improving intergenerational fairness; While there is no doubt that young people have seen significant falls in living standards, a new Touchstone pamphlet challenges the myth that these are the result of older people hoarding all the wealth. Drawing on new analysis, the pamphlet argues that young people's deteriorating prospects are a consequence of growing wealth inequalities across UK society. It also shows that tackling these effectively will require a far more ambitious and progressive strategy than advocates of cutting pensioner benefits admit. This discussion paper uses analysis of household wealth – in particular, new research undertaken by the University of Bristol using the UK Wealth and Assets Survey (WAS) – to explore these arguments. For, as Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC, wrote in the introduction, while public spending cuts have hit young people hard, many of the poorest pensioners have lost out too, particularly as services including social care have been pared back. 'It is also', she points out, 'those of working age, rather than pensioners, who are currently most likely to be wealthy, with a very large proportion of our national wealth held by a very few households, regardless of age. 'Young or old, only a lucky elite benefit from inequality while life gets tougher for everyone else.' The wealthiest households in the population, the research found, are mostly of working age. It is also found that tenure, geography and earnings are all strong predictors of being wealthy, raising questions both around why age has come to signify wealth in policy debate, and why pensioners should be the target of fiscal choices around tax and spending to increase support for young people. This report has found that UK pensioner households do not comprise the majority of the wealthiest households across the population, and it is unclear why cuts to age-related public spending should be the focus of debate. Indeed, it says, were public spending transfers to occur from pensioners to younger cohorts, it is likely that such transfers would have a very marginal impact on the economic outlook of younger households, and be of little relevance to 'intergenerational fairness'. There is a risk, it says, that such debates distract the public and policymakers from those potential policy interventions that are required to improve the long-term economic outlook of younger cohorts. In this sense, recent debate on intergenerational fairness and age-related spending has been a disservice to younger cohorts, as it has diverted policymakers from broader structural trends and changes, and those policy options that would have a significant impact on the wealth accumulation of younger households. O'Grady again: 'So solutions to young people's problems will not be found, by example, by reducing winter fuel allowances for pensioners. 'Instead, improving the new generation's chances requires profound changes in how we structure our economy and distribute wealth. 'Young people have not been held back by today's pensioners but by poor political choices that have polarised opportunities, income and wealth. 'The last government shattered the promise of each generation that our children should have a better life than we did,' she continued, 'This pamphlet is designed to kickstart a new debate about how we put that right.' To read the pamphlet, click here. |
| Eliminating discrimination against women Posted: 27 Aug 2015 02:47 AM PDT
Every year the Human Rights Council spends a day discussing the elimination of discrimination against women, informed by the latest report of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice. This Working Group is a sequel to Beijing's Platform for Action. In Beijing, governments decided to abolish discriminatory laws. The five and ten year reviews made this decision even firmer. On the occasion of the tenth year review, the Commission on the Status of Women wondered if it would not be appropriate to establish a special rapporteur to report on discriminatory laws and their consequences. The Secretary-General had produced two reports, in 2006 and 2007 on the issue; in 2009 the Human Rights Council requested the High Commissioner to present a report on discrimination in law and practice, and in 2010 the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution with the mandate of the Working Group. It is the second special procedure of the Human Rights Council dedicated to addressing women's human rights, complementing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its causes and consequences, which was established in 1994 immediately following the World Conference on Human Rights. In Vienna in 1993 it had been decided to integrate women's human rights into the overall human rights system. The first report of the Working Group was about its history and plans for the future. Its second report in 2013 was dedicated to discrimination in law and practice in public and political life. In 2014 the subject was ‘eliminating discrimination in economic and social life with a focus on economic crisis, and this year eliminating discrimination in cultural and family life with a focus on the family as a cultural space’ (A/HRC/29/40). This 2015 report is a radical accusation against patriarchy. It says that Article 5 (eliminate prejudice) of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, is of vital importance. Human Rights Council resolutions – 16/3 on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind and 26/11 on the protection of the family – threaten to undermine international achievements in the field of human rights in the name of cultural and religious diversity. It relies heavily on the definition of gender in General Recommendation 28 of the CEDAW Committee.
Gender is a discriminatory factor in all societies. Culture, however, can be changed. The recommendations the Working Group makes are all furthering equality, especially within the family. The resolution the Human Rights Council adopted is a weak 'infusion' of the working group's analysis. However it Calls upon States to ensure women's equal enjoyment of all human rights by, inter alia: (a) Adopting and strengthening national legal frameworks promoting and guaranteeing gender equality in cultural and family life, in accordance with their international obligations and commitments; (b) Promoting the equal and full access, participation and contribution of women and girls in all aspects of life, including in cultural and family life; (c) Rejecting any discriminatory practice and gender stereotype; (d) Adopting or strengthening measures to combat multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, in particular against those belonging to vulnerable groups; Also calls upon States to promote a culture free from all forms of discrimination against women and girls and to address its root causes by, inter alia: (a) Developing national mechanisms, measures and policies, as appropriate; (b) Adopting awareness-raising campaigns, educational and informational programmes; (c) Promoting the mobilization and engagement of civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders, including that of men and boys; (d) Providing gender-equality training for State civil servants, including those working on the judiciary; (e) Adopting a coherent set of gender-responsive social and economic policies; (f) Addressing poverty and social exclusion in order to overcome the structural barriers and inequality that they face; Urges States to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices that are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women; Calls upon States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, and to guarantee women's equality in law and in practice in family life, in accordance with their respective international obligations and commitments by, inter alia: (a) Recognizing the equality of all family members before the law; (b) Opposing all forms of marriage that constitute a violation of women's and girls' rights, well-being and dignity; (c) Ensuring that men and women have the same right freely to choose a spouse, to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent and the same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution; (d) Ensuring the same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property; (e) Ensuring the same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and the adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all the cases, the interest of the children shall be paramount. Further the resolution calls for combating violence, an end to impunity, and access to justice for all women regardless of their status. I started out noticing that there was so much language about the family in this resolution. Then I understood that this was because the Working Group's report focused on it. Then I read the report and was impressed with the thorough analysis and description of legal systems regarding personal law. Lyda Verstegen is a lawyer and served as President of the International Alliance of Women (IAW) from 2010 to 2013. She is currently convener of the IAW Human Rights Commission. A version of this article appeared on the International Alliance of Women’s website on 21 August 2015. The International Alliance of Women was founded in 1904 and is based in Geneva. It is an international NGO comprising 41 member organizations involved in the promotion of the human rights of women and girls globally. The IAW has general consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and is accredited to many specialized UN agencies, has participatory status with the Council of Europe and is represented at the Arab League, the African Union and other international organizations.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |