A crucial step in fighting inequality and discrimination: the law to make India’s private schools admit 25% marginalised kids

This guest post comes from Exfam colleague and education activist Swati Narayan 

This summer, India missed the historic deadline to implement the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This landmark law, the fruit of more than a decade of civil society activism, has many path-breaking clauses. For the first time, it bans schoolteachers from offering private tuition on the side – a rampant conflict of interest. It also legally prohibits corporal punishment.

Most powerfully, it insists that every private school must reserve 25 percent of classroom seats for children from poorer or disadvantaged families in the neighbourhood. This quota is by no means a silver bullet. After all, eighty percent of schools in India are government-run and in dire need of teachers, infrastructure and more.

Nevertheless, this masterstroke, which aims to piggyback on the rest of the mushrooming for-profit private schools, single-handedly opens the door for at least 1 million eligible children each year across the country to receive 8 years of free education.

Despite strident opposition from school management and parents’ associations, the Indian Supreme Court last year upheld this visionary clause. Though it may not (yet) be as internationally renowned as the United States’ Brown versus Board of Education ruling, its ripple effect will be no less important in a country as socially stratified as India.

In the last three years, apart from resorting to the courts, private schools have used every trick in the book to deny children their rightful admissions (see video). Despite a ban, some have held separate evening classes to accommodate students from poorer families. Others have sent eligible parents literally in circles over admission paperwork. As a result, last year, Maharashtra state, for example, filled only 32 per cent of reserved seats.

One bone of contention is who will foot the bill? The Act is categorical that the state will reimburse private schools only based on what it spends per pupil in government schools, which is typically much less. For-profit private schools are therefore keen to pass on the burden and increase their already inflated fees for the remainder of the class. Unfortunately, this has pitched wealthy parents against semi-literate ones, further aggravating tensions across the class and caste divides.

On the other hand, many civil society activists are disappointed that the legislation only reserves 25 percent and does not embrace the more inclusive concept of a ‘common schooling system’.

But, even this diluted, watered-down 25 percent reservation clause offers an unprecedented window of opportunity to break the shackles of centuries of social prejudice, which has pigeon-holed and stymied educational, occupational and social opportunities for generations. For the first time, there is a genuine effort to ensure that that children — rich and poor, upper and lower caste — are schooled together at an impressionable age, perhaps laying the basis for India to overcome centuries of divisions.

Even today, children of marginalized castes and tribes are less likely to attend pre-primary and primary school and the quota defines them as primary beneficiaries of the new legislation. The law also supports the entry of children with disabilities. In addition, some states have devised truly progressive rules. Tamilnadu, for instance, has recognized transgender children as eligible. Andhra Pradesh explicitly includes orphans, street and homeless children. Gujarat has clarified that teachers should be professional trained and sensitized for the proper integration of children and warned that schools which discriminate could face closure.

These gems in the rulebook could revolutionize private education in India.

Sister Cyril’s award-winning elite Loreto School in Kolkata, has over the last three decades, already showcased first-hand the transformational potential of integrating street children in mainstream classrooms.

Now, the key to the success of this dream to create inclusive classrooms lies with the burgeoning Indian middle class — to support rather than oppose — this transformative initiative to build the foundation for a more integrated India.

Swati Narayan is a social policy analyst

Post-2015 wonkwar continued: Claire Melamed on why it’s a Good Thing + your chance to vote

Claire Melamed responds to my ‘bah humbug’ opener on post-2015

I spend most of my working life thinking about post-2015 so this is a slightly nerve-racking experience.  What if Duncan convinces me?  Let me first respond to his arguments, then set out what I think is to be gained from the post-2015 circus… and then we’ll see if I’m still working on post-2015 at the end of it.

I’ll start with the magical thinking.  Yes a lot of what’s being said in the name of post-2015 is a bit ‘if everything was nice everything would be nice’.  But think of it this way: people everywhere, not just wonks like us – are getting involved in serious debates at national, regional and global level, about poverty, about politics, about economics and about the environment.  We don’t know where it will lead yet.  Some of it will lead nowhere.  But don’t write off all that energy and commitment because it’s a bit unfocused, rather celebrate the fact that so many people want to get involved in political debate and action (even be, um, active citizens….).

In any case, that is about the campaign and the public debate, not the goals, and the two shouldn’t be confused.   If the outcome is important, being annoyed at the tone and strategy adopted by campaigners has to be a reason to get in there and change that, not to walk away.

So is it important?  Will a new agreement have any effect? It depends on what.  If it’s a specific change – say a new law on land rights, or criminalisation of gender violence – in a given country you’re after, quite obviously you don’t work on any multilateral process.  You work through national politics, if you’re a local organisation or in solidarity with those local organisations if you’re outside the country. Many organisations and individuals do just that, brilliantly.

But that’s not what we’re trying to do here.  Both Duncan and I, and millions of other people over the years, have also taken part in campaigns, research and advocacy dedicated to improving the global context for those national politics – for example by improving global trade rules or forgiving debt.  This is one of those.  Multilateralism will never be the fastest or most certain route to national change, but it’s a contribution.  Even if the changes are marginal in any given country, taken in lots of countries together that can add up to something quite big.

Of course you can’t know in advance, for any agreement or institution, how those global changes are going to work out in any given situation.  But you have to take a punt on the basis of (almost always partial) evidence, and go for it.

And so to the evidence.  Should, as Duncan suggests, post-2015ers have considered all the available options for multilateral instruments before embarking on this particular course?  Well, the next time someone asks me to design a multilateral system from scratch, then of course I will do that research.  Maybe we can do it together.

But this is not about fantasy multilateralism.  Yes post-2015 is about goals, because that’s what’s on the table.  That’s what governments, in the UN, in regional organisations, in bilateral forums, are negotiating.  Other instruments are available – if it’s laws you want, have another shot at the WTO, or if it’s league tables, there’s always the HDI.  They exist, they have an impact, and plenty of people work on them.  But the political opportunity of post-2015 is about goals, not any of those other instruments.

So why do I (and, by the way, a large number of the world’s governments and the whole UN system, not really the ‘sidelines’) think it’s worth working on goals for post-2015? Apart from the impact on aid, which everyone seems to agree on – there are at least three other reasons to think that the current MDGs have done some good in the world, and therefore why it’s worth investing in a new agreement.

More and better information.  The MDGs, and in particular the indicators linked to each goal and target, created a huge global effort to assess progress on the basis of commonly agreed metrics.  Information has improved in every way since then. The common set of indicators agreed as part of the MDGs allowed us to compare countries to each other and over time.  They created incentives to invest in data, and, probably, reduced the tendency to reach for GDP alone as the all-purpose indicator for human progress.  And more data improved advocacy, policy making , and sometimes led to a race to the top between governments  – all ways that this particular multilateral agreement has an impact at national level.  A new agreement could do this for information on gender violence, or on employment, to take two examples of very important things on which the data is terrible.

More campaigning.  There was campaigning before the MDGs and there would have been campaigning in their absence.  But the combination of goals and targets have been used as an extra bit of ammunition for national campaigns – and again, been one small part of changes in national politics and policy.  Advocates for education and for health services have probably been the keenest users of the MDGs.  It’s rare to read a description of the campaign for free universal primary education in Kenya, for example, that doesn’t mention the education goal as one of the factors that helped push the politics in the right direction (pdf).  Without the MDGs they would have had one fewer stick to beat governments with, and progress may well have been slower.  Campaigners for universal health care, for example, think a goal or target on this would be helpful as they try to push policy in that direction in particular countries.

More and better consensus.  In the 1980s and 1990s growth was king, income was the only thing that mattered, and, according to some of the architects of structural adjustment programmes, it was justifiable to actually make poor people’s lives worse in the short term in the name of ‘development’. The MDGs were the moment that the world agreed that this was not ok, and that social development, as defined in the goals, should be an equal priority for international efforts.  A new agreement can make a move to achieving a similar consensus on inequality, for example, or on the need to make sure that we keep to within environmental limits.  This stuff matters – look at how norms, and then laws and actions, on human rights have changed in the last 20 or 30 years.

A post-2015 agreement is not going to change the world overnight.  Nothing, sadly, will do that.  We can’t know in advance exactly what changes it will bring, and to who, and how.  It may all end horribly and pointlessly, and even if we get a good agreement, it will be a big and unwieldy thing, with an impact that’s felt through many channels over many years.  But within the range of global processes that it’s currently possible to influence, this seems to me to be pretty good investment of my time.  A thousand words later, I’m still convinced.  You?

So over to you for the inevitable poll. As on the results one, I couldn’t think of suitably nuanced revealing questions, so let’s just see if you agree more with Claire, me both or neither. And I think I can assure you, the result will have absolutely no influence over the post-2015 process!

Merit, Privilege or Slumdog Millionaires? Income Inequality and Social Mobility

In memory of Sebastian Levine, who liked to read these posts.

This post is written by Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva, Oxfam’s Head of Research (twitter @rivefuentes)

In Danny Boyle’s movie Slumdog Millionaire, the young character wins a large pot of money against all odds. The movie is a fantasy tale for all practical purposes. The hero knows the responses posed to him in a quiz show through a number of coincidences and lucky breaks. It was his only chance to become wealthy.

What type of societies give better, more just chances to everyone? What is the connection between opportunity and socio-economic disparities? There are, at the risk of being simplistic, two broad sources of inequality: inequality resulting from individual entrepreneurship and effort (I’ll call it merit inequality) and the inequality that reproduces privilege and elite capture (I’ll call it privilege inequality).

A simple way to discover whether inequality is actually a result of merit is to think how far effort and hard work can take us. I recently heard Kaushik Basu, the new Chief Economist at the World Bank, detail an anecdote about this during a meeting with civil society people in London.  When Basu visits his home city of Kolkata he goes for long walks and sometimes he wanders around a privileged district that stands in sharp contrast with the nearby slums. The close proximity of the two vastly different lifestyles ensures that slum dwellers also visit this district. Then Basu said, to the best of my recollection: “it is not fair to tell a kid in the slum that by working hard he will be able to achieve the wealth needed to live in that neighbourhood.”

It is a candid story that got the attention of all people present in the meeting. It makes a powerful point. What Basu was pointing at is that perfect social mobility does not exist. Basu focused on the immorality of a development narrative that promotes aspirations that cannot be attained – the slum kid that will not become a rich mogul. I want to focus on the existing rigid class structures and how they limit opportunity.

Equality of opportunity is a central tenet of modern societies, but it implies that family characteristics should not have a strong influence on the opportunities someone faces throughout life. Empirical evidence shows that is not the case. There is a strong correlation between children’s chances and their parents socio-economic status. A book aptly titled “Persistence, Privilege, and Parenting” put it like this: “The abundant evidence in the economic, demographic, and sociological literature of the association between parents’ and children’s social positions makes it very clear that children’s chances for a good life are highly dependent on their social origins or socioeconomic status”

Social mobility is far from perfect – where you’re born will have some influence on where you end up. But what is the actual correlation between inequality and social mobility? It turns out it’s rather high. Several academic papers (look here, here and here) show this. Take, for instance, recent research by Miles Corak. In this graph, Corak plotted the Gini coefficient (a standard measure of inequality) against “intergenerational elasticity between fathers’ and sons’ earnings” (or how much someone’s income is determined by their parents’). In Denmark, for instance, a country with a low Gini, only 15 percent the a young adult’s income today is explained by their parents’; in Peru, where the Gini is amongst the highest in the world, two-thirds of what someone earns today is related to what their parents earned in the past. Alan Kruger, a former senior official in Obama’s administration and professor at Princeton, dubbed this relationship “The Great Gatsby Curve” (a movie with Leonardo Di Caprio is coming if you don’t feel like reading the book). The rich are different from you and me. And so their offspring are too.

Figure: Like father like son? Parents’ earnings influence income of offspring, and more so in countries with high inequality.

Note: Income inequality in the horizontal axis, persistence of income across generations in the vertical one.

Source: M Corak (2012) Inequality from generation to generation: the United States in Comparison.

A recent debate on The Economist site shed more light on the issue. In a blog post, Francisco Ferreira from the World Bank showed the relationship between opportunity and mobility. Here’s the graph.

You can only climb the social ladder if you have opportunities

Note: persistence of income across generations in the horizontal axis, inequality of economic opportunity in the vertical one.

Source: Brunori, Paolo; Ferreira, Francisco H. G.; Peragine, Vito. (2013) Inequality of opportunity, income inequality and economic mobility : some international comparisons

Countries where economic opportunity is low also present low levels of mobility – Norway is a mobile society where there is low inequality of opportunity, while Brazil, for all its progress, still shows a rigid society with higher levels of inequality of opportunity. The indicator Ferreira and co-authors use in their research (inequality of economic opportunity index) is not without flaws but it’s a solid attempt to capture how much someone’s ability to participate in the economy is determined by circumstances outside their control – characteristics you cannot change easily (race, parent’s education, sex and the like). Ferreira and his co-authors conclude: “The evidence reviewed suggests that an important portion of income inequality observed in the world today cannot be attributed to differences in individual efforts or responsibility. On the contrary, it can be directly ascribed to exogenous factors such as family background, gender, race, place of birth, etc.” Their evidence indicates that privilege inequality trumps merit inequality.

Why? Because privilege persists across generations through difference in access to education, health and social and professional networks and it starts very early in life. This is the connection between income inequality, inequality of opportunity and social mobility. In countries with high income inequality, you only have opportunities if your parents had them too. Ferreira explains “as the rungs of the ladder grow further apart, it gets harder for people to climb up (or move down). Conversely, countries with institutions that promote a level playing field, and redistribute income or opportunity, may also promote mobility”.

The evidence that income inequality limits our control over our destiny is strong. We know something about the dynamics of the class divide. There are some examples of increased mobility throughout history in Britain and the US. As The Economist puts it “…in both America and Britain the effect of high (or low) incomes in one generation lasts for at least two more. Yet [Long and Ferrie’s] study also suggests it is possible to break patterns of immobility. Although American and British mobility rates had converged by the middle of the 20th century, America’s social order was considerably more fluid than Britain’s in the 19th century. The past has a tight grip on the present. But in the right circumstances, it can apparently be loosened. “. So it is possible  to change the level of mobility in society.

We need to understand better how to loosen those circumstances to make societies more fluid but we know that inequality hampers it.  The higher the inequality level in societies, the farther we are from that ideal that with hard work we can achieve what we set our minds. Then, like in Slumdog Millionaire, only an implausible array of coincidences allows people to move up the ladder. How can we support the narrative that says hard work and effort will really improve poor people’s relative position in society when we know that with growing inequalities it becomes much harder?

Tomorrow, I wonder what the aid biz might actually do differently as a result of all this renewed focus on inequality

Government Spending Watch – a new initiative you really need to know about

I’m consistently astonished by how little we know about the important stuff in development. Take the Millennium Development Goals – the basis forinnumerable aid debates, campaigns, and negotiations. A large chunk of the MDG agenda concerns the size and quality of public spending – on health, education, water, sanitation etc. So obviously, the first thing we need is to know how much governments are spending on these things, right?

Well no actually, because we don’t have those numbers. Until now. Oxfam has teamed up with an influential and well-connected NGO, Development Finance International, which advises developing country governments around the world. Working with a network of government officials, DFI has pulled together and analysed the budgets of 52 low and middle income countries (With another 34 to follow). The result is a new database, called Government Spending Watch, (summary of overall project here) and a report ‘Progress at Risk’, previewed in Washington last Friday in a joint DFI/Oxfam America event to coincide with the IMF and World Bank Spring meetings. The full report won’t be ready ‘til May, but an initial draft exec sum is available, and here’s what it says.

The data cover seven sectors (agriculture/food, education, environment and climate change, gender, health, social protection and water/sanitation), from 2008 to 2015 (including medium-term forecasts). They examine planned and actual spending, disaggregated by types (recurrent and capital), and sources of funds (government revenue or donor funding). There are some major gaps (see map), so the first call is for donors (who are often the worst culprits) and governments to collect and publish more and better data.

The report looks separately at countries with and without IMF programmes (although attributing the differences to the IMF is tricky, and the report avoids doing so). Headline findings are:

• Most countries have been increasing revenue and spending as a % of GDP, but this is now going into reverse
• The sources of government finances have shifted from grants to loans, including more expensive domestic borrowing, raising fears about growing debt burdens (although no new debt crisis is imminent)
• Countries with IMF programmes have raised less revenue, are cutting deficits faster and have seen less positive trends in MDG spending. Agriculture and health spending are now much higher as a percentage of GDP, and education and social protection spending are rising faster in non-IMF countries. Other MDG sector spending is stagnating compared with GDP or total spending.
• For all MDGs, the vast majority of developing countries are spending much less than they have promised or than international organisations have estimated is needed. Only one third of countries are meeting any education or health goals, and less than 30 per cent are meeting agriculture and WASH goals. Trends have been even less positive for gender and sustainable development.
• Some of the spending has been funded by rapidly growing aid – especially in education, health, WASH and agriculture. Progress in these areas is threatened as OECD aid flows are now declining in real terms, and are increasingly moving away from MDG sectors to infrastructure and growth.
• In most countries, actual spending is substantially less than the amounts announced in budgets (see table). This is particularly true in the health, agriculture and WASH sectors, reflecting delays in donor funding, and absorptive capacity problems in sector ministries and decentralised government agencies.
• Types of spending show two worrying patterns. Some sectors (WASH and agriculture) are dominated by investment, raising the need to increase recurrent spending dramatically to maintain buildings and equipment. Others (education, health and social protection) are dominated by recurrent spending on wages and supplies. Especially if donors reduce budget support, which funds much recurrent spending in many countries, governments will need to make even greater revenue efforts to maintain recurrent spending and keep delivering progress.

If the excitement around last week’s prelaunch is anything to go by, this is going to be a really important initiative. According to report author and DFI boss Matthew Martin:

“We had conversations with officials from about 20 IDA countries about their relative performance in terms of spending and transparency and all of them were anxious to see the full data and report, and to improve their performance. Senior donor government officials were also energised about being able to use these data to see country spending inputs for the MDGs and for the post-2015 framework.

Major global campaigns on education and health were anxious to see and use the data. The DC development research community (Brookings, CGD, IMF, World Bank) as well as USAID, MCC and the African Development Bank  were very excited by the data and want to organise further seminars after the full report is published and consider using the data for their own research and policymaking.

We also had great conversations about potential partnerships with the International Budget Partnership (who run analysis and campaigns on budget transparency and accountability), and the BOOST team in the World Bank (who help countries produce much more detailed geocoded data and would like to code it for the MDGs).

All in all, an amazing week: it has felt like standing on a snowball which is rolling faster and getting bigger every day – we start again with the New York academic and UN community next (i.e. this) week.”

Looking ahead, citizens and social movements in poor countries will now be able both to see what their governments are promising and delivering, and to compare that with other countries in the neighbourhood. International bodies will be able to track the extent to which warm words translate into cash on the ministerial table. Internationally, Oxfam will certainly be using the database as a vital new tool to help local citizens and civil society actors ensure their governments actually deliver the goods.

In addition to scaled up advocacy and campaigns, the plan now is for GSW to expand the database to cover more countries and years, and to publish regular updates. But to do that we will need to find funders and advocacy partners. Please form an orderly queue……

The poorest countries are under renewed threat from WTO rules on access to medicines (and yes, this is 2013)

This week is acquiring an oddly retro flavour. Wednesday had me reminiscing about the Access to Medicines campaign of the last decade. Now it turns out that the issues it raised have recently erupted again. In short, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are trying to get another extension to be free from implementing the WTO’s Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement. The current stay of execution, agreed in 2005, is coming to an end in June this year and the LDCs have put forward a very sensible  proposal asking for a waiver until they graduate from LDC status, so that they don’t have to bother any more with artificial deadlines.

So far, Oxfam trade warriors are lobbying hard and more than 300 groups have signed a joint NGO letter to WTO Members, because access to medicines, educational resources, seeds or climate change adaptation technologies could all be affected if these countries were to implement the TRIPs agreement any time soon. There are many other reasons why they should not have to implement TRIPs: WTO members owe this to them after failing to deliver on their other promises in the Doha Round (see what I mean about retro?); LDCs don’t have to make any commitments under the parallel agreements on Agriculture and on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA – ah, a wonk’s nostalgia for the acronyms of youth!), so why should they have to implement TRIPs? And anyway, as Ha-Joon Chang has exhaustively documented, all developed countries were IP pirates when they were at a similar stage of development.

The LDC proposal has strong support from other developing countries including the BRICS. In addition, UNDP, UNAIDS and WHO have spoken in favour of the extension. And so has the industry through the CCIA (international IT lobby group, representing Google, Facebook and Microsoft). But (surprise, surprise) the EU, US, Japan and Canada are doing their best to water down the proposal, proposing a short term extension instead, or to include a ‘no roll back clause’, or to differentiate between LDCs. They freely admit in private that they have no economic interest but are pushing this for ideological reasons. Plus ca change.

More background from IPWatch. [h/t Romain Bennichio]

Food price volatility and obesity – a new development challenge?

Continuing on the ‘new development threats’ theme of yesterday’s post on Big Tobacco, the latest issue of the World Bank’s Food Price Watch looks at the links between increasing food price volatility and obesity. A blog post by the Bank’s José Cuesta starts with a nice counter-intuitive quiz (below).

The correct answers, by the way are C, B and C.

Food Price Watch report explains:

‘Overweight and obesity constitute a global epidemic even in a world of high and volatile food prices. The prevalence and numbers of people affected by overweight and obesity have increased in the last three decades, during both periods of low and high international food prices. So as one malnutrition problem, undernourishment, is falling, others, overweight and obesity, are increasing rapidly (figure 2). In 2008, the number of overweight adults was 1.46 billion, of which 508 million were obese. Even conservative projections predict truly shocking numbers in the future if current trends are unabated: 2.16 billion adults might be overweight and 1.12 billion obese by 2030. And such increases should be expected across all regions and in countries like China and India (figure 3).

As food prices remain high and, arguably, increasingly volatile, unhealthy calories tend to be cheaper than healthy ones. This is the case of junk food in the developed world, but also of less nutritious food substitutes in poor households in developing countries coping with recurrent food (and other) crises. In fact, overweight is not an epidemic restricted to rich countries. Half of the world’s overweight people live in nine countries, including the United States and Germany, but also in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey. Regions with the highest obesity prevalence — exceeding 25% of the adult population — include North Africa and the Middle East, Central and South America, and southern sub-Saharan Africa.

Policy responses so far have only partially addressed the epidemic. Responses have ranged from doing nothing to punishing overweight people by, for instance, imposing fines on employers when employees exceed certain waistline limits in Japan. Taxes, outright bans, or restrictive legislation on certain foods and ingredients along with clearer standards for food labels and awareness campaigns are attempts to veer consumers toward healthier foods. Yet, it is not evident that reducing obesity is among the top global policy priorities. Nonetheless, the current multilateral discussions on the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (along with the UN high-level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases) offer an unprecedented opportunity for integrating global and national collective action to fight all forms of malnutrition, from stunting to obesity. This integrated and collective action has, nonetheless, a tall order: it must help prevent this double burden — triple, if micronutrient deficiencies are considered — from increasing as the world becomes more prosperous.’

Fascinating and important, but a nightmare in terms of communications for any organization wanting to work on it!

6 million deaths a year – where’s the global campaign on Big Tobacco?

Since I wrote recently on the major sources of death in the developing world, I keep spotting things about tobacco that are crying out for action. Take this from last week’s Economist:

‘This month Chile became the 14th Latin American country to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces.

Chile’s conversion is significant, since it is something of a smokers’ corner. The World Health Organisation says over 40% of Chileans smoke, compared with 27% of Argentines and 17% of people in Brazil, where curbs on smoking began in the late 1990s. Chile’s health minister, Jaime Mañalich, says that treating tobacco victims takes a quarter of the $10 billion public health-care budget.

Chile’s smokers are getting younger. According to the Tobacco Atlas, a study of the industry, nearly 40% of girls aged 13-15 in Santiago, Chile’s capital, smoke cigarettes. That is up from just 20% in 2003, and is the highest rate in the world. Growing prosperity is partly to blame. Mr Mañalich also points to a cultural change: “Chile has always been a very macho country but that is changing. For women, smoking in public is somehow a sign they are liberated.”

Latin America’s new curbs on smoking face resistance from the industry. Philip Morris International, an American tobacco company, has filed a claim against Uruguay at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an arm of the World Bank, claiming that the country’s anti-smoking measures violate a bilateral investment treaty. Brazil, the world’s third-biggest producer of tobacco leaf, faces pressure from its planters to protect their jobs.

The anti-smoking lobby wants to see pricing and taxing of cigarettes be co-ordinated across Latin America, to discourage contraband. With income varying widely among countries, that would be hard. But governments could discourage smoking with other steps, such as curbs on advertising, bigger health warnings and subsidising nicotine-replacement therapy.

“Only Satan can grant man the faculty of expelling smoke through the mouth,” declared the Spanish Inquisition in imprisoning Rodrigo de Jerez, one of Columbus’s sailors, and the first person to bring tobacco to Europe. Latin American governments now seem to agree.’

Did you do a double take on para 4? If not, why not? A major tobacco company, Philip Morris, is trying to block the Uruguayan Government’s attempts to limit the devastation. According to a briefing by IISD, the company brought the case  in 2010  and ‘is challenging three provisions of Uruguay’s tobacco regulations: (1) a “single presentation” requirement that prohibits marketing more than one tobacco product under each brand, (2) a requirement that tobacco packages include “pictograms” with graphic images of the health consequences of smoking (such as cancerous lungs), and (3) a mandate that health warnings cover 80% of the front and back of cigarette packages.’ Philip Morris’ own version of events confirms this.

The ICSID says that the suit is ongoing, with a tribunal meeting in Paris last February.

Now tobacco is the world’s number one killer, claiming 6m lives a year (over 3 times the number of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS). When Big Pharma tried to restrict access to HIV/AIDS medicines, campaigners jumped all over them, with considerable success (as this week’s landmark ruling against Novartis in India shows). The standard Oxfam recipe for a good campaign is that you need a problem, a solution, and a villain. Big Tobacco would seem to tick every box, don’t you think?

Kevin Watkins on inequality – required reading

If you want an overview of the current debates on inequality, read Kevin Watkins’ magisterial Ryszard Kapuściński lecture. Kevin, who will shortly take over as the new head of the Overseas Development Institute, argues that ‘getting to zero’ on poverty means putting inequality at the heart of the development debate and the post2015 agreement (he doesn’t share my scepticism on that one). As a taster, here are two powerful graphs, showing how poverty will fall globally and in India, with predicted growth rates, in a low/high/current inequality variants. QED, really.

Brazil v South Africa: what can the BRICS tell us about overcoming inequality?

The blog’s inequality week here in South Africa continues with some thoughts on inequality and the BRICS. An edited version of this post appeared earlier this week on the FT’s Beyond BRICS blog

The acronym may have been cooked up in far-off New York, but the BRICS grouping of countries is starting to generate some interesting life of its own. Last week, I was in Durban, chairing a discussion between academics and activists from South Africa and Brazil ahead of the BRICS summit later this month. The topic? ‘Tackling inequality across BRICS’.

The starting point was Brazilian exceptionalism. Long held up as exhibit A in Latin America’s gross distortions of wealth, Brazil is now the only BRIC where inequality is falling (and fast – see chart). In the wider G20 group of leading economies, only 4 can boast falling inequality levels; three of them – Brazil, Argentina and Mexico – are Latin American.

The stats, captured in a new Oxfam briefing, published in conjunction with Rio’s BRICS Policy Center, are striking. Over the last decade, the incomes of the poorest Brazilians have risen more than five times faster than those of the richest (but both are rising – no zero sum games here). In the words of Brazilian poverty guru Ricardo Paes de Barros, “the incomes of individuals in the lowest decile of the income distribution is growing at Chinese rates, while the income of the richest decile grows at German rates”.

Even though GDP growth is sluggish, two weeks ago President Dilma Rousseff was able to announce the end of ‘registered extreme poverty’ – note her careful choice of words. Some Brazilian academics put this historic turnaround on a par with the New Deal in the US, or Britain’s post war creation of its welfare state.

The fine grain is just as encouraging: women’s incomes are rising faster than men’s; black people’s faster than whites’; the impoverished North-east faster than the rich South-east. Hunger is ‘largely dealt with’ according to Oxfam’s country director Simon Ticehurst, speaking in Durban, although food insecurity continues to plague communities in the northeast of Brazil. Near full employment is transforming lives, as people move from a day to day scrabble for survival into the better paid, more stable world of the formal economy. Brazil’s middle classes complain bitterly about having to pay more for maids, and even give them days off, as labour markets tighten.

Not that Brazil has become some kind of development nirvana: the quality of state education remains poor, large scale agriculture sucks up state subsidies on a far greater scale than those going to poor farmers; and despite the progress, the country is still in the world’s top 15 most unequal countries, twice as unequal as the OECD average.

Caveats aside, how did Brazil pull this off? Ticehurst and Adriana Erthal Abdenur of the BRICS Policy Center both stressed that such a transformation is complex and multi-tiered, involving all parts of state and society. This is most definitely not a magic bullet story of Brazil’s famous ‘Bolsa Familia’ social protection system, a programme of cash transfers to women in return for getting their kids vaccinated and keeping them in school, which has won admirers and imitators as far afield as New York City. UNDP estimates that such spending programmes account for under a fifth of the fall in inequality. Ticehurst argued that other critical factors include:

-          The transition from military rule to democracy, which bequeathed a constitution and political process attuned to the importance of basic rights, such as the right to food

-          The election of a centre-left government, led by Lula, committed to tackling poverty and inequality

-          Major increases in the minimum wage, the introduction of a universal pension (particularly important in deprived rural households)

-          An integrated and more effective public administration, working tightly across ministries and between the different levels of a federal, decentralized political system.

-          A high level of public participation, for example in holding 19 different ministries to account on Brazil’s ‘zero hunger’ effort to achieve universal access to food, through a virtuous circle of linking poor family farms to government procurement for school feeding programmes that in turn feed poor children.

-          Political and economic stability throughout the period of reforms.

In terms of economy and politics, Brazil is probably closer to South Africa than the other BRICS (commodity producer, democracy, transition from autocracy, centre left government) and the discussion inevitably centred on why South Africa has failed to emulate such successes. While there has been substantial progress since the end of Apartheid on access to health, education and housing, inequality remains obstinately high and rising.

The two elements of Brazil’s success that South Africa seems to be missing (by a mile) are full employment and more competent administration. Patronage and corruption exist in both countries, but their extent in South Africa is undermining the state’s ability to implement policies, however well designed. Brazil, with its more diversified economy and public investments, seems able to generate jobs in a way that remains a distant dream in South Africa, which remains dependent on agribusiness and mining, neither of which generate the employment the country needs. Substantial land redistribution seems essential to tackling the jobs crisis, yet has been systematically postponed by the government in the interests of stability. Even those who manage to navigate the dilapidated education system and emerge with a degree still find it difficult to find jobs. Alarm bells are ringing, with observers warning of anything from a slow meltdown of the ANC government to an Arab Spring style uprising led by educated, jobless youth.

While all sides stressed that merely trying to transfer policies from one country to another seldom works, this kind of South-South exchange holds huge potential for helping the BRICS develop their own solutions to some of the problems such as inequality that continue to plague the old guard of the G8.

And here’s a 25m video summary of the Durban event

How to build local government accountability in South Africa? A conversation with partners

This is what a good day visiting an Oxfam programme looks like. I skim the interwebs (and this blog) to put together some thoughts on a given issue from our experience or what others are writing (‘the literature’). Then sit down with local Oxfamistas and partner organizations (who are usually closer to the grassroots than we are) to compare these bullet points with their reality. Last Friday it was ‘how can NGOs build the accountability of local government.’ My ten minutes covered:

• Supply (training officials) v demand (strengthening civil society) v building collective trust in fragmented societies
• The importance of identifying and working with insider champions within the state – no good shouting at the gates if no-one inside is willing to listen and work with you
• It can be risky – make sure staff and partners have support if the state officials lash out
• Often need to pursue deeper culture change on officials’ attitudes to excluded groups
• Need to choose between focussing on the broader ‘enabling environment’ of access to information, respect for the law, exposing corruption etc or more specific campaigns for housing, electricity, schools etc
• Some interesting examples of text-based complaints mechanisms (India) and name-and-shame league tables (Vietnam)

A lot of this resonated with the South African experience. Some thought-provoking additional points included:

The SA implementation gap between ‘first world norms and standards’ and an underfunded and often chaotic/corrupt corrupt administrative reality is so wide it may even be counterproductive (no point in acting because however hard you try, you can never comply). Local government is hobbled by lack of cash, capacity, and officials’ inability to understand ‘perfect’ guidelines and standards drawn up by distant consultants.

The political incentives are all wrong. Patronage is as big a problem as corruption – party hacks get parachuted into senior administrative jobs, lacking the capacity or interest to perform them properly. ‘People in positions feel very powerful’, and their power springs from playing the political game within the ANC, fighting the internal turf wars rather than doing right by the people.

Despite this, there are officials and politicians willing to do the right thing, either because they are politically progressive and committed (this is the ANC, after all), or because more self-interested political incentives are temporarily/accidentally aligned with those of the popular movement. A huge element of civil society advocacy is built around identifying and building relationships with such individuals. Finding backing for local insider champions (eg from higher tiers of government and politics, or international bodies) can make a real difference in strengthening the hand of the good guys within the state.

But that can be very exhausting: ‘you look at the giant that is Government and it’s so difficult to navigate. You never quite know where to push, (and nor do the officials!). You invest hugely in building intimate relationships only to find they’ve moved department and you have to start all over again.’

Civil society (including Oxfam) don’t always do themselves any favours: ‘CSOs go with the attitude ‘you’re paid to do this, and you drive a 4×4. Why should I congratulate you when you actually do your job?’ So they get nowhere.’

More optimistic times

Options include:

• Judicial activism, but there is little cash to support it, and it is very slow.
• Changing norms: At present ‘there’s no corruption, no shame’ among officials. CSOs could go for broad public awareness raising and pressure along the lines of ipaidabribe.com, ‘they work for us’ websites on the performance of politicians or civil servants, ‘slowest response of the year’ competitions etc. But those in the room thought this would be very risky indeed, given the ANC’s hostility to public criticism.
• Broaden alliances beyond networks of CSOs (which seems to be the default model), not least because civil society currently has access to political leaders (they were often in the anti-apartheid movement together), but little real traction. Partners thought the private sector offered more promise than faith-based organizations or traditional leaders.

We finished by asking everyone to suggest something new to try. Here’s what they came up with:

• Invest much more in ‘positive reinforcement’. Find champions, publicly support them. Build relationships.
• Do more long term awareness-raising  with communities about what the government ought to be doing for them
• Think about a South African ipaidabribe.com
• Budget tracking/ ‘follow the money’ watchdogs to ensure that money allocated arrives intact and is then actually spent (a scandalous amount of health and education money has to be returned to central government because local officials fail to spend it on time).

But in the end, several partners thought that only an increase in political competition, with the ANC facing a genuine chance of being voted out of municipal governments, would shift the behaviours of most officials. Given the state of the opposition, that doesn’t look likely, but I’ll speculate on that in a future post.

And if you happen to be in Cape Town today, why not come along to the Sustainability Institute at 12 to discuss ‘Creating a Just Food System through Active Citizenship‘? Some good panelists (and me).