WUNRN
UNRISD - http://www.unrisd.org/
UN Research Institute for Social
Development
United Nations Human Rights Council 17
Panel on Women-Poverty-Crises-Trade-Human Rights
3 June 2011, 14:00-16:00
Room 27, Palais des Nations
Statement by
Shahra Razavi, Research Coordinator, UNRISD
The proximate causes of the 2007/8 crisis may have been located in the global financial markets, but the ripple effects spread very quickly to the real economy, not only in the global North but also in the global South (given the extent of global economic integration). The crisis affected the “visible” parts of the economy—production, trade, economic growth, jobs, people’s livelihoods and earnings. But it also affected the “unpaid/invisible” economy, the social processes and human relations and the unpaid care work which (re)produces and maintains people and communities on a daily and generational basis. This invisible part of the economy is the foundation upon which all production and exchange rests.
As Diane Elson has argued, government response was “swift
and comprehensive”[1][1] when it came to safeguarding the
banks and capitalist firms, but “slow and partial” in response to social
deficits and human needs/rights. Some
have even argued that the “giant bailout of Wall Street was sold to the American
people as a way to save
The 2007/8 crisis, following similar episodes in Asia and Latin America, has reinforced the argument that open economies need institutionalized systems of social protection if they are to reap the benefits of openness without succumbing to its socially disruptive effects. For a while the aphorism that “every crisis is an opportunity” did seem to hold some truth.
Three years on, however, it is legitimate to ask if the
world is not re-entering a new phase of fiscal retrenchment given the austerity
measures being taken in many developed countries, especially in
These findings underline once again that women stand at the cross-roads of the “paid” and the “unpaid” care economy, over-represented within the public care sector (as teachers, nurses, and carers) and disproportionately implicated in the unpaid work that goes into reproducing individuals, families and households on a daily and generational basis.
It is perhaps in recognition of their dual role that women, as mothers and carers, have been seen as legitimate recipients of child- and family-centred conditional cash transfers that are spreading in many developing countries. Donors see these cash transfers as the life line that is going to hold families together and ensure that children are sent to school and fed properly.
As the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty has also recognized,[4][4] cash transfer programmes, if well-designed and properly implemented, can provide women and other recipients with a regular and reliable source of additional income to assist them in caring for their families. However, conditionalities that impose additional work requirements on recipients (very often time-pressed mothers), or those that require proof of marriage or proof of child’s regular school attendance—can only deter people from making their claim, while enhancing the discretionary power of welfare administrators. Removing such conditionalities is an important short-term objective. In the medium to longer-term increasing the size of such benefits, extending the age bracket, and removing the income test can be additional steps towards creating a more universal child/family allowance system that can assist families, especially women, with some of the material costs of raising children.
However,
it is also important to recognize the limitation of any cash transfer
programme. Cash transfers and other social assistance instruments, such as
public employment programmes like
A comprehensive social policy programme must include quality public health and education services and accessible care services; affordable housing; contributory social insurance programmes that are redistributive and effective; affordable food items; and access to amenities such as safe drinking water, public transport, electricity and domestic technologies to reduce the burden of domestic work.
Putting together such a comprehensive policy requires a significant fiscal effort --- and hence, effective tax systems that can raise the necessary revenues. It also requires economic strategies that create productive employment opportunities offering decent wages and safe working conditions.
This requires structural changes that are not on current post-crisis agendas. Without such bold moves, there are real dangers of political backlash and instability.
There are already many signs of social discontent, declining levels of trust in governments, and unrest in response to rising food prices and labour retrenchment.[5][5] If the latter cannot be controlled then a skewed recovery and development scenario may need the backing of repressive states.[6][6]
While
deep-seated and locally specific factors underpin the recent uprisings in
However, even in countries with consolidated democracies, as austerity measures are taken to cut benefits, diminish health and education services, and make jobs more temporary, crisis is becoming a way of life with unsavoury political implications.
From France to Germany, from Austria to Holland, even mainstream political parties, and not just the far Right fringe parties, are finding it acceptable to stress the ‘threat from immigration’, thereby giving credibility to populist racism.[7][7] Contradictions and crises in the advanced capitalist economies, especially the United States, have also prompted a shift from the politics of hegemony to the politics of coercion as a form of rule; in the context of this shift, carceral relations centred on prisons and personal debt have become increasingly important, pervading the lives of marginalized social groups, including increasing numbers of poor black and Hispanic women.[8][8]
What is clear is that minimalist top-down reform that tinkers with financialization and social protection looks increasingly out of kilter with the scale of the social dislocation and insecurity that persists. Much bolder initiatives are needed to move away from existing policy mind-sets and to start re-thinking policies from the point of view of human needs and human rights—including women’s rights—as opposed to the narrow interests of a small élite of financiers who have amassed huge wealth over the past thirty years.
[1][1] Diane Elson (forthcoming) ‘Social reproduction in the global crisis: Rapid recovery or long-lasting depletion?’, In Peter Utting, Shahra Razavi and Rebecca Buchholz (eds.), The Global Crisis and Transformative Social Change, UNRISD/Palgrave, Basingstoke.
[2][2] Robert Reich (2010) ‘Reading America’s tea leaves’, The American Interest, Vol.VI, No.2, pp. 6-17.
[3][3] Women's Budget Group (WGB) (2010) The Impact on Women of the
Coalition Spending Review 2010.
Women's Budget Group,
[4][4] United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 2009. Promotion and Protection
of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Including the Right to Development. Report of the Independent Expert on the
question of human rights and extreme poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona.
Human Rights Council, Eleventh session, Agenda item 3, A/
[5][5] International Labour Organization (2009) The World of Work Report
2009, ILO,
[6][6] Peter Utting, Shahra Razavi and Rebecca Buchholz, ‘Neoliberalism’s
crisis of legitimacy’, in Peter Utting, Shahra Razavi and Rebecca Buchholz
(eds.), The Global Crisis and Transformative Social Change,
UNRISD/Palgrave,
[7][7] Zizek, S. (2010) ‘Liberal multiculturalism masks an old barbarism with
a human face’, The Guardian, 3 October.
[8][8] The