Concepts and measurement of fairness of green economies

What can we learn from international development experience?

Maryanne Grieg-Gran

Expert Workshop on Equity, Justice and Wellbeing in Ecosystem Governance, March 26/27th, IIED, London

Concepts

Fairness Fair

Unfair

Equity Social equity equitable inequity

inequitable

Justice Social justice

just injustice unjust

Inclusion

Social inclusion

inclusiveness inclusivity

inclusive social exclusion

Same or distinct? • ‘Equity relates to fairness’ World Development Report 2006 p.18

• ‘For ethical considerations of equity and fairness, growth must be shared and should be inclusive’ ADB 2011p.4

• ‘Sustainability is inextricably linked to basic questions of equity –that is, of fairness and social justice.’ Human Development Report 2011

• ‘Equitable economic development is characterized by narrowing development gaps …., better access to opportunities for economic development, social welfare and justice, and more inclusive participation’ ASEAN Framework for Equitable Economic Development

Conceptual influences

• Rawls: Theory of Justice – Equal rights to liberty for all – Inequalities only acceptable if they help the poorest - maximin – Fair equality of opportunity – regardless of initial place in society – Procedural justice – to ensure just outcomes – Limitations on income inequality to prevent concentrations of

power

• Sen: Capabilities approach – Poverty as a deprivation of capabilities not just low income – Aim for equality of capabilities rather than resources

• Roemer: Equality of opportunities – Target unequal opportunities caused by factors that are beyond

individuals’ control

Fairness defined (Chronic Poverty Report 2008 p12 )

‘Fairness is about treating people equally. This includes an avoidance of absolute deprivation through basic entitlement and rights.

Fairness also includes three further aspects: •Equality of opportunity •Equality in process; and •A limited disparity of outcomes’.

Equity and Development World Development Report 2006

• Two principles for measuring equity – Equal opportunities

– Avoidance of absolute deprivation • Health, education and consumption

• Implications of these principles – Distribution of opportunities matter more than

distribution of outcomes • provided a social minimum is achieved

– Some inequalities in outcome are acceptable as they reflect effort rather than pre-determined circumstances • race, gender, social or family background

Equity and Development (cont.) Measurement and indicators

• Absolute deprivation

– Poverty- national and international poverty lines – Health - infant mortality rate – Education – mean years of schooling, population share

with no schooling

• Equality of opportunities – Poverty, health and education outcomes disaggregated by

gender and rural/urban location – Distribution data for income, consumption and land

• Shows challenges of measuring equality of opportunities – distinguishing between effort and circumstances

Human Development Report 2011 Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All

• Definition of equity: by reference to inequity: unjust inequalities between people

• Focus on inequalities in capabilities but challenging to measure

• Uses inequality in outcomes as a proxy

– Trends in income, health, education inequality

– Inequality-adjusted human development index

• Poverty also measured as an equity element

Social Justice in an Open World International Forum for Social Development

• Definition of social justice seems narrow – equivalent to distributive justice as ‘the fair and

compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth’

• But broad scope in examining what is distributed

• Critical domains of equality and equity – Equality of rights

– Equality of opportunities

– Equity in living conditions – contextually determined ‘acceptable’ inequalities

Social justice in an open world Measurement approach

• Six important areas of distributive inequality – Income; assets; opportunities for work and employment – Access to knowledge; health services, social security and safe

environment; opportunities for civic and political participation

• Concludes that social justice is receding globally – Growing disparities in income and assets – Link between socioeconomic class and access to healthcare and

education – Decline of participation of citizens in public affairs

• Patchy data and anecdotal but: – Draws attention to process and participation – Highlights income inequality

ADB’s framework of inclusive growth

Poverty and inequality outcomes

Pillar One Growth and

expansion of economic

opportunity

Pillar Two Social inclusion to ensure equal

access to economic

opportunity

Pillar Three Social safety nets

Good Governance and Institutions

Indicators for Inclusive Growth

• Outcomes for poverty and inequality – Popn share below national/international poverty lines – Top 20% to bottom 20% income/consumption ratio – Non-income health and education

• Social inclusion – Access and inputs to education and health – Access to basic infrastructure, utilities, services – Gender equality and opportunity

• Social safety nets – Social protection and labour rating – % of government expenditure on social security and welfare

• Good governance and institutions – Voice and accountability – Corruption perceptions index

Some reflections

• Little substantive difference between concepts of fairness, equity, justice and inclusion when used by international development organisations – Often used inter-changeably – Where distinctions are made this reflects personal choice or

political stance

• Measurement frameworks reviewed here differ less in the concept they are measuring than in the relative emphasis they give to the four elements in CPR’s fairness definition – Reduction of poverty or deprivation – Equality of opportunities – Equality of process/procedural justice – Limited disparity of outcomes

Reflections cont.(2)

• Poverty reduction is central to all 4 frameworks – Income and non-income dimensions

• Equality of opportunities/capabilities – Some disaggregation of outcomes by circumstance but

data gaps e.g for race and ethnicity

– Difficulties in distinguishing between effects of effort or choice (‘good inequalities’) and circumstances (‘bad inequalities’)

– Need to analyse not only outcomes but also: • Political and social barriers

• Policy actions taken to promote access for different social groups

• Perceptions of discrimination of different groups

Reflections cont. (3)

• Equality in process/procedural justice – Receives little attention – data challenges – ‘Participation’ but in employment not decision-making – ADB’s Good Governance and Institutions based on

composite indicators/rankings – perception surveys

• Limited disparity in outcomes – Little emphasis in conceptual frameworks except IFSD

• focus on opportunities/good and bad inequalities distinction • political sensitivities

– Income inequality indicators included but without a conceptual underpinning.

Lessons for ecosystem governance

• All four ‘fairness’ elements are relevant to ecosystem governance - poverty is central but one of several

• Frameworks offer little guidance on: – judging what level of disparity in outcomes is acceptable – Determining what are good or bad inequalities

• Distributive justice key for benefit sharing, compensation • Local costs and national/global benefits

• Need all four elements but not enough – Focus on poverty reduction, equal opportunities ,fair process

elements can reduce disparities – Focus on fair process can affect how disparities are perceived – But ultimately some negotiation needed

• Distribution of outcomes does matter

References

• ADB, 2011. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2011: Framework of Inclusive Growth Indicators, Special Supplement. Asian Development Bank, Manila.

• Ali, I. and Zhuang, J. 2007. Inclusive Growth toward a Prosperous Asia: Policy Implications.ERD Working Paper No. 97, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

• CPRC 2008. The Chronic Poverty Report 2008-09: Escaping Poverty Traps. Chronic Poverty Research Centre. Manchester, UK.

• International Forum for Social Development. 2006. Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York

• Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice,: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

• Roemer, J. 1998. Equality of opportunity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

• Sen, A. 1980. “Equality of what?” in S. McMurrin (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.1, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press

• UNDP 2011.Human Development Report 2011.Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. United Nations Development Programme, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• World Bank, 2005.World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development , Washington D.C.: The World Bank

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by UK aid from the UK Government, however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the UK Government.